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

15 U.S.C. § 1693i

Issuance of cards or other means of access

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Prohibition; proper issuanceNo person may issue to a consumer any card, code, or other means of access to such consumer’s account for the purpose of initiating an electronic fund transfer other than—(1) in response to a request or application therefor; or(2) as a renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted card, code, or other means of access, whether issued by the initial issuer or a successor.(b) ExceptionsNotwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person may distribute to a consumer on an unsolicited basis a card, code, or other means of access for use in initiating an electronic fund transfer from such consumer’s account, if—(1) such card, code, or other means of access is not validated;(2) such distribution is accompanied by a complete disclosure, in accordance with section 1693c of this title, of the consumer’s rights and liabilities which will apply if such card, code, or other means of access is validated;(3) such distribution is accompanied by a clear explanation, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, that such card, code, or other means of access is not validated and how the consumer may dispose of such code, card, or other means of access if validation is not desired; and(4) such card, code, or other means of access is validated only in response to a request or application from the consumer, upon verification of the consumer’s identity.(c) Validation

For the purpose of subsection (b), a card, code, or other means of access is validated when it may be used to initiate an electronic fund transfer.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title IX, § 911, as added Pub. L. 95–630, title XX, § 2001, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3736; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1084(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2081.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (b)(3). 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 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Danica Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Danica Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2020). “15 that card did not provide access to a “consumer’s account,” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i, as the term “account” was defined by the CFPB at the time, see id.”
Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 147 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 2× “Next, Daye alleges that Speedy Loan violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693i~693r (“EFTA”), by conditioning its extension of credit on repayment by preauthorized electronic funds transfer.”
Navajo Nation v. Wells Fargo & Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (D.N.M. 2018). “¶ 154; see 15 U.S.C. § 1693i. The Nation does not describe damages that are specific to this claim, but the alleged injuries were inflicted on individuals, and Plaintiff does not plead any separate harm to its quasi-sovereign interests.”
Humphrey v. Stored Value Cards, 355 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Ohio 2019). · cites it 4× “The Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' EFTA Claim Plaintiffs allege that the inmate prepaid debit card program violates two EFTA provisions: 15 U.S.C. § 1693i, which prohibits the unauthorized issuance of debit cards,…”
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 4× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). The record does not clearly establish whether Plaintiff’s 28 Release Cards met all these requirements, and thus both Motions are denied as to 2 a.”
Jimenez v. Td Bank, N.A. (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 2× “However, as outlined above, the Curt has already found that Plaintiff Fogel’s EFTA claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a) will survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Roller v. Red Payments L.L.C. (E.D.N.Y 2021). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a). Plaintiff Roller contends that Red Payments “violate[d] this prohibition” every time they opened an unauthorized payment processing account, including the unauthorized VX520s account at issue here, by issuing a means of access to the unsuspecting client’s…”
Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc. (D. Or. 2021). “15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a)(1). Thus, if any class member requested a card, Defendants did not violate this section as to that class member.”
Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kansas City (W.D. Wash. 2025). “17 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). 18 The complaint raises questions under the EFTA such as whether CBKC violated 19 the EFTA by issuing activated release cards to consumers who did not request the card, 20 whether CBKC violated the EFTA by obtaining funds from individuals and activating…”
Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kansas City (W.D. Wash. 2025). “1693(i)) 15 Plaintiff brings a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1693i. Section 1693i(a) provides: 16 [N]o person may issue to a consumer any card, code, or other means of 17 access to such consumer's account for the purpose of initiating an electronic fund transfer other than 18 (1) in…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a) — 3 cases
Humphrey v. Stored Value Cards, 355 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Ohio 2019). “The Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' EFTA Claim Plaintiffs allege that the inmate prepaid debit card program violates two EFTA provisions: 15 U.S.C. § 1693i, which prohibits the unauthorized issuance of debit cards,…”
Jimenez v. Td Bank, N.A. (D.N.J. 2021). “However, as outlined above, the Curt has already found that Plaintiff Fogel’s EFTA claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a) will survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Roller v. Red Payments L.L.C. (E.D.N.Y 2021). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a). Plaintiff Roller contends that Red Payments “violate[d] this prohibition” every time they opened an unauthorized payment processing account, including the unauthorized VX520s account at issue here, by issuing a means of access to the unsuspecting client’s…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a)(1) — 1 case
Brown v. Stored Value Cards, Inc. (D. Or. 2021). “15 U.S.C. § 1693i(a)(1). Thus, if any class member requested a card, Defendants did not violate this section as to that class member.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b) — 2 cases
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). The record does not clearly establish whether Plaintiff’s 28 Release Cards met all these requirements, and thus both Motions are denied as to 2 a.”
Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kansas City (W.D. Wash. 2025). “17 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). 18 The complaint raises questions under the EFTA such as whether CBKC violated 19 the EFTA by issuing activated release cards to consumers who did not request the card, 20 whether CBKC violated the EFTA by obtaining funds from individuals and activating…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b)(1) — 1 case
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). The record does not clearly establish whether Plaintiff’s 28 Release Cards met all these requirements, and thus both Motions are denied as to 2 a.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b)(3) — 1 case
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). The record does not clearly establish whether Plaintiff’s 28 Release Cards met all these requirements, and thus both Motions are denied as to 2 a.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(c) — 1 case
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693i(b). The record does not clearly establish whether Plaintiff’s 28 Release Cards met all these requirements, and thus both Motions are denied as to 2 a.”
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.