Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 108 F.4th 421

Michigan First Credit Union reimbursed its customers for losses from unauthorized electronic fund transfers resulting from a "SIM swap" scam involving T-Mobile subscribers.
Michigan First sued T-Mobile seeking indemnification or contribution for funds reimbursed to its customers, alleging T-Mobile failed to safeguard against SIM swap fraud.
Claims were raised under the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), Michigan’s Electronic Funds Transfer Act (MEFTA), and Michigan common law.
The district court dismissed Michigan First's claims, finding no entitlement to indemnification or contribution under the EFTA, MEFTA, or state law.
Michigan First appealed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Implied right to indemnification/contribution under EFTA	EFTA implies such a right for financial institutions like Michigan First	EFTA does not provide such a right	No implied right under EFTA; statute benefits consumers
Right to indemnification/contribution under MEFTA	EFTA does not preempt MEFTA; claim should proceed	EFTA preempts inconsistent state laws	EFTA expressly preempts MEFTA indemnification remedies
State common law indemnification claim	EFTA does not preempt common law claims	EFTA preempts conflicting state claims	EFTA preempts state common-law indemnification claims

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (courts must look to statute to determine if private rights/remedies exist)
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 77 (1981) (refusing to imply rights to contribution under federal statutes without Congressional intent)
Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (federal common law remedies are not implied in absence of statutory provision)
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (rejects federal general common law)
Clemmer v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 539 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2008) (EFTA designed to protect consumer rights)