Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) FAQ

The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1666, is a federal law that establishes procedures for resolving billing disputes on credit card accounts. The statute requires credit card issuers to conduct reasonable investigations when consumers report billing errors and provides remedies when creditors fail to comply with these requirements. The FCBA applies to ‘open end’ credit plans, which includes most credit cards.

The FCBA defines several categories of billing errors at 15 U.S.C. § 1666(b). For cases involving unauthorized use or fraud, the most relevant categories include: (1) “a reflection on a statement of an extension of credit which was not made to the obligor or, if made, was not in the amount reflected on such statement,” and (3) “a reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction.” These provisions cover situations where fraudulent charges appear on your account or where a merchant charged an amount different from what you agreed to pay.

To preserve your rights under the FCBA, you must submit a written dispute within 60 days of the date on the statement containing the error. The dispute should be sent to the address designated by the creditor for billing inquiries—not to the payment address. Your notice must include your name and account number, indicate your belief that the statement contains a billing error and the amount of the error, and set forth the reasons for your belief that an error occurred. Send your dispute by certified mail with return receipt requested to document that your dispute was timely received.

In our experience representing consumers in FCBA cases, we have worked with clients who were directed by the creditor to submit disputes through online portals or to alternative addresses provided in dispute-related correspondence. In those circumstances, the failure to use the official billing dispute address has not been an obstacle to recovery. That said, when possible, using the designated billing inquiry address remains the safest approach.

Once the creditor receives a proper billing error notice, it must either make appropriate corrections or, after conducting an investigation, send a written explanation setting forth the reasons why it believes the account was correctly shown on the statement. The creditor must complete this process within two complete billing cycles, but in no event more than 90 days. During the investigation, the creditor may not take any action to collect the disputed amount. If the creditor denies your dispute, you have the right to request copies of documentary evidence the creditor relied upon in reaching its conclusion. Importantly, where you allege that goods were not delivered in accordance with the agreement, the creditor may not conclude the charge was correct unless it determines the goods were actually delivered and provides you with a statement of that determination.

The FCBA provides several remedies for creditor violations. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1640, consumers can recover actual damages sustained as a result of the violation. Additionally, for individual actions involving open-end credit not secured by real property, consumers may recover statutory damages of twice the finance charge, with a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $5,000, or such higher amount as may be appropriate in the case of an established pattern or practice of violations. Prevailing consumers are also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

Beyond these monetary remedies, the FCBA contains a significant procedural penalty: if a creditor fails to comply with the error resolution procedures—including failing to mail a written explanation of its findings—the creditor generally forfeits its right to collect the disputed amount and related finance charges.

Yes. The FCBA provides that a successful plaintiff can recover “the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court.” This fee-shifting provision is important because it allows consumers to retain experienced counsel even when their actual damages might be modest. Without this provision, many meritorious FCBA claims would be impractical to pursue.

Because of the FCBA’s fee-shifting provisions, it is common for consumer protection lawyers to represent victims of credit card billing errors on a contingent basis, receiving compensation only out of any settlement or award.

While both the FCBA and TILA § 1643 address unauthorized credit card charges, they operate through different mechanisms and have important distinctions. TILA § 1643 is focused primarily on capping cardholder liability for unauthorized use at $50, provided the card issuer has met certain disclosure requirements and the unauthorized use occurred before the cardholder notified the issuer. Under § 1643, the burden of proof falls on the card issuer to establish that the conditions for imposing liability have been met.

The FCBA, by contrast, is focused primarily on imposing specific procedural requirements on both the consumer and the creditor. The consumer must submit a written dispute within 60 days to a designated address, and the creditor must then investigate and respond within two billing cycles (maximum 90 days). This is a significant procedural distinction: TILA § 1643 allows notification by any reasonable means, including oral notice, with no specific deadline and no requirement to send notice to a particular address.

If you met the FCBA’s procedural requirements—submitting a written dispute within 60 days to the creditor’s designated billing inquiry address—you may be able to bring claims under both statutes. The FCBA focuses on the creditor’s investigation procedures, while TILA § 1643 focuses on the liability limits and burden of proof for unauthorized use. If you missed the FCBA’s 60-day window or did not follow its procedural requirements, you may still have a viable claim under TILA § 1643, which has more relaxed notification standards.

The FCBA provides for a private right of action in federal court. In many jurisdictions, federal court will be a more favorable forum for these claims than state court.

That said, many credit card accountholder agreements contain binding arbitration provisions requiring disputes to be resolved before arbitration forums such as AAA or JAMS rather than in court. Consumers should discuss forum issues with their prospective attorney to ensure that the attorney has experience in the relevant court or arbitration forum.

No. The FCBA applies only to open-end credit accounts, such as credit cards. Disputes involving unauthorized debit card transactions are governed by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., which has its own procedural requirements, liability limits, and remedies. If you experienced unauthorized transactions on a debit card or bank account, you should review your rights under the EFTA.

If you have already submitted a written dispute to your credit card company regarding unauthorized charges or other billing errors, and the creditor has denied your dispute or failed to properly investigate, you may have viable FCBA and TILA claims. Schlanger Law Group represents consumers who have attempted to resolve billing disputes through normal channels and been unsuccessful. Because the FCBA requires a written dispute within 60 days of the statement date, it is important to understand your rights and act promptly when you discover billing errors.

Schlanger Law Group has represented victims of unauthorized credit card charges and billing errors since the firm’s founding in 2007, and is one of the country’s leading law firms in FCBA and TILA § 1643 litigation. FCBA claims are one of our core practice areas. If your credit card company has failed to properly investigate your billing dispute, we can help you understand your options and pursue the remedies you deserve. Contact us to schedule a consultation.