15 U.S.C. § 1693

Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

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

(a) Rights and liabilities undefined

The Congress finds that the use of electronic systems to transfer funds provides the potential for substantial benefits to consumers. However, due to the unique characteristics of such systems, the application of existing consumer protection legislation is unclear, leaving the rights and liabilities of consumers, financial institutions, and intermediaries in electronic fund transfers undefined.

(b) Purposes

It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems. The primary objective of this subchapter, however, is the provision of individual consumer rights.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title IX, § 902, as added Pub. L. 95–630, title XX, § 2001, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3728; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1073(a)(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2060.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–203 inserted “and remittance” after “electronic fund”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 90–321, title IX, § 923, formerly § 921, as added by Pub. L. 95–630, title XX, § 2001, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3741, renumbered § 922, Pub. L. 111–24, title IV, § 401(1), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1751; renumbered § 923, Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1073(a)(3), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2060, provided that: “This title [enacting this subchapter] takes effect upon the expiration of eighteen months from the date of its enactment [Nov. 10, 1978], except that sections 909 and 911 [sections 1693g, 1693i of this title] take effect upon the expiration of ninety days after the date of enactment.”

[Pub. L. 111–203, § 1073(a)(3), which directed renumbering of section 922 of Pub. L. 90–321 as section 923 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, was executed after the renumbering of section 921 of Pub. L. 90–321 as section 922 by Pub. L. 111–24, § 401(1), effective 15 months after May 22, 2009, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.]

Short Title

This subchapter known as the “Electronic Fund Transfer Act”, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 383 cases (173 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc. (2010) ca9 · cites it 2× “Sanford filed a First Amended Complaint, which added the Smiths as named plaintiffs and added a claim for violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. MWI filed a motion to dismiss, but before the district court ruled on the motion, Sanford…”

United States v. Goldblatt, Lynn David (1987) ca3 · cites it 4× “Appellant completed an “Assertion of Error Statement” on November 12, 1985, as required by PSFS in accordance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 -1693r). On November 15, 1985, an ATM automatically seized one of the two ATM cards when appellant’s son…”

Garry Curtis v. Propel Property Tax Funding (2019) ca4 · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1693 (b). Among these substantive rights is the right of a consumer to enter into a credit agreement without being required to agree to preauthorized EFTs.”

Carol Tims v. LGE Community Credit Union (2019) ca11 · cites it 2× “Tims sued LGE in district court for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 - 1693r. The district court dismissed her claims under Federal Rule of Civil…”

Rosales v. Citibank, Federal Savings Bank (2001) cand · cites it 3× “INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ramiro Rosales filed the present action in California Superior Court *1179 alleging claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 , and California’s Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business & Professions Code § 17200.”

Danica Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc. (2020) ca9 “15 U.S.C. § 1693 (b). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has regulatory authority over most provisions of EFTA.”

Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2024) ca6 · cites it 4× “Determining whether the EFTA provides for an implied right to indemnification or contribution requires us to construe the statute.”

Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (2011) ca10 · cites it 2× “The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 -1693r, provides, in § 1693m(f): "On a finding by the court *1182 that an unsuccessful action under this section was brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the defendant attorney's fees…”

Kenneth A. McCready v. Ebay, Inc., Bruce Kamminga, and David McDuffee (2006) ca7 “Bankruptcy Code, and the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 , et seq. (the “EFTA”). McCready alleged nine state law claims as well.”

First Union National Bank v. Burke (1999) ctd · cites it 5× “§ 484 , and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1693 (o). Thus, neither interpretation of state banking law (Conn.”

Zachman v. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union (2022) ca2 “3 On February 21, 2020, Zachman filed a class-action complaint, alleging that 4 HVCU’s practice of collecting overdraft or insufficient funds fees on accounts 5 that were not actually overdrawn violated New York General Business Law § 349 6 and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,…”

Geiger v. Crestar Bank (2001) dc · cites it 3× “9 These subsections are generally consistent with the EFT rules and regulation (Regulation E), issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which implements the Electronic Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. (1994) 10 The Electronic Transfer Act…”

Show all 383 citing cases →

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.