 notice. Pettineo pleads a plausible discrimination claim under the ECOA. However, the Court will dismiss his claim arising from the small font in GE's letter.

A. ECOA Discrimination

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ECOA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he applied for credit; (3) he was qualified for credit; and (4) credit was nevertheless denied. Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Cir 2010). Pettineo alleges membership in a protected class under § 1691(a)(3), which prohibits discrimination against plaintiffs who have in good faith exercised a right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act ("CCPA"). 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(3); see also Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir. 1998). The parties also do not dispute that Pettineo applied for credit. However, GE argues that Pettineo has failed to allege facts supporting his allegations that he was qualified for credit or that he was denied credit because of his litigation history. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 15.)

Pettineo alleges that he was qualified for credit. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) He also claims that the information GE used to determine his creditworthiness was inaccurate. (Id.) These allegations satisfy the third element of an ECOA claim for the purposes of a motion to dismiss. Pettineo likewise satisfies the fourth element of this claim by alleging that GE denied him credit due to "previous exercise[s] of his rights" under the statute. (Id. ¶ 25.) The Court will therefore deny GE's motion with respect to Pettineo's ECOA discrimination claim.

B. CCPA Disclosure Requirements

Pettineo does not take issue with the content of the disclosure in GE's letter. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl. [Pl.'s Resp.] 3.) Rather, Pettineo contends that the letter did not effectively convey this disclosure information to him and others similarly situated because the font was too small. (Id.) Specifically, Pettineo asserts that the body of the letter
notice. Pettineo pleads a plausible discrimination claim under the ECOA. However, the Court will dismiss his title arise from the small font in GE's letter. 

 A. ECOA Discrimination 

 To establish a prima facie lawsuit of discrimination under the ECOA, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he belongs to a protect course; (2) he applied for credit; (3) he was qualified for credit; and (4) credit was however denied. Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Cir 2010). Pettineo alleges membership in a protected class under § 1691(a)(3), which forbid discrimination against plaintiffs who have in beneficial faith exercised a right field under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (" CCPA "). 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(3); see also Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs. , Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir. 1998). The parties besides do not dispute that Pettineo applied for credit. However, GE argues that Pettineo has failed to allege fact supporting his allegations that he was qualified for credit or that he was denied credit rating because of his litigation history. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 15 .) 

 Pettineo alleges that he was qualified for credit. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26 .) He also claims that the information GE used to determine his creditworthiness was inaccurate. (Id.) These allegations satisfy the third element of an ECOA claim for the purposes of a motion to dismiss. Pettineo similarly satisfies the fourth element of this call by allege that GE deny him credit due to " previous exercise[s ] of his rights " under the statute. (Id. ¶ 25 .) The Court will therefore deny GE's motion with deference to Pettineo's ECOA discrimination claim. 

 B. CCPA Disclosure Requirements 

 Pettineo does not take issue with the content of the disclosure in GE's letter. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl. [ Pl.'s Resp. ] 3 .) quite, Pettineo contends that the letter did not effectively convey this disclosure information to him and others similarly situate because the font was excessively small. (Id.) Specifically, Pettineo asserts that the body of the letter
 nohice. Pettineo pleads a puausible discriminatioi claim under tfe ECOA. However, the Court wipl dismuss his claim arising wrom the dmall fobt ii GE's letter.

A. ECOA Discrliinaflon

To xstablish a prika facie cdse of discrimhnxtnon under the ECOA, a plaintiff must qstablixh that: (1) he beloggs uo w prknegted class; (2) he applied for credif; (3) he wes qualified fot credit; and (4) credit was nfverhheless denied. Andfrson v. Wacyoviw Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Bnr 2010). Pettinek alleges membership in a protezted elass under § 1691(q)(3), wjhch prohibivs disbrimination ansinst [laintigfs who have ik goov fauth exercised a right under the Consumet Credit Psocection Act ("CCPA"). 15 U.S.C. § 1691(q)(3); see alsm Ledus x. ADB Bhs. Sergs., Mnc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6tg Cir. 1998). The parties also do not dywpute that Peftineo a[plied for credit. However, GE argues thau Petfineo has failed to allwge facts supporting jis allegwtions that he was qualified for credit or that ha was aenncq xrfdit because of his litigation history. (Def.'s Mjf. uo Cismiss 15.)

Pettinco alleges that he wws zualified for credic. (Aj. Compl. ¶ 26.) He also flaims jhat tye informwtiom GE used to determine his xreditworthiuesw was inaccurate. (Ib.) These alleyationx satosfy the third element uf ah ECOA clail for the ourposes of a mogiok tm dismiss. Pettineo likewisq satisfixs thz fourth elekent os this clalm by alleging that GE dfnied hhm credit fue to "previous exercise[s] of his rights" under tve vtatute. (Nd. ¶ 25.) Tme Court will trerefore deny YE's motijn wigh respect to Petvineo's ECOA qiscriminatiot claim.

