Sunday, May 25, 2025

Case Study: Asserting 15 U.S.C. § 1666i to Defend Against a Medical Credit Card Collection Lawsuit

Case Study: Asserting 15 U.S.C. § 1666i to Defend Against a Medical Credit Card Collection Lawsuit

Background

In 2023, a consumer in Louisiana was sued by a national debt buyer seeking to collect over $7,000 on a defaulted medical credit card account. The account was originally issued by a specialty financing company through a major bank and used to prepay $9,000 for three dental implants. The consumer obtained the credit through her treating dentist and was promised that the entire dental procedure—including all three implants—would be completed under a bundled price agreement.

However, after completing only two implants, the dentist unexpectedly closed his practice and became unreachable for a time. Despite failing to render the full agreed-upon service, the dentist had charged the entire $9,000 upfront to the patient’s credit card. With no refund issued and no means to access the dentist after closure, the consumer ceased making payments, triggering a charge-off and sale of the account to a third-party debt buyer.

Legal Framework: 15 U.S.C. § 1666i Defense

Section 1666i of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) permits cardholders to assert “all claims (other than tort claims) and defenses” against the card issuer stemming from a credit card transaction—provided certain conditions are met. This provision becomes particularly important in scenarios where the consumer has a contractual grievance against a merchant and is sued for nonpayment.

The key elements required to invoke the § 1666i defense are:

  1. A non-tort claim or defense against the merchant;

  2. A transaction amount over $50;

  3. A good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant;

  4. The transaction must have occurred in the consumer’s state or within 100 miles of the consumer’s billing address;

  5. The consumer must have not yet paid in full at the time the dispute was raised.

Application to the Case

All five statutory elements were present:

  • The consumer’s claim against the dentist was contractual in nature: the agreed-upon services were not fully delivered.

  • The $9,000 transaction amount far exceeded the $50 threshold.

  • The consumer repeatedly attempted to contact the dentist, first unsuccessfully and later through text messages over several months, in an effort to resolve the dispute.

  • The dental office was located well within 100 miles of the consumer’s home.

  • The consumer ceased payment before the balance was fully paid, maintaining an unpaid balance on the account when the dispute was asserted.

These facts provided a textbook basis for asserting a § 1666i defense to the debt collection claim.

Additional Layer: Arbitration Clause

The cardmember agreement included an arbitration clause providing that the creditor—or its assignee—would cover the consumer’s arbitration fees if a written request were submitted. The consumer, who lacked income or assets sufficient to pay arbitration fees, invoked this provision and demanded arbitration, citing the applicable language from the agreement.

This dual strategy—raising § 1666i as an affirmative defense and invoking arbitration with a demand that fees be paid by the creditor’s assignee—strengthened the consumer’s position significantly. It created both procedural and substantive hurdles for the debt collector.

Strategic Takeaways

  1. § 1666i remains underused in debt collection litigation but provides a viable defense when consumers face lawsuits over transactions tied to defective merchant performance.

  2. Consumers and their advocates must document attempts to resolve disputes with merchants—text messages, emails, or complaints to licensing boards may all help establish the “good faith attempt” required under the statute.

  3. Third-party debt buyers stand in the shoes of the original creditor and are subject to defenses available under the original contract, including those afforded by federal law.

  4. Cardmember agreements that require arbitration and shift costs to the creditor in cases of hardship can be used to further deter or delay collection efforts.

  5. Even when the consumer is judgment-proof, asserting legal defenses can lead to dismissal or favorable settlement, preserving credit and deterring future collection attempts.

See: Asserting 15 U.S.C. § 1666i as a Defense in Credit Card Collection Lawsuits
- - - - - - -
Thomas Fox, J. D.
Fox Paralegal Services
Lake Cumberland, Kentucky
thomas@foxparalegalservices.com

TEXT ONLY: 502-230-1613
Voice: 606-219-6982


Disclaimer:
This information is for general educational and information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I can provide legal information but not advice. The difference is that legal information is equally applicable to everyone. Legal advice is tailored to your specific situation, and it is based upon a personal relationship of trust between you, as a client, and a lawyer. Your communication with a lawyer may be privileged and protected by law. Your communications with me are not. It is advisable to consult with a qualified attorney in your specific jurisdiction for guidance on your legal rights and obligations. The laws of every state are different. Consulting with experienced local counsel is essential. If you are involved in litigation, I urge you to seek legal counsel.
at No comments:

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

Thinking about an appeal? Know the limits.




