This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect the laws of any State relating to electronic fund transfers, dormancy fees, inactivity charges or fees, service fees, or expiration dates of gift certificates, store gift cards, or general-use prepaid cards, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. A State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection afforded by this subchapter. The Bureau shall, upon its own motion or upon the request of any financial institution, State, or other interested party, submitted in accordance with procedures prescribed in regulations of the Bureau, determine whether a State requirement is inconsistent or affords greater protection. If the Bureau determines that a State requirement is inconsistent, financial institutions shall incur no liability under the law of that State for a good faith failure to comply with that law, notwithstanding that such determination is subsequently amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason. This subchapter does not extend the applicability of any such law to any class of persons or transactions to which it would not otherwise apply.
Notes of Decisions
New Jersey Retail Merchants Ass'n v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 374 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693q. The District Court found that “Chapter 25 affords consumers greater protection than that provided by the CARD Act’s expiration provision” 7 because “Chapter 25 imposes no time restriction on the consumer’s right to recover his or her funds” and allows the…”
Bernhard v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, 523 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation over the Bernhards’ objection and denied their motion to remand. Capital One and Whitney filed motions for summary judgment.”
Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 108 F.4th 421 (6th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 1693q. If the CFPB declares a state law inconsistent with the EFTA, financial institutions incur no liability “for a good faith failure to comply” with that state law.”
Geimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 784 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1693q. This language demonstrates that “Congress did not intend for the Act to provide the exclusive cause of action for claims relating to unauthorized fund transfers”; to the contrary, “[t]he Act contemplates the application of state law that is not preempted by…”
Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 755 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D.N.J. 2011).
“” 15 U.S.C. § 1693q. However, the FCRA clarifies, “[a] State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection afforded by this subchapter.”
Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (E.D. Cal. 2002).
“15 U.S.C. § 1693q (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit stated that “the plain language of § 1693q indicates that it is limited to the EFTA.”
Binns v. BB & T Bank, 377 F. Supp. 3d 487 (E.D. Pa. 2019).
“15 U.S.C. § 1693q. Therefore, even if the UCC applied, to the extent that a consumer brings a claim for an unauthorized electronic transaction, the UCC is preempted by EFTA.”
City of New York v. United States Dep't of Transp., 539 F. Supp. 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
“, 15 U.S.C. § 1693q (Supp. II 1978) (Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) supplements laws of any state relating to electronic fund transfers, except to extent that those laws are inconsistent with EFTA; state law is not inconsistent with EFTA if it affords consumers greater…”
Bank of Am. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 309 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2002).
“15 U.S.C. § 1693q (emphasis added). The Cities insist that § 1693q empowers them to regulate ATM fees charged by national banks and federal savings associations as a consumer protection measure.”
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.