5 ms·

That decision is as exactly as legally binding as the signs on trucks disavowing liability for falling debris. Banks might be trying to pretend Zelle isn't cov

That decision is as exactly as legally binding as the signs on trucks disavowing liability for falling debris. Banks might be trying to pretend Zelle isn't covered by Regulation E, but I haven't heard any good argument for why it doesn't apply, other than arguments similar to yours that they simply don't want it to.

asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
People are welcome to challenge the banks in court. It will be no skin off my back if they win. But I guess the banks have good reason that believe that they can defend their practices successfully. If not it will be the end of Venmo, cash app, and zelle -- or at least the free transfer features of those apps.
- brigade 4y ago
  The "good reason" is that it's an extension of how banks have always treated fraudulent debits until you show knowledge of the Reg E dispute process, so it makes it outside of first-level customer support. And it won't be the end of free electronic transfers, it'll just mean acknowledging that those transfers aren't any more final than writing a check.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Banks are not arguing that Zelle isn't covered by Regulation E. Regulation E talks about liability for "unauthorized transactions". Those are transfers "from a consumer's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer". If you initiated the transfer but were misled into doing so or provided the wrong payment information or whatever, it's still an authorized transaction from Regulation E's perspective; so you are still liable for it. The only exception is if you were induced by force to initiate the transfer.
- brigade 4y ago
  Authorization isn't "I authorize my account to be debited $X", it's "I authorize my account to be debited $X by Party Y" Errors under Reg E include any instance where Party Y is not who receives the funds, including wrong payment info.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    That is not what the law says; what's your basis for it?

asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago

People are welcome to challenge the banks in court. It will be no skin off my back if they win. But I guess the banks have good reason that believe that they can defend their practices successfully. If not it will be the end of Venmo, cash app, and zelle -- or at least the free transfer features of those apps.

brigade 4y ago
The "good reason" is that it's an extension of how banks have always treated fraudulent debits until you show knowledge of the Reg E dispute process, so it makes it outside of first-level customer support. And it won't be the end of free electronic transfers, it'll just mean acknowledging that those transfers aren't any more final than writing a check.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

Banks are not arguing that Zelle isn't covered by Regulation E. Regulation E talks about liability for "unauthorized transactions". Those are transfers "from a consumer's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer". If you initiated the transfer but were misled into doing so or provided the wrong payment information or whatever, it's still an authorized transaction from Regulation E's perspective; so you are still liable for it. The only exception is if you were induced by force to initiate the transfer.

brigade 4y ago
Authorization isn't "I authorize my account to be debited $X", it's "I authorize my account to be debited $X by Party Y" Errors under Reg E include any instance where Party Y is not who receives the funds, including wrong payment info.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  That is not what the law says; what's your basis for it?