⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fourth Circuit hears Chantilly Auto Body's appeal over unauthorized withdrawals from its account at Truist Bank. An impostor provided the repair business's account details to Paystand, a payment platform, triggering transfers from Chantilly's account into Paystand's account at a different bank. Chantilly sought reimbursement under Article Four A of Virginia's Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates certain electronic funds transfers. The district court granted Truist summary judgment, holding that these were debit transfers outside that statute's coverage. Summary judgment resolves a claim without a trial when no material facts are genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to win. The appeal turns on who legally initiated the payment: the impersonated customer, or the platform asking its own bank to pull the money. Chantilly will contend that an instruction sent through a payment platform can still qualify for the law's protections. Truist will argue that the platform initiated debit transfers, and that permission to withdraw money is different from instructing a bank to pay.

Chantilly Auto Body, Inc. v. Truist Bank (No. 25-1380) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.