Update III On August 2, 2013, the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling in Charvat. According to the Eighth Circuit:  

[W]e conclude Charvat . . . had standing to pursue his [EFTA] claims against Appellees based on the informational injury that he allegedly sustained. The district court concluded that because Charvat failed to allege some injury beyond the failure to receive an “on machine” notice, he had not suffered a cognizable injury in fact. We disagree. Decisions by this Court and the Supreme Court indicate that an informational injury alone is sufficient to confer standing, even without an additional economic or other injury.[34]

Other courts that have rejected standing arguments made by defendants in EFTA litigation include:

• Alicea v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.)[35]
• Mabary v. Hometown Bank, N.A. (S.D. Tx.)[36]
• Bell v. First Bank Richmond (S.D. Ind.)[37]
• Frey v. eGlobal ATM (N.D. Tx.)[38] 
• Zabienski v. ONB Bank & Trus (N.D. Okla.)[39] 
• Johnson v. Rustad & Associates, Inc. (D. Minn.) [40]