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

15 U.S.C. § 1693h

Liability of financial institutions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Action or failure to act proximately causing damagesSubject to subsections (b) and (c), a financial institution shall be liable to a consumer for all damages proximately caused by—(1) the financial institution’s failure to make an electronic fund transfer, in accordance with the terms and conditions of an account, in the correct amount or in a timely manner when properly instructed to do so by the consumer, except where—(A) the consumer’s account has insufficient funds;(B) the funds are subject to legal process or other encumbrance restricting such transfer;(C) such transfer would exceed an established credit limit;(D) an electronic terminal has insufficient cash to complete the transaction; or(E) as otherwise provided in regulations of the Bureau;(2) the financial institution’s failure to make an electronic fund transfer due to insufficient funds when the financal 11 So in original. Probably should be “financial”. institution failed to credit, in accordance with the terms and conditions of an account, a deposit of funds to the consumer’s account which would have provided sufficient funds to make the transfer, and(3) the financial institution’s failure to stop payment of a preauthorized transfer from a consumer’s account when instructed to do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account.(b) Acts of God and technical malfunctionsA financial institution shall not be liable under subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the financial institution shows by a preponderance of the evidence that its action or failure to act resulted from—(1) an act of God or other circumstance beyond its control, that it exercised reasonable care to prevent such an occurrence, and that it exercised such diligence as the circumstances required; or(2) a technical malfunction which was known to the consumer at the time he attempted to initiate an electronic fund transfer or, in the case of a preauthorized transfer, at the time such transfer should have occurred.(c) Intent

In the case of a failure described in subsection (a) which was not intentional and which resulted from a bona fide error, notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error, the financial institution shall be liable for actual damages proved.

(d) Exception for damaged notices

If the notice required to be posted pursuant to section 1693b(d)(3)(B)(i) of this title by an automated teller machine operator has been posted by such operator in compliance with such section and the notice is subsequently removed, damaged, or altered by any person other than the operator of the automated teller machine, the operator shall have no liability under this section for failure to comply with section 1693b(d)(3)(B)(i) of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title IX, § 910, as added Pub. L. 95–630, title XX, § 2001, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3735; amended Pub. L. 106–102, title VII, § 705, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1465; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1084(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2081.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (a)(1)(E). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted “Bureau” for “Board”.

1999—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 106–102 added subsec. (d).

