U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE › Part Part D— Credit Billing

15 U.S.C. § 1666h

Offset of cardholder’s indebtedness by issuer of credit card with funds deposited with issuer by cardholder; remedies of creditors under State law not affected

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Offset against consumer’s fundsA card issuer may not take any action to offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer unless—(1) such action was previously authorized in writing by the cardholder in accordance with a credit plan whereby the cardholder agrees periodically to pay debts incurred in his open end credit account by permitting the card issuer periodically to deduct all or a portion of such debt from the cardholder’s deposit account, and(2) such action with respect to any outstanding disputed amount not be taken by the card issuer upon request of the cardholder.In the case of any credit card account in existence on the effective date of this section, the previous written authorization referred to in clause (1) shall not be required until the date (after such effective date) when such account is renewed, but in no case later than one year after such effective date. Such written authorization shall be deemed to exist if the card issuer has previously notified the cardholder that the use of his credit card account will subject any funds which the card issuer holds in deposit accounts of such cardholder to offset against any amounts due and payable on his credit card account which have not been paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the card issuer and the cardholder.(b) Attachments and levies

This section does not alter or affect the right under State law of a card issuer to attach or otherwise levy upon funds of a cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer if that remedy is constitutionally available to creditors generally.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, § 169, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title III, § 306, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1515.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), see Effective Date note set out under section 1666 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Gardner v. Montgomery Cnty. Teachers Fed. Credit Union, 864 F. Supp. 2d 410 (D. Maryland 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gardner v. Montgomery Cnty. Teachers Fed. Credit Union, 864 F. Supp. 2d 410 (D. Maryland 2012). · cites it 4× “24) alleges that Defendant seized funds from Plaintiffs’ deposit ac *414 counts to offset their credit card debt without their authorization, in violation of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1666h and Regulation Z, 12 C.”
In Re Washington Mut. Overdraft Prot. Litig., 539 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Class in connection with ATM card and debit card *1142 transactions made pursuant to its ‘Overdraft Protection-Overdraft Limit’ credit feature, [Defendant] violated TILA’s prohibition against credit card issuers offsetting cardholders’ indebtedness against funds held on deposit…”
Fleischmann v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n, 617 S.W.2d 73 (Mo. 1981). “The Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666h (1976) and Regulation Z, 12 C.”
Kevin Betskoff, Sr. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, 538 F. App'x 308 (4th Cir. 2013). “2012), and the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) (2006), must each fail because the statutory schemes in question protect only consumer credit transactions; they do not provide causes of action relating to credit transactions between corporate entities.”
In Re Clark, 161 B.R. 290 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1993). · cites it 2× “The debtors in objecting to the reHef cite the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) which provides in pertinent part: (a) The card issuer may not take any action of offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant…”
William Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A. (4th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “In my view, a home equity line of credit, or HELOC, is not a “credit card plan” under 15 U.S.C. § 1666h. That section of the Truth in Lending Act provides, “A card issuer may not take any action to offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit…”
Johnson v. Bank of Am., Inc. (D.N.M. 2021). · cites it 3× “As a result, Plaintiff alleges the following claims: Count I: Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1666h of the Truth in Lending Act Count II: Violation of the “Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice” Count III: Declaratory Relief Count IV: Injunctive Relief Count V: Violation of the New Mexico…”
Purdum v. Am. Express (E.D. Pa. 2024). · cites it 3× “¶ 33); (2) that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1666h,1 which regulates the offsetting of credit card debt with funds from the cardholder’s other accounts, “by offsetting their accounting records” (id.”
Purdum v. Am. Express (E.D. Pa. 2024). · cites it 3× “¶ 33); (2) that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1666h,1 which regulates the offsetting of credit card debt with funds from the cardholder’s other accounts, “by offsetting their accounting records” (id.”
Lyons (D. Maryland 2026). · cites it 3× “Here, Plaintiff has asserted that PNC, without authorization, withdrew funds from his deposit accounts to offset his HELOC debt, in violation of the offset prohibition contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1666h, and that he was injured in that he lost his ability to use that money once it…”
Martino v. Am. Airlines Fed. Credit Union, 121 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C.A. § 1666h. The TILA, including the prohibition on offsets, is implemented through regulations known as Regulation Z, codified at 12 C.”
Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A. (D. Maryland 2022). “TILA Lyons invokes TILA’s subsection 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a), which reads: A card issuer may not take any action to offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) — 9 cases
In Re Washington Mut. Overdraft Prot. Litig., 539 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Class in connection with ATM card and debit card *1142 transactions made pursuant to its ‘Overdraft Protection-Overdraft Limit’ credit feature, [Defendant] violated TILA’s prohibition against credit card issuers offsetting cardholders’ indebtedness against funds held on deposit…”
Kevin Betskoff, Sr. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, 538 F. App'x 308 (4th Cir. 2013). “2012), and the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) (2006), must each fail because the statutory schemes in question protect only consumer credit transactions; they do not provide causes of action relating to credit transactions between corporate entities.”
In Re Clark, 161 B.R. 290 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1993). “The debtors in objecting to the reHef cite the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) which provides in pertinent part: (a) The card issuer may not take any action of offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant…”
William Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A. (4th Cir. 2024). “In my view, a home equity line of credit, or HELOC, is not a “credit card plan” under 15 U.S.C. § 1666h. That section of the Truth in Lending Act provides, “A card issuer may not take any action to offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit…”
Lyons (D. Maryland 2026). “Here, Plaintiff has asserted that PNC, without authorization, withdrew funds from his deposit accounts to offset his HELOC debt, in violation of the offset prohibition contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1666h, and that he was injured in that he lost his ability to use that money once it…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a)(2) — 1 case
In Re Clark, 161 B.R. 290 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1993). “The debtors in objecting to the reHef cite the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) which provides in pertinent part: (a) The card issuer may not take any action of offset a cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant…”
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.