Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Another Supreme Court Victory for Consumers: Ignorance of the Law Doesn't Excuse Collection Abuses | Main | Vision Media's Claims Panned by NPR; Will Hugh Downs Stand Up for His Principles? »

Wednesday, April 21, 2010


Jason Kilborn

Sorry--March. They learned about the loss in March. But same answer. Their exposure is $50 max, not $500, unless more fraud was paid out AFTER they discovered the loss AND failed to report it for 2 days (or 60 days elapsed after the mailing of that January statement).

Jason Kilborn

Why do all of these sources suggest that the liability is $500??? If they learned of the loss/fraud in January, and no other fraud was paid out AFTER they LEARNED (NOT should have learned) of the loss/fraud, their total exposure under EFTA and Reg E is only $50. It doesn't matter if they reported the fraud within two days or not--it matters when the fraud occurred. Their liability only rises beyond $50 and up to $500 if the fraud was on-going in January (which I don't understand it to have been here), then their liability might be greater, but what am I missing here? Why has no one explained that their total exposure is only $50?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

August 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31