U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS

15 U.S.C. § 1693f

Error resolution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notification to financial institution of errorIf a financial institution, within sixty days after having transmitted to a consumer documentation pursuant to section 1693d(a), (c), or (d) of this title or notification pursuant to section 1693d(b) of this title, receives oral or written notice in which the consumer—(1) sets forth or otherwise enables the financial institution to identify the name and account number of the consumer;(2) indicates the consumer’s belief that the documentation, or, in the case of notification pursuant to section 1693d(b) of this title, the consumer’s account, contains an error and the amount of such error; and(3) sets forth the reasons for the consumer’s belief (where applicable) that an error has occurred,the financial institution shall investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error has occurred, and report or mail the results of such investigation and determination to the consumer within ten business days. The financial institution may require written confirmation to be provided to it within ten business days of an oral notification of error if, when the oral notification is made, the consumer is advised of such requirement and the address to which such confirmation should be sent. A financial institution which requires written confirmation in accordance with the previous sentence need not provisionally recredit a consumer’s account in accordance with subsection (c), nor shall the financial institution be liable under subsection (e) if the written confirmation is not received within the ten-day period referred to in the previous sentence.(b) Correction of error; interest

If the financial institution determines that an error did occur, it shall promptly, but in no event more than one business day after such determination, correct the error, subject to section 1693g of this title, including the crediting of interest where applicable.

(c) Provisional recredit of consumer’s account

If a financial institution receives notice of an error in the manner and within the time period specified in subsection (a), it may, in lieu of the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), within ten business days after receiving such notice provisionally recredit the consumer’s account for the amount alleged to be in error, subject to section 1693g of this title, including interest where applicable, pending the conclusion of its investigation and its determination of whether an error has occurred. Such investigation shall be concluded not later than forty-five days after receipt of notice of the error. During the pendency of the investigation, the consumer shall have full use of the funds provisionally recredited.

(d) Absence of error; finding; explanation

If the financial institution determines after its investigation pursuant to subsection (a) or (c) that an error did not occur, it shall deliver or mail to the consumer an explanation of its findings within 3 business days after the conclusion of its investigation, and upon request of the consumer promptly deliver or mail to the consumer reproductions of all documents which the financial institution relied on to conclude that such error did not occur. The financial institution shall include notice of the right to request reproductions with the explanation of its findings.

(e) Treble damages If in any action under section 1693m 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, the court finds that—(1) the financial institution did not provisionally recredit a consumer’s account within the ten-day period specified in subsection (c), and the financial institution (A) did not make a good faith investigation of the alleged error, or (B) did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer’s account was not in error; or(2) the financial institution knowingly and willfully concluded that the consumer’s account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available to the financial institution at the time of its investigation,then the consumer shall be entitled to treble damages determined under section 1693m(a)(1) 1 of this title.(f) Acts constituting errorFor the purpose of this section, an error consists of—(1) an unauthorized electronic fund transfer;(2) an incorrect electronic fund transfer from or to the consumer’s account;(3) the omission from a periodic statement of an electronic fund transfer affecting the consumer’s account which should have been included;(4) a computational error by the financial institution;(5) the consumer’s receipt of an incorrect amount of money from an electronic terminal;(6) a consumer’s request for additional information or clarification concerning an electronic fund transfer or any documentation required by this subchapter; or(7) any other error described in regulations of the Bureau.(Pub. L. 90–321, title IX, § 908, as added Pub. L. 95–630, title XX, § 2001, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3733; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1084(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2081.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1693m of this title, referred to in subsec. (e), was in the original a reference to section 915 of Pub. L. 90–321, and was translated as meaning section 916 of Pub. L. 90–321 to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the renumbering of section 915 of Pub. L. 90–321 as section 916 by Pub. L. 111–24, title IV, § 401(1), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1751.