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 24 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 2× “Therefore, their conclusion that a completed transfer of funds is not necessary for coverage under EFTA is directly tied to a provision of EFTA which expressly requires no electronic fund transfer to have been completed in order for liability to attach.”
Feinman v. Bank of Delaware, 728 F. Supp. 1105 (D. Del. 1990). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(2). 14 . The Defendant did not, in fact, have a mechanism in place whereby an account could be tracked for a positive balance.”
Pike v. Nick's English Hut, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 956 (S.D. Ind. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1693m(d); and vandalism, as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). C. Liability. Mr. Pike seeks summary judgment as to liability on his claim, brought on his behalf and on behalf of the class, that Nick’s failed to display the exterior fee notice required by 15 U.”
Andrew Gale v. Hyde Park Bank, 384 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2004). “He sued under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, contending that the delay in posting the debit-card transaction violated 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(l), which requires banks to make electronic fund transfers in a “timely manner”.”
Alan Fambrough v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 611 F. App'x 322 (6th Cir. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). a. The Wal-Mart ATM Users Wal-Mart is a major retailer of consumer goods, and in some of its locations, it has Money Center Express machines (MCX machines), which offer ATM and other financial services to its customers.”
Household Fin. Realty Corp. v. Dunlap, 15 Misc. 3d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “” (15 USC § 1693h [a] [1], [2], [3].) This language is tempered, however, by the following language in subdivision (b): “(b) Acts of God and technical malfunctions.”
Friedman v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 985 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a) (authorizing damages actions against financial institutions).”
In re Cardtronics ATM Fee Notice Litig., 874 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). The business records for the San Diego, Temecula, Vista, Memphis, and Olive Branch ATMs establish that Cardtronics applied the required fee notices to each of these machines.”
Curde v. Tri-City Bank & Trust Co., 826 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn. 1992). “Curde had a dispute with Tri-City Bank & Trust over whether a deposit had been made to her account.”
Prignoli v. Bruczynski (E.D.N.Y 2021). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a). The EFTA “contain[s] several relevant definitions that limit the reach of this substantive provision.”
Abhyankar v. JPMorgan Chase & Co (S.D.N.Y. 2020). · cites it 3× “The Complaint brings claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence under New York law, and one claim under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693h. Discovery in this case is now closed.”
Mar Jennings v. Citibank, N.A. (D. Conn. 2026). · cites it 3× “’s conduct offends public policy established by statutes, common law, or established concepts of unfairness, including 15 USC §1693h and the policy of banks making depositors’ funds available to them.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a) — 6 cases
Cobb v. PayLease LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minnesota 2014). “Therefore, their conclusion that a completed transfer of funds is not necessary for coverage under EFTA is directly tied to a provision of EFTA which expressly requires no electronic fund transfer to have been completed in order for liability to attach.”
Friedman v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 985 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a) (authorizing damages actions against financial institutions).”
Curde v. Tri-City Bank & Trust Co., 826 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn. 1992). “Curde had a dispute with Tri-City Bank & Trust over whether a deposit had been made to her account.”
McPherson v. Tompkins Tr. Co. (2d Cir. 2020).
Prignoli v. Bruczynski (E.D.N.Y 2021). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a). The EFTA “contain[s] several relevant definitions that limit the reach of this substantive provision.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(1) — 6 cases
Prignoli v. Bruczynski (E.D.N.Y 2021). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a). The EFTA “contain[s] several relevant definitions that limit the reach of this substantive provision.”
Mar Jennings v. Citibank, N.A. (D. Conn. 2026). “’s conduct offends public policy established by statutes, common law, or established concepts of unfairness, including 15 USC §1693h and the policy of banks making depositors’ funds available to them.”
McPherson v. Tompkins Tr. Co. (2d Cir. 2020).
Christen Erika Johnson v. Capital One Bank, N.A. (D.C. Cir. 2023).
Fuentes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
Fuentes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(2) — 1 case
Feinman v. Bank of Delaware, 728 F. Supp. 1105 (D. Del. 1990). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(2). 14 . The Defendant did not, in fact, have a mechanism in place whereby an account could be tracked for a positive balance.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(l) — 2 cases
Andrew Gale v. Hyde Park Bank, 384 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2004). “He sued under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, contending that the delay in posting the debit-card transaction violated 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(l), which requires banks to make electronic fund transfers in a “timely manner”.”
Feinman v. Bank of Delaware, 728 F. Supp. 1105 (D. Del. 1990). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(2). 14 . The Defendant did not, in fact, have a mechanism in place whereby an account could be tracked for a positive balance.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(c) — 1 case
Feinman v. Bank of Delaware, 728 F. Supp. 1105 (D. Del. 1990). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(a)(2). 14 . The Defendant did not, in fact, have a mechanism in place whereby an account could be tracked for a positive balance.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d) — 5 cases
Pike v. Nick's English Hut, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 956 (S.D. Ind. 2013). “§ 1693m(d); and vandalism, as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). C. Liability. Mr. Pike seeks summary judgment as to liability on his claim, brought on his behalf and on behalf of the class, that Nick’s failed to display the exterior fee notice required by 15 U.”
Alan Fambrough v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 611 F. App'x 322 (6th Cir. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). a. The Wal-Mart ATM Users Wal-Mart is a major retailer of consumer goods, and in some of its locations, it has Money Center Express machines (MCX machines), which offer ATM and other financial services to its customers.”
In re Cardtronics ATM Fee Notice Litig., 874 F. Supp. 2d 916 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693h(d). The business records for the San Diego, Temecula, Vista, Memphis, and Olive Branch ATMs establish that Cardtronics applied the required fee notices to each of these machines.”
Singer v. EIntelligence, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
Sheryl Johnson v. Cardtronics USA, Inc., 559 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2014).
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.