U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 94— PRIVACY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION

15 U.S.C. § 6821

Privacy protection for customer information of financial institutions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Prohibition on obtaining customer information by false pretensesIt shall be a violation of this subchapter for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person—(1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;(2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or(3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.(b) Prohibition on solicitation of a person to obtain customer information from financial institution under false pretenses

It shall be a violation of this subchapter to request a person to obtain customer information of a financial institution, knowing that the person will obtain, or attempt to obtain, the information from the institution in any manner described in subsection (a).

(c) Nonapplicability to law enforcement agencies

No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any action by a law enforcement agency, or any officer, employee, or agent of such agency, to obtain customer information of a financial institution in connection with the performance of the official duties of the agency.

(d) Nonapplicability to financial institutions in certain casesNo provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any financial institution, or any officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, from obtaining customer information of such financial institution in the course of—(1) testing the security procedures or systems of such institution for maintaining the confidentiality of customer information;(2) investigating allegations of misconduct or negligence on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution; or(3) recovering customer information of the financial institution which was obtained or received by another person in any manner described in subsection (a) or (b).(e) Nonapplicability to insurance institutions for investigation of insurance fraud

No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any insurance institution, or any officer, employee, or agency of an insurance institution, from obtaining information as part of an insurance investigation into criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or material nondisclosure that is authorized for such institution under State law, regulation, interpretation, or order.

(f) Nonapplicability to certain types of customer information of financial institutions

No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any person from obtaining customer information of a financial institution that otherwise is available as a public record filed pursuant to the securities laws (as defined in section 78c(a)(47) of this title).

(g) Nonapplicability to collection of child support judgments

No provision of this section shall be construed to prevent any State-licensed private investigator, or any officer, employee, or agent of such private investigator, from obtaining customer information of a financial institution, to the extent reasonably necessary to collect child support from a person adjudged to have been delinquent in his or her obligations by a Federal or State court, and to the extent that such action by a State-licensed private investigator is not unlawful under any other Federal or State law or regulation, and has been authorized by an order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title V, § 521, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1446.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: NXIVM Corp. v. O'Hara, 241 F.R.D. 109 (N.D.N.Y. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
NXIVM Corp. v. O'Hara, 241 F.R.D. 109 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 6821 (a) & (b). 27 Gathering and then listing personal banking transactions, no matter how few, would appear to a reasonably prudent person to be a violation of federal law.”
Brendan Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 983 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2020). “Holbein alleges TAW Enterprises demoted and constructively discharged him because he: informed TAW Enterprises about his colleague’s allegedly criminal misconduct in attempting to cover up the loss of customer financial information, see generally 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821 (a)(2),…”
Commonwealth v. Source One Assocs., Inc., 763 N.E.2d 42 (Mass. 2002). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821 (a), 6823(a) (2000). The defendants argue in a cursory manner that the judge erred in his “wholesale prohibition of the sale of [the search targets’ private financial] information.”
Scalzo v. Baker, 185 Cal. App. 4th 91 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “As to Martin, Frederick asserted causes of action for invasion of privacy (first), violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 6821 et seq.) (second), violation of the California Financial Information Privacy Act (Fin.”
Patchell v. Option One Mortg. Corp. (In Re Patchell), 336 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005). “She cites instead 15 U.S.C. § 6821 and FDIC regulations, neither of which is within the definition of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.”
Peter Cresci v. BCB Cmty. Bank, No. 16-4394 (3d Cir. Mar. 30, 2018). · cites it 2× “Bethka (apparently an Ethics Office employee) obtained Cresci’s banking records from BCB Community Bank in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 6821 . Second, he claims an unidentified person deleted unidentified digital evidence in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act along with…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Celsius Network Inc., No. 1:23-cv-06009 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2024). · cites it 2× “Background This action arises out of alleged violations of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) and § 521 of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821 et seq. in connection with the defendants’ marketing and sale of cryptocurrency lending and…”
Cresci v. Mcnamara, No. 2:18-cv-16207 (D.N.J. June 25, 2025). · cites it 2× “Count VII: 15 U.S.C. §§ 6821–6823 8. Count VIII: New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, N.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Start Connecting LLC, et al., No. 8:24-cv-01626 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2025). · cites it 2× “pt 310, and Section 521 of the GLB Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6821 , by Defendants in connection with the marketing and sale of student loan debt relief services.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Finacial Educ. Servs., Inc, No. 2:22-cv-11120 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2023). “15 U.S.C. § 6821 (a). Although the statute leaves the term “person” undefined, courts typically consult the Dictionary Act to ascertain Congress’s meaning, “unless the context indicates otherwise.”
Hodge v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., No. 1:22-cv-00001, 2022 WL 2195022 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2022). “In her Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Truth in Lending Act as well as obtained and disclosed her “customer information” under false pretenses in violation of 15…”
Berrian v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02084 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2022). “” 15 U.S.C. § 6821 (a)(2). Ms. Berrian claims Midland violated the law by obtaining her financial information and making a false claim to her debt, which it then reported to consumer reporting agencies.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
15 U.S.C. § 6821(c): 1 case
NXIVM Corp. v. O'Hara, 241 F.R.D. 109 (N.D.N.Y. 2007). “15 U.S.C. § 6821 (a) & (b). 27 Gathering and then listing personal banking transactions, no matter how few, would appear to a reasonably prudent person to be a violation of federal law.”
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.