## Facts

- William Krieger held a Bank of America credit card.
- After his computer was compromised, a fraudulent $657 charge appeared on his account.
- Krieger promptly contacted the bank, disputed the charge, and was told it would be removed and treated as resolved pending additional information.
- The next periodic statement showed a $657 credit removing the charge.
- More than a month later, Bank of America rebilled Krieger for the same $657 charge.
- Krieger disputed the rebilled charge in writing; the bank refused to remove it.
- To avoid adverse consequences, Krieger paid the $657 and sued, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) unauthorized-use provisions.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the FCBA notice untimely (measured from the first statement showing the charge) and concluding TILA did not require reimbursement after payment.

## Issues

1. Under the FCBA, does the 60-day period to give written notice of a billing error run from the first statement showing the original unauthorized charge, or from the later statement that rebills the charge after it was credited?
2. Under TILA’s unauthorized-use provisions, does a cardholder incur “liability” when an issuer bills or rebills an allegedly unauthorized charge (triggering statutory limits and remedies), even if the cardholder later pays the amount demanded?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the FCBA claim was timely because the 60-day period began with the statement that rebilled the charge after it had been removed.
- The court held the complaint plausibly stated a TILA unauthorized-use claim because “liability” can arise when an issuer, with reason to know a charge may be unauthorized, bills or rebills the cardholder for it; payment does not negate the claim or statutory remedies.

## Legal Principles

- For FCBA timeliness, when a charge has been credited/removed and later reinstated, the rebilling statement can constitute the first periodic statement reflecting the alleged billing error for purposes of the 60-day notice period.
- Under TILA § 1643, a cardholder’s “liability” for unauthorized use is limited (generally to $50), and issuer obligations are triggered when the issuer bills or rebills an allegedly unauthorized charge despite information suggesting it may be unauthorized.
- TILA § 1640 provides a civil damages remedy for violations of statutory duties related to unauthorized-use limitations; a claim is not defeated merely because the consumer paid the disputed amount to avoid penalties.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that rebilling restarted the FCBA notice period and that TILA’s unauthorized-use protections are implicated when an issuer bills or rebills a consumer for an allegedly unauthorized charge, allowing statutory damages claims even if the consumer pays the amount demanded.


Krieger v. Bank of Am., N.A., 890 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2018)