15 U.S.C. § 1642

Issuance of credit cards

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

No credit card shall be issued except in response to a request or application therefor. This prohibition does not apply to the issuance of a credit card in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2022 · leading case: Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009).
Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1642 . Ms. Muro brought her section 1642 claim on behalf of “[a]ll persons who were mailed a ‘Target VISA’ card by Target without first requesting or applying for said card, including Target Guest Card cardholders who received a ‘Target VISA’ without requesting a…”
Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “TILA permits public enforcement by State attorneys general only as to specified sections of the statute, which do not include 15 U.S.C. § 1642 . See 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (e).”
Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 258 F. Supp. 3d 893 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “227, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1642 . Snyder and Mansanarez sued on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs.”
Seidner v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 201 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. App. 2006). “15 U.S.C.A § 1642 (1998). That section provides: No credit card shall be issued except in response to a request or application therefor.”
Borg v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., 247 F. App'x 627 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Borg asserts that Chase has violated two provisions of the TILA, §§ 1642 and 1643. Section 1642 provides that “[n]o credit card shall be issued except in response to a request or application therefor.”
Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones, 672 P.2d 73 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “[2] By the terms of the credit card account agreement, an account can be closed by returning to the Bank all outstanding credit cards.”
Am. Express Co. v. Koerner, 452 U.S. 233 (1981). “…C. § 1645 , Congress provided that the business purpose exemption in § 104 (1) is generally not applicable to § 132, 15 U. S. C. § 1642 (prohibiting the issuance of unsolicited credit cards), to § 133, 15 U. S. C. § 1643 (limiting a cardholder’s liability for unauthorized use…”
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Stand. Oil Co., 325 N.W.2d 210 (N.D. 1982). · cites it 2× “The amendment had three purposes—to prohibit the unsolicited distribution of credit cards [ 15 U.S.C. § 1642 (1977) ], to make the fraudulent use of credit cards a Federal crime [ 15 U.”
Anthony v. GE Capital Retail Bank, 321 F. Supp. 3d 469 (S.D. Ill. 2017). “Defendant adds that, because the Gap Visa Card ending in 2094 was a substitution and not an unsolicited credit card, Defendant was not required to send disclosures required by the TILA. Id.”
Richard Acosta v. Target Corp., 745 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “) Their core claims were premised on two provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA): 15 U.S.C. § 1642 , which prohibits the mailing of unsolicited credit cards, and 15 U.”
Koerner v. Am. Express Co., 444 F. Supp. 334 (E.D. La. 1977). · cites it 2× “The 1970 credit card provisions include § 132 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1642 ), which prohibits the unsolicited issuance of cards, § 133 ( 15 U.”
Credit Card Serv. Corp., & John P. Ferry v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 495 F.2d 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1642 : No credit card shall be issued except in response to a request or application therefor.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.