U.S. Code » Title 15 » CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › SUBCHAPTER I— CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE › Part C— Credit Advertising and Limits on Credit Card Fees

15 U.S.C. § 1665d

Reasonable penalty fees on open end consumer credit plans

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

The amount of any penalty fee or charge that a card issuer may impose with respect to a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan in connection with any omission with respect to, or violation of, the cardholder agreement, including any late payment fee, over-the-limit fee, or any other penalty fee or charge, shall be reasonable and proportional to such omission or violation.

(b) Rulemaking required

The Bureau, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration Board, shall issue final rules not later than 9 months after May 22, 2009, to establish standards for assessing whether the amount of any penalty fee or charge described under subsection (a) is reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation to which the fee or charge relates. Subsection (a) shall become effective 15 months after May 22, 2009.

(c) ConsiderationsIn issuing rules required by this section, the Bureau shall consider—(1) the cost incurred by the creditor from such omission or violation;(2) the deterrence of such omission or violation by the cardholder;(3) the conduct of the cardholder; and(4) such other factors as the Bureau may deem necessary or appropriate.(d) Differentiation permitted

In issuing rules required by this subsection, the Bureau may establish different standards for different types of fees and charges, as appropriate.

(e) Safe harbor rule authorized

The Bureau, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration Board, may issue rules to provide an amount for any penalty fee or charge described under subsection (a) that is presumed to be reasonable and proportional to the omission or violation to which the fee or charge relates.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, § 149, as added Pub. L. 111–24, title I, § 102(b)(1), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1740; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1100A(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsecs. (b) to (e). Pub. L. 111–203, § 1100A(2), which directed amendment of this section by substituting “Bureau” for “Board” wherever appearing, was executed by making the substitution for “Board” the first time appearing in subsecs. (b) and (e), and wherever appearing in subsecs. (c) and (d), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Effective Date

Section effective 9 months after May 22, 2009, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 3 of Pub. L. 111–24, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 1602 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Langan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 69 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Langan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 69 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 6× “Langan asserts- the following claims in the operative complaint: (1) negligence against the Chase Defendants; (2) breach of contract against Verizon; (3) “breach” of the Credit Card Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1665d and 1637, against the USAA Defendants; (4) “breach” of California’s…”
Kelen v. Nordstrom, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 3d 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶ 42-3 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b); 12 C.F.R. § 1026.52 (b)(2)(i); and 12 C.”
In re Chamber of Com., 105 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2024). “3 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 Case: 24-10463 Document: 42-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 No.”
In re Chamber of Com., 100 F.4th 528 (5th Cir. 2024). “Despite previously finding good cause to expedite briefing, however, the district court _____________________ 1 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 We refer to the group of plaintiffs as “the Chamber” for simplicity.”
Pollard v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 50 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 3× “Second, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a), which requires that “the amount of any penalty fee or charge that a card issuer may impose .”
In re Chamber of Com., 98 F.4th 265 (5th Cir. 2024). “The Chamber informed the court that if it did not receive a ruling _____________________ 1 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 We refer to the group of plaintiffs as “the Chamber” for simplicity.”
United States v. Nicole Schuster, 165 F.4th 765 (3d Cir. 2026). “§§ 1667f(b)(1), (4) (“relates” indicates a direct connection between particular disclosure forms and a “transaction” or “disclosure requirements”); 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b) (“relates” links a particular “omission or violation” with a “fee or charge”); 26 U.”
United States v. Nicole Schuster, No. 24-2942 (3d Cir. Mar. 23, 2026). “§§ 1667f(b)(1), (4) (“relates” indicates a direct connection between particular disclosure forms and a “transaction” or “disclosure requirements”); 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b) (“relates” links a particular “omission or violation” with a “fee or charge”); 26 U.”
15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a): 5 cases
Langan v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 69 F. Supp. 3d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “Langan asserts- the following claims in the operative complaint: (1) negligence against the Chase Defendants; (2) breach of contract against Verizon; (3) “breach” of the Credit Card Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1665d and 1637, against the USAA Defendants; (4) “breach” of California’s…”
In re Chamber of Com., 105 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2024). “3 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 Case: 24-10463 Document: 42-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 No.”
In re Chamber of Com., 100 F.4th 528 (5th Cir. 2024). “Despite previously finding good cause to expedite briefing, however, the district court _____________________ 1 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 We refer to the group of plaintiffs as “the Chamber” for simplicity.”
Pollard v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 50 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “Second, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a), which requires that “the amount of any penalty fee or charge that a card issuer may impose .”
In re Chamber of Com., 98 F.4th 265 (5th Cir. 2024). “The Chamber informed the court that if it did not receive a ruling _____________________ 1 See 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a)–(e). 2 We refer to the group of plaintiffs as “the Chamber” for simplicity.”
15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b): 4 cases
Kelen v. Nordstrom, Inc., 259 F. Supp. 3d 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “¶ 42-3 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b); 12 C.F.R. § 1026.52 (b)(2)(i); and 12 C.”
Pollard v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 50 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “Second, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(a), which requires that “the amount of any penalty fee or charge that a card issuer may impose .”
United States v. Nicole Schuster, 165 F.4th 765 (3d Cir. 2026). “§§ 1667f(b)(1), (4) (“relates” indicates a direct connection between particular disclosure forms and a “transaction” or “disclosure requirements”); 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b) (“relates” links a particular “omission or violation” with a “fee or charge”); 26 U.”
United States v. Nicole Schuster, No. 24-2942 (3d Cir. Mar. 23, 2026). “§§ 1667f(b)(1), (4) (“relates” indicates a direct connection between particular disclosure forms and a “transaction” or “disclosure requirements”); 15 U.S.C. § 1665d(b) (“relates” links a particular “omission or violation” with a “fee or charge”); 26 U.”
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.