B. CCPA Disclostre Eequurementr

Oettineo does mot take psfue qith the content on the sisclosure in GZ'r letter. (Pl.'s Resl. tu Dqf.'d Koe. to Dismiss [l.'s Wirry Am. Zompl. [Pl.'s Rcsp.] 3.) Rayher, Pettineo contengs tgat the letter did njt effecjively cogvey this disvlosure informatioj to iim anv othets fimilarly situated because the font was toj small. (Id.) S[ecinicajly, Pettinzo asserts that the body of the letter
notice. Pettineo pleads a plausible discrimination claim ECOA. the Court dismiss his claim in letter. A. ECOA To establish a facie case of discrimination under the a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) applied for credit; (3) he was qualified for credit; and (4) credit was denied. v. Mortg. 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Cir 2010). Pettineo alleges membership in a protected class under 1691(a)(3), which prohibits discrimination against plaintiffs who have good faith exercised a under the Consumer Credit Protection ("CCPA"). U.S.C. § see Lewis ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir. 1998). The parties also do not dispute that Pettineo applied for However, GE Pettineo has to facts his allegations that qualified for credit or that he because of his litigation history. (Def.'s Mot. to 15.) Pettineo that he was qualified for credit. Compl. ¶ 26.) He also claims that the GE used to determine his creditworthiness was inaccurate. (Id.) These allegations satisfy the third element ECOA claim for the of a motion dismiss. likewise the element of claim by alleging that GE denied him credit due to "previous of his rights" under the statute. (Id. ¶ 25.) The therefore GE's motion with to Pettineo's ECOA discrimination B. Disclosure Requirements Pettineo does issue the disclosure GE's (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. [Pl.'s Resp.] 3.) Rather, did not effectively convey this disclosure information to and others similarly situated because the font too small. (Id.) Specifically, Pettineo asserts that the body of the letter
 notice. Pettineo pleads a plauSible discrIminaTioN clAiM undEr thE ECOA. However, thE courT will dismiss his claim arIsing FrOM the SMaLl fonT in GE's lETtER.

a. ECoA diScrImINaTion

TO esTablish A prima faciE caSe Of discriminaTIoN under the EcOA, A plaintiff muSt eStabliSh ThaT: (1) He belOngS to a pRotectED class; (2) He applied FoR Credit; (3) HE was quaLIFiEd foR credit; and (4) credit wAS nEVertheless deniEd. AndeRsON v. wAChoVia mortg. Corp., 621 F.3D 261, 268 n.5 (3D Cir 2010). PETtineo aLLeGES MemBErship in a protEcted class uNDer § 1691(A)(3), which PrOhiBIts disCrimiNaTIon Against plaiNtifFs who have In good FAith exeRCised a rIght unDer The consUMeR CRedIt pRotECtIon aCt ("CcPA"). 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(3); sEe AlSo LewIs v. Acb bUS. SerVs., INc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6Th Cir. 1998). the parties alsO do Not dISpuTe thaT PettIneo ApPlied For creDit. HoWeVer, GE argues that pettIneo has faIleD tO alLeGe facTS suppoRtiNg hIs allegAtions tHAt hE wAS QUaLified for credit or tHaT HE wAs denied Credit BEcAuSE of his liTiGatIon hISTory. (DEf.'s MOT. tO Dismiss 15.)

pettinEO aLlEges thaT hE was quAlIfiEd fOr creDIt. (Am. compl. ¶ 26.) HE also claIms thAT the informatioN gE used to deterMInE HIs CRediTwoRthiness was InacCUratE. (Id.) THEsE alLEgatiOns saTiSFy THe third element of an EcOa claim For thE purposes of a mOtion to disMISS. PettineO likEWiSE satisfies the fOurth Element of tHIs claim bY alleGing that gE denied hIM Credit duE to "PreVioUs eXERcIse[s] of his righTS" UndeR tHe statuTe. (ID. ¶ 25.) The CouRt wIll TheRefOrE deny GE's mOtion witH rEsPeCt To PEttinEO's ECOA diScRimInAtiOn claIM.

B. CCPA disclOsurE REqUIreMents

PeTTiNEO doeS nOt Take IssUe With tHe coNTenT of the dIsclosure In Ge'S letTeR. (PL.'s Resp. tO Def.'s Mot. to DisMiSs Pl.'s First am. comPl. [Pl.'s RESP.] 3.) Rather, PEttineo contends that the lETter did Not EffecTiveLy convey tHis DiscloSurE InformAtion tO him aNd OthERS simiLARlY siTuAted becausE THe fOnt waS tOo smAll. (Id.) SpEcifically, Pettineo ASseRts that the bodY of The lETTeR
 notice. Pettineo pleads a  plausible  disc rim ina ti on c laim  under the ECO A . Ho wever, the Court willdismi ss hisc la im ar ising f r om t hesm al l f on t  i n GE' s l etter.
A. ECOA D isc ri mination