Amendments

2010—Subsec. (f)(7). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted “Bureau” for “Board”.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008). · cites it 2× “§ 2607 (real estate settlement antikickback provision); 15 U.S.C. § 1693f (consumer credit protection).”
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). · cites it 7× “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Raine cited 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, which is a provision of EFTA dealing with error resolution between consumers and their financial institutions.”
Carline Merisier v. Bank of Am., N.A., 688 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a). The bank *1211 also "deliverfed] .”
Margaretha Widjaja v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 21 F.4th 579 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f(a), 1693g(a); 12 C.F.R.”
Andrew Gale v. Hyde Park Bank, 384 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2004). “He also contended that the Bank had failed to provide 'him with information required by 15 U.S.C. § 1693f. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed.”
Peters v. Riggs Nat'l Bank, N.A., 942 A.2d 1163 (D.C. 2008). “§ 1693g (a) (limiting the amount of consumer liability for unauthorized transactions); 15 U.S.C. § 1693f (EFTA’s error resolution provision).”
Household Fin. Realty Corp. v. Dunlap, 15 Misc. 3d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “The EFTA was enacted to “provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer systems” ( 15 USC § 1693 [b]) and a method for the resolution of errors in an electronic fund transfer (15 USC § 1693f). Its…”
Krutchkoff v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 960 F. Supp. 541 (D. Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Count Two: Electronic Funds Transfer Act Under Count Two of his Complaint, Krutchkoff argues that the bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfers Act [EFTA], 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, or Reg. E § 205.11, in failing to cancel or refund interest or penalty charges related to the…”
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs. LLC, 485 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2007). “15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f). 9 . At times, Fidelity describes its appeal as falling under § 16(a)(1)(C), which allows an appeal to be taken from an order “denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel arbitration.”
Spain v. Union Trust, 674 F. Supp. 1496 (D. Conn. 1987). “She makes the following claims: Count One (1) Defendant failed to observe the error resolution procedure of 15 U.S.C. § 1693f and Reg. E, 12 C.F.R. § 205.”
Blatt v. Capital One Auto Fin., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 688 (M.D. Tenn. 2017). “10 ; (2) when a consumer notifies a financial institution about an alleged error and the financial institution investigates and determines that no error occurred, the financial institution “shall deliver or mail to ‘the consumer an explanation of its finding's within 3 business…”
Show all 66 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a) — 31 cases
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
Margaretha Widjaja v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 21 F.4th 579 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f(a), 1693g(a); 12 C.F.R.”
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). “Specifically, Raine cited 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, which is a provision of EFTA dealing with error resolution between consumers and their financial institutions.”
Carline Merisier v. Bank of Am., N.A., 688 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a). The bank *1211 also "deliverfed] .”
Beaman v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2023).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a)(1) — 1 case
Sundahl (S.D. Cal. 2026).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a)(3) — 3 cases
Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
Beaman v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2024).
Saldate v. Apple Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(b) — 6 cases
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). “Specifically, Raine cited 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, which is a provision of EFTA dealing with error resolution between consumers and their financial institutions.”
Carline Merisier v. Bank of Am., N.A., 688 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a). The bank *1211 also "deliverfed] .”
Sundahl (S.D. Cal. 2026).
Holmes v. Capital One, N.A. (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(c) — 6 cases
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
IMG Holding LLC v. James Dimon & JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Del. Ch. 2024).
Sachs v. Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc. (D. Conn. 2021).
Maltese v. Teachers Fed. Credit Union (E.D.N.Y 2025).
Singletary v. Sunbit Now LLC (E.D. Va. 2025).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(d) — 7 cases
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
Carline Merisier v. Bank of Am., N.A., 688 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a). The bank *1211 also "deliverfed] .”
Walker v. Bank of Am., N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2024).
Stephenson v. Navy Fed. Credit Union (S.D. Cal. 2024).
Walker v. Bank of Am., N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2023).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(e) — 7 cases
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). “Specifically, Raine cited 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, which is a provision of EFTA dealing with error resolution between consumers and their financial institutions.”
Day (E.D. Ky. 2026).
Sparkman v. Comerica Bank (N.D. Cal. 2023).
Ramos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal. 2023).
Houston v. Fifth Third Bank (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(e)(1) — 1 case
Sundahl (S.D. Cal. 2026).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(e)(2) — 2 cases
Houston v. Fifth Third Bank (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Nelipa v. TD Bank, N.A. (E.D.N.Y 2024).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f) — 5 cases
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005). “2d at 317 (referring to the Consumer Credit Protection Act §§ 908(d), 915, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f, 1693m). Here, once the Berensons notified Fidelity of their complaint, Fidelity was required by law to respond in writing within the prescribed time limit.”
Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs. LLC, 485 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2007). “15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f). 9 . At times, Fidelity describes its appeal as falling under § 16(a)(1)(C), which allows an appeal to be taken from an order “denying an application under section 206 of this title to compel arbitration.”
Beaman v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2024).
Savage v. Chase Bank (S.D. Ohio 2019).
Trang v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (D. Or. 2023).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(1) — 11 cases
Whitlow v. Fowler (M.D. Ala. 2022).
Exarhos v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (N.D. Ill. 2021).
Beaman v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2023).
Trang v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (D. Or. 2023).
Beaman v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D.N.J. 2024).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(2) — 2 cases
Cheng v. T.D. Bank, N.A. (E.D.N.Y 2022).
Vitalis (D. Me. 2026).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(6) — 5 cases
Yip v. Bank of Am., N.A. (D. Nev. 2024).
Hamilton v. Bank of Am. N.A. (D. Nev. 2024).
Aggarwal v. Coinbase, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A. (E.D. Mich. 2022).
Cook v. USAA Fed. Sav., Bank (D. Maryland 2024).
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.