Neither ‘consumer’ nor ‘obligor,’ card user’s FCBA claim fails Asked to comment on the 9th Circuit’s decision in Edwards v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 06-16892 (9th Cir. 05/19/10), Mr. Eley was quoted as follows: “In seizing the confusion between TILA’s use of the term ‘obligor’ and its regulatory counterpart, Regulation Z, the 9th Circuit questioned whether a regulation would seek to extend a credit card issuer’s duty beyond what Congress legislated. By focusing on the statute and the ‘ordinary legal understanding’ of the term ‘obligor,’ the Court’s decision marries a commonsense approach with sound legal reasoning.
“Credit Card issuers will benefit from this decision, which limits the potential universe of ‘points of contact’ to the owner of the account-the ‘consumer’ with whom the bank agreed to terms, not merely an authorized user,” added Hunter R. Eley, partner of Doll Amir & Eley LLP.