Opinion ID: 1076
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Reimbursement

Text: Chase argues that Azur cannot recover the money already paid to Chase under § 1643 of the TILA. We agree. Section 1643 does not provide the cardholder with a right to reimbursement. This is clear from the statute's language: A cardholder shall be liable for the unauthorized use of a credit card only if.... 15 U.S.C. § 1643(a). Liable means [r]esponsible or answerable in law or legally obligated. Black's Law Dictionary 998 (9th ed.2009). See also Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1302 (1993) (defining liable as bound or obliged according to law or equity). Accordingly, the statute's plain meaning places a ceiling on a cardholder's obligations under the law and thus limits a card issuer's ability to sue a cardholder to recover fraudulent purchases. The language of § 1643 does not, however, enlarge a card issuer's liability or give the cardholder a right to reimbursement. We already reached this conclusion in Sovereign Bank, 533 F.3d 162. Sovereign Bank concerned, among other things, an indemnification action by Sovereign Bank, a card Issuer, against Fifth Third Bank, an Acquirer, and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., a Merchant, based on Sovereign Bank's assertion that it had a duty under § 1643 to reimburse a cardholder's account for all fraudulent charges in excess of $50. Id. at 164, 174. We disagreed: TILA § 1643 does not impose any obligation on issuers of credit cards to pay the costs associated with unauthorized or fraudulent use of credit cards. It simply limits the liability of cardholders, under certain circumstances, to a maximum of $50 for unauthorized charges. Indeed, § 1643 does not address, nor is it even concerned with, the liability of an Issuer or any party other than the cardholder for unauthorized charges on a credit card. Section 1643 imposes liability only upon the cardholder. Id. at 175. Faced here with the same issue in a new context, we arrive at the same outcome: § 1643 of the TILA does not provide the cardholder with a right to reimbursement. [10] Accordingly, to the extent that Azur requests reimbursement under § 1643 for money already paid to Chase, his claim fails.