Tip: If you’re considering an appeal, talk to an someone who understands the appellate process. It’s not about rearguing your case — it’s about legal error, preserved in the record, with a clear path to remedy. If you’ve never written an appeal brief before, it can be a tough learning curve. I offer mentorship and writing support — or I can handle all or part of the project for you.

- - - - - - -
Thomas Fox, J. D.
Fox Paralegal Services
Lake Cumberland, Kentucky
thomas@foxparalegalservices.com

TEXT ONLY: 502-230-1613
Voice: 606-219-6982


Disclaimer:
This information is for general educational and information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I can provide legal information but not advice. The difference is that legal information is equally applicable to everyone. Legal advice is tailored to your specific situation, and it is based upon a personal relationship of trust between you, as a client, and a lawyer. Your communication with a lawyer may be privileged and protected by law. Your communications with me are not. It is advisable to consult with a qualified attorney in your specific jurisdiction for guidance on your legal rights and obligations. The laws of every state are different. Consulting with experienced local counsel is essential. If you are involved in litigation, I urge you to seek legal counsel.
at No comments:

Saturday, May 3, 2025

Asserting 15 U.S.C. § 1666i as a Defense in Credit Card Collection Lawsuits

There have not been many cases that have used 15 U.S.C. § 1666i as an affirmative defense, but the cases that have examined the issue uniformly agree that an affirmative defense to a debt collection lawsuit is the proper method for a consumer to assert the right, limited only to the extent that the contested debt remains unpaid. The consumer must make a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue with the merchant, according to the statute.  Notice to the credit card issuer is not required. 


This is not a billing error issue. The defendant was entitled to withhold payment.


Statement of the Law – 15 U.S.C. § 1666i (Fair Credit Billing Act Defense)


Introduction

Section 1666i of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, offers a powerful—though narrowly limited—defense to consumers facing debt collection lawsuits involving disputed credit card transactions. While the statute does not create an affirmative cause of action, it enables consumers to assert valid claims and defenses against credit card issuers—and their assignees—when specific statutory requirements are met. Despite the limited number of published opinions addressing § 1666i, courts have uniformly construed it as a shield, not a sword, preserving the consumer’s right to withhold payment in response to merchant misconduct.

Statutory Framework and Interpretation

Under § 1666i(a), a consumer may assert “all claims (other than tort claims) and defenses arising out of any transaction in which the credit card is used as a method of payment,” provided:

  1. The consumer made a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute with the merchant;

  2. The amount in controversy exceeds $50; and

  3. The transaction took place either in the same state as the consumer’s billing address or within 100 miles of that address.

These conditions are conjunctive; failure to satisfy any of them will bar the defense.

Section 1666i(b) further limits the defense to the amount of “credit outstanding” on the disputed transaction at the time the consumer notifies the card issuer. Once the balance has been paid in full, the defense is extinguished.

Defensive Use Only: No Private Right of Action

Every court to address the issue has emphasized that § 1666i is not an affirmative source of relief. Instead, the provision is strictly defensive in nature. Consumers may raise it:

  • In response to a debt collection lawsuit;

  • In litigation initiated by the card issuer to collect payment;

  • In conjunction with a claim under the broader Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

Importantly, courts have rejected attempts to use § 1666i offensively to recover damages or refunds.

In Moynihan v. Providian Financial Corp., the court made this distinction explicit, holding that § 1666i “does not create an independent cause of action” but instead permits a consumer to “withhold payment” in qualified circumstances. Because Moynihan sought affirmative relief, rather than using the statute defensively, his claim failed.

Similarly, in Beaumont v. Citibank, the court confirmed that the FCBA’s structure “facilitates withholding of payment by cardholders” and allows § 1666i to be raised as a defense when the issuer sues.