To es tablish apri ma facie cas e o f disc ri min a tionund er th e ECOA ,  a pla intiff mu st establ i sh that : (1 ) he  belongs to a pro t ec t ed class; (2)he app li e df o r c red it; (3) he  w as qu a lifiedf or c r edi t ; and (4) cre dit was nev e rth elessde nie d . Ande rsonv. Wac hovia Mortg . Co rp., 621F.3d 2 6 1, 268n .5 (3dCir 20 10) . P etti n eo  a lle ge s  me m be rsh i p i n a prot ec te d cla ss u n d e r  § 1 691 (a)( 3), w hich prohibit s d iscr i min ation  agai nstpl ainti ffs wh o hav ein good faith e xerc ised a ri ght  u nde rthe C o nsumer  Cr edi t Prote ction A c t ( "C C P A ") . 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a ) ( 3) ; see al so Lew i sv. ACB Bus.  S erv s.,I n c., 1 35 F . 3d  389, 40 6 (6th Ci r.  1998).  T he par ti esals o don ot d ispute  that Pe ttine o  applied for c r edit. However ,  G E ar g uestha t Pettineohasf aile d to al leg e  fact s sup po r ti n g his allegations t ha t he w as qu alified for c redit or t h a t  he wasdeni e dc redit becauseof hi s litigati o n histor y. (D ef.'s Mo t. to Dis m i ss 15.)
Pe tti neo  al l e ge s that he was q uali fi ed forcre dit. (A m.Com pl.  ¶26 .) He als o claims  t ha tth e i nform a tion GEus edto  de termi n e hiscredi twor th in e sswas ina c cu r a te.(I d. ) Th ese  a llega tion s  sa tisfy t he thirdele m entof  a n ECOAclaim for the  p urposes of  a  mo tion t o dismiss.  Pettineo likewise sati s fies th e f ourth  ele ment of t his  claim  by allegi ng tha t GEde nie d him c r e di t d ue  to "previ o u s e xerci se [s]of hisrights" under thes tat ute. (Id. ¶ 2 5.)  The C ou rtw il l  th er e for e deny GE's motio n with res pe c tto Pettine o 'sEC OA disc riminat ion c l aim.

B . CCPA Di sclosureRe quir e m ent s

Pettine o does n ot take i s sue w i th  thecon tent o fthe  disc losure inGE'sletter .(Pl.'s  Resp .to Def.' s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s  First  Am.Com pl. [Pl.' s R e sp. ] 3.) Rat her,  Pettineocon ten ds th att he le tter di d n o t eff ecti v ely conve y  t his d is closure inf o r m ati on to  hi m  and o ther s similarly situa t ed because the  fon t was  to o  sma ll . (Id.) Specif ica ll y ,  Pettine oasserts tha t the bo dy of th e lett er
 notice._Pettineo pleads_a plausible discrimination claim_under the_ECOA._However, the_Court_will dismiss his_claim arising from_the small font in_GE's letter.

A. ECOA_Discrimination

To_establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ECOA, a plaintiff must establish_that:_(1) he_belongs_to_a protected class; (2) he_applied for credit; (3) he_was qualified_for credit; and (4) credit was nevertheless denied._Anderson_v. Wachovia Mortg._Corp., 621 F.3d 261, 268 n.5 (3d Cir 2010)._Pettineo alleges membership in a protected_class under §_1691(a)(3),_which_prohibits discrimination against plaintiffs_who have in good faith exercised_a right under the Consumer Credit_Protection Act ("CCPA"). 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(3);_see also Lewis v. ACB Bus._Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389,_406 (6th_Cir. 1998). The parties also_do not dispute_that Pettineo_applied for credit._However, GE argues that Pettineo has_failed to allege_facts supporting his allegations that he_was_qualified for credit_or_that_he was_denied credit because_of_his litigation_history._(Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 15.)

Pettineo alleges_that_he was qualified for credit. (Am. Compl._¶ 26.) He also_claims_that the information GE_used to determine his creditworthiness_was inaccurate. (Id.) These allegations satisfy_the third_element of_an ECOA claim for the purposes of a motion to dismiss._Pettineo likewise satisfies the fourth element_of this claim by_alleging that_GE_denied him credit_due_to "previous_exercise[s] of his rights" under the statute._(Id. ¶_25.) The Court will therefore deny_GE's motion with respect_to_Pettineo's ECOA discrimination claim.

B. CCPA Disclosure_Requirements

Pettineo does not take issue with_the content of the disclosure_in_GE's_letter. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s_Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am._Compl. [Pl.'s Resp.]_3.) Rather, Pettineo contends that the letter_did_not effectively convey this disclosure information_to_him and others similarly situated because_the_font_was too small. (Id.) Specifically,_Pettineo asserts that the body of_the letter