moronically the statute does provide the statutory damages of at least five hundred dollars but that can be increased in the case of a pattern of practice and here we would separate that there were at least three violations of the truth of money act two involving the unauthorized use protection and one involving the faircloth billing act and number of violations related to mr krieger could be relevant for determining whether or not that had an impact still exist tom it is certainly possible that your arms could reverse and remand simply sovereign bank the talk about how sixteen forty three does not impose liability on the card issuer but if you go back and look at sovereign bank that is a show that the right to believe they're talking about was the amount of the  similar result happens all the authorized use in his or took place over seven years there in that time period the consumer was making payments on his statements regularly without reviewing them and presumably the credit card issuer was making payments to the merchants  listing a triage on a statement about fifty dollars without complying with the particular statutory requirements and sixteen forty three as further expounded in the c f r official statement that's correct your honor i would say we are seeking ceilings or liability for card members as opposed to card issuers your answer would be nothing for me states but any creditor who doesn't comply with any well quite obvious part sixteen forty three is part of the same section of the statu honor the first was when they were contacted in june and they were informed of on authorize use the way they had a choice that they could make they could have first decided to waive any right to recover those funds or we could have conducted a reasonable best occasion instead they told my client he had to call back when you got a statement the statement arrives in july and at that point there is a charge on there for the entire amount of the on our usage so we attempted to collect the operators usage without first conducting that reasonable investigation our second theory is that once apply not just to consumers but businesses or other card users and that's very clear from the beat general comment to ten twenty six twelve b which notes that this this protection is an exception from the general rule that regulations the only applies to consumers so i would say that sixteen forty three in ten twenty six not twelve how to be independent of the fair credit billing act for the it's just as explicitly stated in both ten twenty six uproar and ten twenty six  rai i don't know specifically why they would include two different trigger mechanisms for operations protections but the mechanisms are certainly different again ten twenty six of court does specifically state law notices sufficient and i agree ten twenty six point in this case but i think the clear reading is simply that that those with effect are products or otherwise claims that one might have against the merchant my client did speak with western union on this case or like you mentioned it mechanism as well and it would be sort of an acrobat on one of the charges removed it would just make sure that a consumer is not tricked into losing their fair credit billing act rights there's no reason why this charge had to be proved wh against the market so there never was even a consumer involved in that lawsuit and i believe the court's opinion was simply that the credit card issuer is not liable to the market so therefore the risk of loss would be on the merchant for an authorized use which for a situation where consumer contacts a credit card company by phone and usually is the only time this would actually matter and from operations they're allowed to do that but for instance if they're just saying i think that my statement has an incorrect interest amount but the creditor could say well wouldn't be irrational for consumer to begin to doubt that perhaps he doesn't know this money and that he shouldn't be there see can we go help or take additional steps to try and protect himself when it is removed from the quite statement but the communication by phone or the letter in is this in response to a no is a billing error because again i think one of the most important here is whether the notice is first provided orally or in waiting if it's first provided in writing then we don't need to worry about this because the protections afforded been based on what his daughter tells him looks like it could be a scam telephone call he immediately tries to get it resolved but if i suppose a six hundred thirty seven was treated about a transfer that took place that d matter has now been fully resolved say we're reinstating doesn't that we start to time it doesn't restart the time donna because the regulation sets forth i would use of the investigation requirement and that reasonable investigation requirement computer issues the computer issues occurred in june of twenty fifteen mr krieger put on the phone the some one thing he didn't do in june was right correct as correct and then also in july there was a second phone call or two phone calls anyone takes up the phone and he calls me but then you tell him it's if you send me if you did something wrong he should have written instead of call but then you say it's resolved quote it wrote our investigation is complete and three weeks later you send out a statement that reverses the charges were in the world as you think your honor i think the letter makes clear and say wait a minute there was that there was stuff done here that makes it unfair to say that this particular sixty days had to be a for a bit of weight followed no matter what they answer notice must be received by the creditor within sixty days of written notice received by credit within sixty days to trigger obligations of the creditor now against its back you mr krieger is not being but you can't claim in this seven by this out at the school and his computer well that's the allegation from mr krueger and then the bank investigated that with western union and made a determination based on the information they received from western union that the charge should because the right twenty nine for letter indicated that there are still almost eighteen he did because the july twenty ninth letter makes reference to the charging reverse the next statement that follows just two or three weeks later on august eighteenth what right why were do you wish to raise the dead as a bill on the street under the fair credit billing at that point he could have easily done so in writing at that point the earlier point the question is is sixty days from what we're looking at the from white and perhaps you could speak to the official interpretation because it paragraph thirteen b one and the official interpretation of this section says if a creditor has failed to send a periodic statement the sixty day period right from when the statement should have been sent and then it says once the statement is provided the consumer has another sixty days to reserve any billing or is reflected on it doesn't that indicate with the croce that was communicating even more than silence that the consumer is not riaa before for that charge what are the circumstances following with a logic of thirteen the one with the sixty days need to restart but sixty being denied is available options under section