15 U.S.C. § 1666i

Assertion by cardholder against card issuer of claims and defenses arising out of credit card transaction; prerequisites; limitation on amount of claims or defenses

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

(a) Claims and defenses assertible

Subject to the limitation contained in subsection (b), a card issuer who has issued a credit card to a cardholder pursuant to an open end consumer credit plan shall be subject to all claims (other than tort claims) and defenses arising out of any transaction in which the credit card is used as a method of payment or extension of credit if (1) the obligor has made a good faith attempt to obtain satisfactory resolution of a disagreement or problem relative to the transaction from the person honoring the credit card; (2) the amount of the initial transaction exceeds $50; and (3) the place where the initial transaction occurred was in the same State as the mailing address previously provided by the cardholder or was within 100 miles from such address, except that the limitations set forth in clauses (2) and (3) with respect to an obligor’s right to assert claims and defenses against a card issuer shall not be applicable to any transaction in which the person honoring the credit card (A) is the same person as the card issuer, (B) is controlled by the card issuer, (C) is under direct or indirect common control with the card issuer, (D) is a franchised dealer in the card issuer’s products or services, or (E) has obtained the order for such transaction through a mail solicitation made by or participated in by the card issuer in which the cardholder is solicited to enter into such transaction by using the credit card issued by the card issuer.

(b) Amount of claims and defenses assertible

The amount of claims or defenses asserted by the cardholder may not exceed the amount of credit outstanding with respect to such transaction at the time the cardholder first notifies the card issuer or the person honoring the credit card of such claim or defense. For the purpose of determining the amount of credit outstanding in the preceding sentence, payments and credits to the cardholder’s account are deemed to have been applied, in the order indicated, to the payment of: (1) late charges in the order of their entry to the account; (2) finance charges in order of their entry to the account; and (3) debits to the account other than those set forth above, in the order in which each debit entry to the account was made.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, § 170, as added Pub. L. 93–495, title III, § 306, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1515.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “The argument fails because, while § 1637(a)(7) requires a creditor to disclose the protections and obligations of 15 U.S.C. § 1666i—which pertain to unsatisfactory credit card purchases—“in a form prescribed by regulations of the Bureau,” nothing in § 1666i conditions the…”

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Mincks, 135 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “15 U.S.C. § 1666i. This same rule is repeated in 12 C.”

Singer v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 890 P.2d 1305 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 11× “In their motion for summary judgment, appellants claimed they were entitled to judgment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, which makes a credit card issuer subject to claims arising out of transactions in which the credit card is used as the method of payment.”

In Re Stand. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 94 B.R. 231 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1988). · cites it 7× “TILA grants eligible credit card holders the right to chargeback purchases if the holder (1) objects in writing to the charge, 15 U.”

Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Owens, 951 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. App. 1997). “Owens alleged that he made a good faith attempt to resolve his disagreement with Dillard under the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666i. Finally, Owens requested attorney’s fees from Dillard.”

Pollard v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 50 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “First, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1666i — 1(b)(4), which requires a creditor imposing an APR increase due solely to a payment that is sixty or more days late terminate the increase within six months after the date of imposition, provided the creditor…”

Taub v. Big M, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “§§ 1666 (c)-(e) and 1666a limit a creditor’s ability to take certain actions after receiving a notice conforming with the procedures provided in Section 1666(a), and 15 U.S.C. § 1666i subjects a creditor to most claims and all defenses, with two important limitations, that an…”

Plutchok v. Eur. Am. Bank, 143 Misc. 2d 149 (1989). · cites it 3× “Any claims asserted by a credit cardholder against a card issuer pursuant to 15 USC § 1666i requires the cardholder to comply with the *151 60-day notice provision of 15 USC § 1666 (a).”

Bello v. Capital One Bank (usa) N.A. (D.N.J. 2020). · cites it 3× “Two provision of the Credit CARD Act apply here, 15 U.S.C. § 1666i–1(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 1637 (i)(1).”

Andreae v. Capital One (S.D. Ohio 2023). “12 (c)(1); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1666i. Here, Andreae engaged in no relevant transaction with Saks and has no dispute about Saks’ merchandise (e.”

Milliken v. Bank of Am., N.A. (9th Cir. 2025). “15 U.S.C. § 1666i- 1(a). However, the prohibition does not apply to “an increase in a variable annual percentage rate in accordance with a credit card agreement that provides for changes in the rate according to operation of an index that is not under the control of the creditor…”

Espin (E.D.N.C. 2026). “18, 2008) (deciding issue left open by Koerner regarding when “consumer credit” is extended, and concluding “the relevant transaction under 15 U.S.C. § 1666i was the initial extension of credit when the account was opened, rather than [a] specific [transaction], because that act…”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1666i(a) — 1 case

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Mincks, 135 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “15 U.S.C. § 1666i. This same rule is repeated in 12 C.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1666i(b) — 2 cases

Strubel v. Comenity Bank, 842 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2016). “The argument fails because, while § 1637(a)(7) requires a creditor to disclose the protections and obligations of 15 U.S.C. § 1666i—which pertain to unsatisfactory credit card purchases—“in a form prescribed by regulations of the Bureau,” nothing in § 1666i conditions the…”

In Re Stand. Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 94 B.R. 231 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1988). “TILA grants eligible credit card holders the right to chargeback purchases if the holder (1) objects in writing to the charge, 15 U.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 1666i(b)(3) — 1 case

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.