15 U.S.C. § 1693k
Compulsory use of electronic fund transfers
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 233 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D.N.M. 2017).
Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 233 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D.N.M. 2017). “” Reply at 16-17 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1693k). Accordingly, Daye maintains, all loans within the EFTA’s one-year statute of limitations violated the EFTA.”
Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 147 (D.N.M. 2016). “” Brief at 9 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1693k). Third, Daye alleges that Speedy Loan’s form contracts uniformly fail to disclose payment due dates, as the TILA requires.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Payday Fin. LLC, 989 F. Supp. 2d 799 (D.S.D. 2013). “10 (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l). In turn, 12 C.F.R. § 205.”
de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “10 (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(1). The EFTA defines “preauthorized electronic fund transfer” as “an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.”
Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Loan Serv. Centers, LLC, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (D.N.M. 2017). “tatement regarding cash payments as references to borrowers’ ability to make individual payments in cash to avoid having money withdrawn from their bank account, see supra FOFs ¶ 21, and not to a supposed ability to avoid giving Speedy Loan an ACH authorization in the first…”
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l), “No person may ... condition the extension of credit to a consumer on such consumer’s repayment by means of preauthorized electronic fund transfers.”
Charlessaint v. Persion Acceptance Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D. Mass. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l); Mass. Gen. Laws ch.”
Curtis v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding, LLC, 265 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Va. 2017). “Specifically, the "briefs focused on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1693k, which, like thé TILA claim in Count I, concerns the definition of the term “credit.”
Sims v. Opportunity Fin., LLC (N.D. Cal. 2021). “21 Plaintiff cannot alter the above justifications for dismissal by amending his FAC.”
Kaschak v. Bankers Healthcare Grp., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2024). “Count II is a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693k. Id. at ¶¶ 44–47. Kaschak claims that the loan agreements required him to repay a consumer loan by electronic fund transfers, in violation of federal law.”
Sparano v. JLO Auto., Inc. (D. Conn. 2021). “Sparano has moved for partial summary judgment on the alleged Truth in Lending Act violations.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Snap Fin. (D. Utah 2024). “(Claim Three) the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k, and its implementing regulation, Regulation E, pursuant to 12 C.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(1) — 6 cases
de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “10 (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(1). The EFTA defines “preauthorized electronic fund transfer” as “an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.”
Curtis v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding, LLC, 265 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Va. 2017). “Specifically, the "briefs focused on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1693k, which, like thé TILA claim in Count I, concerns the definition of the term “credit.”
Sims v. Opportunity Fin., LLC (N.D. Cal. 2021). “21 Plaintiff cannot alter the above justifications for dismissal by amending his FAC.”
Kaschak v. Bankers Healthcare Grp., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2024). “Count II is a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693k. Id. at ¶¶ 44–47. Kaschak claims that the loan agreements required him to repay a consumer loan by electronic fund transfers, in violation of federal law.”
Sparano v. JLO Auto., Inc. (D. Conn. 2021). “Sparano has moved for partial summary judgment on the alleged Truth in Lending Act violations.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(2) — 1 case
Cornell v. Desert Fin. Credit Union (D. Ariz. 2025).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(a) — 2 cases
Daye v. Cmty. Fin. Serv. Centers, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 147 (D.N.M. 2016). “” Brief at 9 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1693k). Third, Daye alleges that Speedy Loan’s form contracts uniformly fail to disclose payment due dates, as the TILA requires.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Snap Fin. (D. Utah 2024). “(Claim Three) the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k, and its implementing regulation, Regulation E, pursuant to 12 C.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l) — 4 cases
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Payday Fin. LLC, 989 F. Supp. 2d 799 (D.S.D. 2013). “10 (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l). In turn, 12 C.F.R. § 205.”
de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “10 (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(1). The EFTA defines “preauthorized electronic fund transfer” as “an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.”
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l), “No person may ... condition the extension of credit to a consumer on such consumer’s repayment by means of preauthorized electronic fund transfers.”
Charlessaint v. Persion Acceptance Corp., 110 F. Supp. 3d 303 (D. Mass. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1693k(l); Mass. Gen. Laws ch.”
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.