Can you elaborate on what critera does (and doesn't) make for a good case?
Say someone reading this thread had a card shut down, what would make it worthwhile (what red flags should they look for) to send it to you?
The "nice" characteristic of these types of closures is that the violation is often times the same. I'm guessing that anyone with a Discover card closed due to piggybacking received the same letter that I think is noncompliant and actionable. In the case of the discover closures I've seen so far, they've all had this same language about "we can no longer meet your servicing needs."
As I said above, banks can typically close your card at any time and for pretty much any reason. But,
they have to provide the specific reason for the closure. The point of this legal requirement is to allow someone with credit to understand their credit -- the requirement is educational in nature.
So from that rule we can work out the characteristics of a non-compliant letter. Any one of these things is typically going to mean you have a claim:
1. There is no reason given for the closure. I've seen this from Citibank, Fidelity, Bank of the West, and US Bank (to name a few).
2. There's a reason given but it isn't specific. This is where you get the vague closure. Closed due to "risk," for example. Or, with Discover "we can no longer meet your servicing needs." Huh? Is Discover getting out of the credit card game? What does that mean? This gets to the educational aspect of the law. Has the bank informed you about what's going on? If the answer is "no," then you probably have a claim.
3. There's a specific reason give but it isn't true. For example, I have a case going right now. The client got a call from his bank asking about his activity. The client explained what he was doing and offered to adjust his behavior if the bank didn't like it, and the bank (a high level compliance representative) said "no, you're fine." Three weeks later, his accounts were closed due to "unacceptable activity" on the account. My argument is that this is not a truthful reason because a compliance rep explicitly said the conduct was acceptable.
Once again, I'll note that none of this is legal advice. Don't go to small claims court and say you're entitled to $10,000 because some lawyer on MMM forum said you are. There's always nuance and detail. But if anyone has more questions or wants some clarification, please feel free to shoot me a message.