In the case of Ford Motor Credit Co. et al. v. Milhollin, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC). The dispute centered around whether FMCC had violated the Truth in Lending Act by not disclosing certain aspects related to a car lease agreement's finance charge calculation method and insurance premiums for leased vehicles. The court held that FMCC did not violate any disclosure requirements under federal law because it adequately disclosed all necessary information about its finance charges and insurance costs as required by Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. Furthermore, they found that state laws regarding these disclosures were preempted by this federal regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for Ford Motor Credit Co. et al. v. Milhollin, it was argued that the majority's decision to defer to a regulatory agency's interpretation of its own regulation is misguided and inconsistent with previous court decisions on similar matters. The dissenters believed that courts should not abdicate their responsibility to independently interpret and apply laws just because an administrative body has offered its own interpretation. They also disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended for agencies like the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to have such broad authority in interpreting regulations under Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Instead, they contended that TILA requires creditors to clearly disclose credit terms so consumers can make informed decisions - something which FRB’s interpretation fails at ensuring as it allows creditors too much discretion in deciding what information needs disclosing or how it must be presented.