## Facts

- A Miami-based travel club mailed a solicitation to Jonathan Plutchok in New York for a $249 membership.
- On December 19, 1986, Plutchok purchased the membership by telephone using a credit card issued by European American Bank (EAB).
- Plutchok later claimed the travel club was a scam and sought to cancel, but asserted the merchant did not respond or provide promised services.
- On April 25, 1987, Plutchok notified EAB and requested a billing correction/chargeback under the Truth in Lending Act’s Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and Regulation Z.
- Plutchok contended his January 3, 1987 and April 3, 1987 periodic statements did not reflect the $249 transaction, but he did not introduce those statements into evidence at trial.
- After EAB declined to reimburse or adjust the account, Plutchok sued in Nassau County District Court seeking a $249 credit.

## Issues

1. Whether the $249 charge qualified as a “billing error” under the FCBA and Regulation Z requiring the issuer to correct or credit the account.
2. Whether Plutchok satisfied the FCBA’s procedural and evidentiary requirements, including proof from periodic statements supporting the alleged billing error.
3. Whether the issuer could be held liable for the merchant’s alleged fraud or nonperformance absent proof of a statutory billing error.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for EAB and dismissed Plutchok’s claim.
- The court held Plutchok failed to meet his burden to prove a cognizable FCBA “billing error,” emphasizing his failure to place the relevant periodic statements into evidence.
- The court declined to impose liability on the issuer for losses stemming from the merchant’s alleged scam where the dispute amounted to merchant performance/nonperformance rather than a proven billing error.

## Legal Principles

- A cardholder seeking relief under the FCBA must prove that the disputed matter fits within the statute’s defined “billing error” categories and must support the claim with competent evidence, commonly including the relevant periodic statements.
- FCBA remedies are tied to the billing-error framework; allegations that a merchant failed to perform or acted fraudulently do not, without more, impose reimbursement duties on the card issuer.
- A merchant’s solicitation may be treated as an invitation to the consumer to make an offer; the issuer’s role in processing payment does not make it responsible for the merchant’s contractual performance.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the cardholder’s attempt to obtain a chargeback because he did not prove a qualifying FCBA billing error with the necessary account documentation, and the issuer was not responsible for the merchant’s alleged scam absent an established statutory error.


Plutchok v. Eur. Am. Bank, 540 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1989)