Truth In Lending

Truth In Lending

Consumer Financial Services Law Report
Volume 14, Issue 2, June 9, 2010

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.