Elements of the Defense: What a Consumer Must Prove

To successfully invoke § 1666i in litigation, a consumer must establish:

  1. Credit Card Transaction: The disputed transaction must have been made using a credit card—not a debit card or other method.

  2. Valid Non-Tort Claim Against Merchant: The underlying dispute must involve a breach of contract, failure to perform, or other non-tort claim (e.g., defective goods, services not rendered).

  3. Amount in Controversy Over $50: The contested portion of the transaction must exceed $50.

  4. Geographic Limitation Met: The transaction must have occurred either in the same state as the consumer’s billing address or within 100 miles of that address. Courts, including the Nevada Supreme Court in Singer v. Chase Manhattan Bank, have strictly enforced this requirement, declining to create any exceptions.

  5. Good-Faith Attempt to Resolve: The consumer must have made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute directly with the merchant. Evidence might include written correspondence, documented phone calls, or complaints filed with licensing or regulatory bodies.

  6. Credit Outstanding at Time of Notice: As held in Hasan v. Chase Bank USA, the consumer must have notified the card issuer of the dispute while there was still an unpaid balance related to the transaction. If the cardholder has already paid the full amount, the defense is forfeited.

  7. Successor-in-Interest Status of Plaintiff: In cases involving third-party debt buyers, the consumer must establish that the plaintiff stands in the shoes of the original creditor and is therefore subject to the same defenses, including those under § 1666i. Courts have applied traditional assignment principles to reach this conclusion.

  8. Defensive Assertion Only: The consumer must be asserting § 1666i as a shield against liability, not as the basis for an affirmative lawsuit.

Judicial Treatment and Case Law

Several key cases have interpreted § 1666i’s scope and limitations:

  • Hasan v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 880 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2018): Defined “credit outstanding” as the unpaid portion of the disputed charge at the time notice is given to the issuer. Once the debt is paid, the defense is no longer available.

  • Singer v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 890 P.2d 1305 (Nev. 1995): Enforced the statute’s 100-mile geographic limitation without exception.

  • Moynihan v. Providian Financial Corp., No. JFM-02-2795 (D. Md. 2003): Reiterated that § 1666i provides no affirmative cause of action and clarified the limited contexts in which it may be asserted.

  • Beaumont v. Citibank, No. 01 Civ. 3393(DLC), 2002 WL 483431 (S.D.N.Y.): Held that the statute’s purpose is to allow a defense to payment, not to support a damages claim.

  • Baker v. Capital One Bank, No. 1:12-cv-00971 (S.D. Ind. 2012): Cited Regulation Z (§ 226.12(c)) and reiterated that absent a separate TILA violation, § 1666i cannot serve as the basis for affirmative relief.

Conclusion

Section 1666i of the FCBA represents a narrow but potent statutory tool for consumers facing unjust credit card charges. When properly invoked as an affirmative defense in a collection lawsuit—and supported by evidence of unresolved merchant misconduct—this provision may bar recovery by a creditor or assignee. However, its application is tightly cabined by statute and case law. Success depends on meeting every statutory element and asserting the defense only in response to a claim for payment.

As courts continue to clarify the scope of this provision, § 1666i remains an underutilized yet important component of consumer protection in credit card litigation—particularly where the consumer acted promptly and in good faith to resolve the dispute
- - - - - - -
Thomas Fox, J. D.
Fox Paralegal Services
Lake Cumberland, Kentucky
thomas@foxparalegalservices.com

TEXT ONLY: 502-230-1613
Voice: 606-219-6982


Disclaimer:
This information is for general educational and information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I can provide legal information but not advice. The difference is that legal information is equally applicable to everyone. Legal advice is tailored to your specific situation, and it is based upon a personal relationship of trust between you, as a client, and a lawyer. Your communication with a lawyer may be privileged and protected by law. Your communications with me are not. It is advisable to consult with a qualified attorney in your specific jurisdiction for guidance on your legal rights and obligations. The laws of every state are different. Consulting with experienced local counsel is essential. If you are involved in litigation, I urge you to seek legal counsel.
at No comments:

Friday, May 2, 2025

Knowing Your Audience Persona Matters in Legal Marketing - with Template

Why Knowing Your Audience Persona Matters in Legal Marketing—Even If You Have to Guess

Legal marketing is full of smart-sounding advice—optimize your SEO, include calls to action, use storytelling, and update your Google Business listing. But beneath all of it lies one deceptively simple truth: you need to know who you’re writing for.

