In the case of Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Bradley Nigh (2004), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving car financing and consumer protection laws. The plaintiff, Bradley Nigh, had purchased a used Chevrolet from Koons Buick Pontiac GMC dealership under an installment sales contract that included an arbitration clause. Later discovering discrepancies in the vehicle's price calculation, he sued for damages under federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The issue was whether TILA’s $1,000 limit on actual damages applied to class actions or if it could be multiplied by each member of the class action suit as per Virginia state law which allowed higher damage awards. The court held that TILA preempts state law when determining damage amounts and limited recovery to $1,000 per proceeding rather than per individual claimant within a class-action lawsuit. This decision reinforced federal supremacy over states' rights regarding consumer protection legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Bradley Nigh, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of the statutory language was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent to protect consumers from predatory lending practices in automobile sales contracts. She contended that by limiting damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to $1,000 for individual actions involving loans secured by personal property other than real estate or dwellings, it would undermine TILA’s effectiveness as a deterrent against lenders who engage in deceptive practices. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that finance charges should not include amounts added onto cash prices due to dealer markups because this could allow dealerships to escape liability for non-disclosure of these additional costs.