ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home Uncategorized

Sixth Circuit dismisses Michigan First Credit Union’s cellphone scam lawsuit

July 31, 2024
Reading Time: 3 mins read
Sixth Circuit dismisses Michigan First Credit Union’s cellphone scam lawsuit

Electronic Fund Transfer Act
Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA Inc.
Date: July 16, 2024

Issue: Whether the district court erred in holding that Michigan First Credit Union failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) or the Michigan Electronic Transfer Act (MEFTA).

Case Summary: In a 3-0 decision, a Sixth Circuit panel affirmed a Michigan federal court’s dismissal of Michigan First’s lawsuit against T-Mobile, concluding it failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under EFTA or MEFTA.

A “SIM-swap” cellphone scam victimized several T-Mobile customers who bank at Michigan First. A SIM-swap occurs when a scammer contacts T-Mobile and falsely claims a subscriber’s mobile device was lost, damaged or stolen. The scammer asked T-Mobile to activate a new SIM card associated with the subscriber’s device when the card was located on the scammer’s device. The scammer exploits this by accessing the subscriber’s private information, including bank details, to make unauthorized financial transactions. Under the EFTA, Michigan First was required to reimburse customers for the unauthorized transactions.

Michigan First sued T-Mobile to hold it liable for the reimbursed funds. In its amended complaint, Michigan First raised claims for indemnification and contribution under EFTA, MEFTA and Michigan common law. T-Mobile moved to dismiss, arguing EFTA does not provide for indemnification or contribution, EFTA expressly preempts MEFTA, and EFTA preempts any state common-law claim for indemnification or contribution. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, ruling Michigan First failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under EFTA or MEFTA.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The panel rejected Michigan First’s argument that EFTA implies a right to indemnification or contribution. A right to indemnification arises when one party’s wrongful act causes another party to be held liable. This entitles the latter party to restitution for any losses. A right to contribution arises when two or more parties cause a loss, requiring each party to pay a proportionate share. While EFTA does not contain an express right to indemnification or contribution, the panel focused on whether EFTA provides an implied remedy. To determine whether EFTA provides for an implied right to indemnification or contribution, the panel analyzed four factors: the statutory text, the legislative history, the purpose and structure of the statute’s scheme, and the likelihood Congress intended to supersede or supplement existing state remedies.

The panel concluded each factor proved EFTA does not provide for an implied right to indemnification or contribution. Examining the statutory text and purpose, the panel determined EFTA’s plain text shows that Congress enacted the statute to benefit consumers, not financial institutions like Michigan First. The panel also determined EFTA’s legislative history is silent about whether Congress intended indemnification or contributions rights for financial institutions. Finally, the panel determined Congress intended EFTA to supersede inconsistent state remedies while supplementing consistent state remedies.

The panel also rejected Michigan First’s argument that it could sue for indemnification or contribution under MEFTA. According to the panel, EFTA empowers the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to preempt state laws “inconsistent” with the Act’s provisions. If the CFPB declares a state law “inconsistent” with EFTA, financial institutions incur no liability “for a good faith failure to comply” with the state law. The panel declared MEFTA is inconsistent with EFTA because MEFTA imposes liability on customers for unauthorized transactions if the financial institution can show “the customer’s negligence substantially contributed to the unauthorized use” of their account. Further, EFTA is unrelated to a customer’s negligence and instead depends on a consumer’s promptness. Accordingly, the court concluded EFTA preempts Michigan First’s MEFTA claim. The panel added that this alone defeats Michigan First’s claim because a plaintiff does not have a right to indemnification or contribution if the plaintiff is not liable for the judgment in the underlying action under Michigan law.

Finally, the panel rejected Michigan First’s argument that EFTA does not preempt its state common-law indemnification claim. The panel reiterated that EFTA preempts state law to the extent that those laws are inconsistent, and financial institutions do not have a right to indemnification under EFTA. Further, allowing financial institutions to seek indemnification under state law for liability incurred under EFTA is inconsistent with federal law. The panel thus concluded EFTA preempts Michigan First’s state-law indemnification claim.

Bottom Line: As of Aug. 1, Michigan First has not filed an en banc (full panel) petition for rehearing.

Documents: Opinion

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: Banking Docket
ShareTweetPin

Related Posts

ABA files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to reject class certification for uninjured class members

U.S. Supreme Court declines to address class certification for uninjured members

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Labcorp’s appeal as “improvidently granted,” effectively letting stand the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that upheld class certification despite including uninjured members.

Capital One agrees to pay $425 million to resolve 360 Performance Savings Account allegations

Virginia federal court trims influencers lawsuit against Capital One

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

A Virginia federal court partially granted a motion to dismiss filed by a class of social media influencers alleging Capital One’s coupon-search browser extension stole from content creators.

First Circuit rules federal law does not preempt Puerto Rico’s credit card surcharge law

First Circuit rules federal law does not preempt Puerto Rico’s credit card surcharge law

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a unanimous decision, a First Circuit panel ruled that Puerto Rico’s Law 150 is not preempted by the Cash Discount Act or the Durbin Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court grants petition to examine post-judgment relief in Hamas banking lawsuit

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Hamas victims’ attempt to revive bank lawsuit

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) applies only in “extraordinary circumstances,” even where the movant seeks to reopen a case to...

Seventh Circuit revives CFPB’s lender redlining lawsuit

Illinois federal court denies joint motion to vacate redlining settlement

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

An Illinois federal court denied the joint motion by the CFPB and Townstone to vacate the settlement in the bureau’s redlining lawsuit against the company.

U.S. Supreme Court vacates Ninth Circuit preemption decision

U.S. Supreme Court rules Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a federal agency’s interpretation of the statute.

NEWSBYTES

Congress sends budget bill to president with numerous ABA-backed provisions

July 3, 2025

Factory orders increased in May

July 3, 2025

International trade deficit increased in May

July 3, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

July 1, 2025
AI Compliance and Regulation: What Financial Institutions Need to Know

Unlocking Deposit Growth: How Financial Institutions Can Activate Data for Precision Cross-Sell

June 1, 2025
Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

April 25, 2025
Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

April 5, 2025

PODCASTS

Podcast: Inside ABA’s new Treasury Check Verification System API

June 25, 2025

Podcast: Staying close to clients amid tariff-driven volatility

June 18, 2025

Podcast: Old National’s Jim Ryan on the things that really matter

June 12, 2025
ADVERTISEMENT

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.