That’s where the concept of an audience persona comes in.


You’ve probably heard this before. Marketers love to talk about “ideal clients” and “customer avatars.” For lawyers, this may sound more like marketing jargon than something worth your time. But if you’ve ever struggled to write a blog post that connects with readers, or wondered why your content gets traffic but no calls, chances are the problem isn’t your writing—it’s that you haven’t clearly defined your audience.

Fortunately, solving that problem doesn’t require fancy software, a focus group, or a mountain of demographic data. It just requires a willingness to sit down, ask a few focused questions, and make an educated guess. That’s all a persona really is: a strategic guess about who you’re trying to reach and what’s going on in their head.

What Is an Audience Persona?

An audience persona is a simple profile of your ideal reader. It’s not a real person, but a fictionalized composite—a stand-in for the kind of person you want your blog post to help and attract.

For example, if you're writing for a debt defense practice in Florida, your persona might be:

A 42-year-old single parent named Angela who was just served with a lawsuit from a debt buyer. She works full time, lives paycheck to paycheck, and is terrified of wage garnishment. She doesn’t understand legal paperwork, isn’t sure she can afford a lawyer, and is afraid she’ll lose her job if her employer finds out.

When you know you're writing for someone like Angela, your blog post practically writes itself. You can speak to her situation, answer her questions, calm her fears, and give her a clear path forward. You're not writing “for the internet”—you’re writing for a human being in a moment of confusion and stress.

Why Personas Matter in Legal Blog Writing

You don’t need to be a marketing expert to understand why this matters. Imagine you’re at a party, and you don’t know anyone. You want to tell a story, but you have no idea who’s listening. So you hedge your language, skip details, avoid strong opinions, and generally come across like someone trying not to offend or bore anyone. And what happens? You bore everyone.

That’s how generic legal blog posts sound.

But when you write with a clear persona in mind, everything sharpens. Your tone becomes more natural. Your examples get more specific. Your advice becomes more relevant. You stop trying to sound like a lawyer talking to other lawyers, and start sounding like a human being who understands a problem—and can help solve it.

Do Personas Need to Be Based on Hard Data?

No. Not at all.

While some companies base personas on client surveys, analytics, and CRM data, most solo lawyers and small firms don’t have those resources—and they don’t need them. An educated guess, rooted in real-world experience, is more than enough.

You already know who calls your office. You know who shows up scared, confused, or angry. You’ve answered their questions a hundred times. All you’re doing now is distilling that knowledge into a usable format that keeps you focused while you write.

The goal is clarity, not perfection. You can revise your persona over time as you gather feedback or see which posts perform well. But starting with a clear picture of your intended reader will instantly improve the relevance and readability of your content.

How Personas Help You Write Better (and Faster)

When you define your audience persona before writing, you gain several advantages:

  • You know what tone to use (compassionate, assertive, reassuring, etc.).

  • You anticipate common fears or objections and address them in the post.

  • You choose the right examples—relevant, local, human—not just generic law school hypotheticals.

  • You write with confidence, because you’re not shooting in the dark.

And perhaps most importantly, you avoid the trap of overexplaining to some readers while underexplaining to others. You're speaking to one type of person—not everyone.

Try the Audience Persona Template

To make this easier, I’ve created a simple one-page persona template you can copy and fill out before writing your next blog post. It’s not fancy. It just helps you ask the right questions:

  • Who is this person?

  • What just happened to them?

  • What are they afraid of?

  • What do they want?

  • Why might they hesitate to reach out?

  • What kind of message will reassure them?

You don’t have to answer perfectly. You just have to answer. Once you do, you’ll find it much easier to craft blog posts that resonate, rank, and convert.

You can copy and paste the template from [this link / this post], or just scroll down and grab it.

