William Krieger v. Bank of America NA Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A consumer disputed a fraudulent charge, which the bank credited but later rebilled. The court held the consumer’s subsequent dispute was timely and that he could sue for damages when billed for more than the $50 statutory limit for unauthorized charges.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that the FCBA’s 60-day dispute clock resets when a creditor reinstates a previously removed charge. Affirms a cardholder’s right to sue for actual damages when billed for unauthorized charges exceeding the $50 TILA limit, even if they pay the bill.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William Krieger discovered a fraudulent $657 charge on his Bank of America (BANA) credit card after a phone scam. He immediately notified BANA by phone. After Krieger threatened to cancel his account, BANA credited the $657 and sent a letter stating it considered the dispute resolved pending further information. The next statement reflected the credit. Over a month later, BANA sent a new letter stating the charge was valid and would be rebilled. The charge reappeared on his September statement. Krieger then sent a detailed written dispute letter, which BANA received within 11 days of the September statement. BANA denied the dispute again. To avoid fees, Krieger paid the full $657 and then sued BANA, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The district court dismissed his claims, finding his written FCBA notice untimely and holding that TILA provided no private right of action for his unauthorized-use claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a consumer state a claim under the Fair Credit Billing Act when their written notice is sent more than 60 days after the initial appearance of a fraudulent charge but within 60 days of the charge being reinstated after a temporary credit, and does a consumer state a claim for actual damages under the Truth in Lending Act when a creditor bills them for an unauthorized charge exceeding $50?
Yes. The court reversed the dismissal of both claims. For the FCBA Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a consumer state a claim under the Fair Credit Billing Act when their written notice is sent more than 60 days after the initial appearance of a fraudulent charge but within 60 days of the charge being reinstated after a temporary credit, and does a consumer state a claim for actual damages under the Truth in Lending Act when a creditor bills them for an unauthorized charge exceeding $50?
Conclusion
This case strengthens consumer protections by establishing that the FCBA dispute clock Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Rule
(1) Under the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666(a), the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the two claims separately. Regarding the Fair Credit Billing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under the FCBA, the 60-day clock to dispute a billing error