ten twenty six point twelve b were under section six hundred forty three which limit his liability so there's there's a difference here between whether he's got the ability specified written notice can't be on a pay stub or can't be something written on a pay check or on that the check and the receipt of that written notice by the creditor is what triggers the creditors obligations under the statute the creditors and have an obligation of the statute triggered if that witnesses and provided within the periodic statement that shows that billing air which was the july twenty fifteen statement i'm sure congress still has the right didn't meet the the requirement under statute that says explicitly with no exceptions better written notice must be received by the creditor to trigger the creditors obligations which by the way the creditors obligations under the statu statement and more the word first because the word first doesn't appear in the statute itself appears only in the regulation but if we were to go by that logic we would also ignore the word reasonable because the word reasonable doesn't appear in the statute and appears only in the regulation if there is a second statement that is and it didn't disappear off the statement that second statement would be the first time but it appears second time were first reappearance of it but the word reinstatement suggest that were indicates that the very first statement was an earlier statement and that billing error and it's the same building as the western union charge that appeared on that first statement it was not the that religion is not the first information about that it's taken off and when it appears again that that is a compound there that is at least as a by the consumer here is not only that it's unauthorized but that you put it on there and refusing to credit hit send in a written notice in july of twenty fifteen when he first received a statement showing the restroom in your charge the bank at that point the creditor is at that point obligated to do two things one is to acknowledge the response and then to compact an investigation and it doesn't say how long that investigation should take it could take a month or could take a march in this case it took more than two months at the conclusion of that investigation the creditors obligation is to do one of two things some circumstances your honor and why isn't this the paradigm for one of those some circumstance because it in this case your honor there was no deception no intentional deception and the bank conducted a missing years a session there was a overt statement that it's resolved there was an overt statement that we've completed our investigation and it was two weeks later a statement that comes out that we bruce's the charge based on what letter which indicated that they were still investigating with western union or sit waiting to receive additional information but he didn't know that it could be he probably figured that there done that big jet wash and it just decided to heck with it it's six thirty seven it's fifty dollars he didn't do that instead he paid the charge rescinded that recovery bill and even state a claim under sixteen forty three depends on whether someone is with held payment on the statement were whether they have for example either pay on and have have had their statement paid that that the rider can't recover in the first a consumer  for auto pay with their credit card issuer so britney payments could it really be that congress intended whether or not the payment is made on a credit card statement  as a protection for the car over but not as something that can be used to turn phiona from the shooting in to court or whether it's for statutory damages whether it's for reimbursement just described as clearly held  cannot be used for that purpose it can be used to prevent the car over from being from the car her wish not to be to make the payment certainly he can you can do that but we've said there's not a freestanding provision of the section including the part that covers sixteen forty three sixteen forty three says and issue word can't who's right booty on a card holder without complying with certain requirements about imposing liability on a card issuer is not required to impose liability on a card holder but they are not re use of the credit card if the current issue or does not seek to impose liability the issue really need not conduct any investigation of the there's that's the only possible way you can get a sixty seven bed well if that's the case rhonda may be other violations of the federal or state law under which you can get a reimbursement if there are some agreed just conduct but there's no were two phone calls placed one by mr krieger to the bank at which time the bank apparently said we can't do anything for you and that first letter that says we've completed our investigation issued at that point but then the bank way to hold back mr krieger of that very same day and said we're going to we're going to look further into this for the meantime we're going to credit your account but then then issued that second letter indicating that they were for the best risk for the investigation going on and to other purchases and there's no secret here that is one charged issue that they investigated exactly what the allegations were the complaint there was no credit slip here but they did get from western union information providing ip address home address email address western union is a very minute the charge was correct there was no police report filed here so that  was no affidavit of fraud submitted at least there's no indication the record of that not in the bank already received information from the card holder as to what happened once the bank does all that gets all the information whether it  ultimate determination they just simply make sure the creditor went through and conducted that investigation and if you look at the very record that's attached the complaint that demonstrates that they done that investigation what you're saying i theoretically we could be asking for a longer time period i saw think that there's any prejudice to the bank if the court considers equitable to one as opposed to restarting the clock once the charges reinstated there were a lot of talk about whether or not the invest family may use the car looking at the statements perhaps consulting with counsel but they also want to be sure aside if they choose to conduct their investigation based on the information presented and if there is equitable  either one of the parties i don't believe it does or on again our situation where we're kind of in a unique thing where to notice who provided the same day but yet in a situation where perhaps the charge is fine money removed on day fifty nine after a you know  lengthy conversation between credit card issuer and consumer but there might be a similar situation where the creditor or the consumer just would not have enough time in order to raise the diski of why we've always asserted that the sixty eight caught to should be restarted but notice on june that there was an operation use and it's a statement in july that already failed to comply with sixteen forty three and ten twenty six doc well so we don't need to get into the reason or less of an investigation we certainly take the position that parroting a response from western union