Conclusion:
 Don’t let the idea of “audience research” intimidate you. You already know your clients better than most marketers ever will. All a persona does is help you put that knowledge to work—so you can write with purpose, precision, and empathy.

If you'd like help developing personas for specific practice areas or building a system for legal blog writing, I'm always happy to assist, or use this template.

Audience Persona Template

Use this worksheet to clarify who you’re writing for and how to connect with them.

🔹 1. BASIC PROFILE

  • Name (fictional): __________________________

  • Age Range: __________________________

  • Gender (if relevant): __________________________

  • Location (city, county, or state): __________________________

  • Occupation / Income Level: __________________________

  • Education Level: __________________________

  • Family / Living Situation: __________________________

🔹 2. SITUATION / TRIGGER EVENT

What happened to make this person seek legal help?

  • ☐ Just got served with a lawsuit

  • ☐ Arrested or accused of a crime

  • ☐ Injured in an accident

  • ☐ Facing divorce or custody dispute

  • ☐ Dealing with wage garnishment or bank levy

  • ☐ Considering starting a business or estate plan

  • ☐ Other: _______________________________________

Describe the moment of crisis, concern, or confusion:

🔹 3. PAIN POINTS / FEARS

What is this person afraid of or frustrated by?

  • ☐ Losing their job or paycheck

  • ☐ Going to court alone

  • ☐ Being taken advantage of

  • ☐ Embarrassment or stigma

  • ☐ Legal costs

  • ☐ Not knowing what to do next

  • ☐ Other: _______________________________________

Write their internal monologue (in their voice):

“”
 “”

🔹 4. DESIRES / OUTCOMES

What does this person want to achieve?

  • ☐ Make the problem go away

  • ☐ Protect income or assets

  • ☐ Keep custody of children

  • ☐ Get compensation or justice

  • ☐ Avoid public consequences

  • ☐ Understand their options

  • ☐ Hire someone they trust

  • ☐ Other: _______________________________________

What “happy ending” are they hoping for?

🔹 5. OBJECTIONS TO ACTION

What might stop them from reaching out or following through?

  • ☐ “I can’t afford a lawyer.”

  • ☐ “Lawyers won’t understand my situation.”

  • ☐ “I’m too ashamed to talk about it.”

  • ☐ “It’s too late to do anything.”

  • ☐ “I can do this on my own.”

  • ☐ Other: _______________________________________

🔹 6. TRUST SIGNALS THEY’LL RESPOND TO

What reassures this person that you’re the right lawyer?

  • ☐ Local knowledge or familiarity

  • ☐ Clear, simple explanations

  • ☐ Stories of people like them

  • ☐ Free consultations

  • ☐ Testimonials or case results

  • ☐ Down-to-earth tone

  • ☐ Flexible payment options

  • ☐ Other: _______________________________________

🔹 7. KEYWORDS & PHRASES THEY MIGHT SEARCH

(e.g., “sued by LVNV Funding,” “Florida wage garnishment,” “debt collection lawyer near me”)



✅ Notes or Ideas for Blog Topics Based on This Persona:


- - - - - - -
Thomas Fox, J. D.
Fox Paralegal Services
Lake Cumberland, Kentucky
thomas@foxparalegalservices.com

TEXT ONLY: 502-230-1613
Voice: 606-219-6982

- - - o O o - - - 

Let’s Talk.

If you have a writing, research, marketing, or paralegal project—whether you’re a lawyer, a non-lawyer, or an agency—I'd be glad to help you think it through. I offer clear-eyed brainstorming, practical advice, and professional-quality writing. Reach out for a quick conversation or a quote.


🔗 LinkedIn Profile - https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswfox


Disclaimer:
This information is for general educational and information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I can provide legal information but not advice. The difference is that legal information is equally applicable to everyone. Legal advice is tailored to your specific situation, and it is based upon a personal relationship of trust between you, as a client, and a lawyer. Your communication with a lawyer may be privileged and protected by law. Your communications with me are not. It is advisable to consult with a qualified attorney in your specific jurisdiction for guidance on your legal rights and obligations. The laws of every state are different. Consulting with experienced local counsel is essential. If you are involved in litigation, I urge you to seek legal counsel.
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)