In Hemmings v. Camping Time RV Centers, LLC, 2017 WL 4552896, at *8 (N.D.Ga., 2017), Judge Thrash dismissed independent Holder Rule claims against the holder of an RISC for an RV because the FTC Holder Rule only subjects the holder to claims that can brought against the seller.

Next, Bank of America argues that the Plaintiff’s FTC Holder Rule claim should be dismissed because it “has all defenses available to Camping World.”  The Plaintiff responds that “he agrees” that his claims against Bank of America under the Holder Rule are “derivative claims.”   The FTC Holder Rule requires that any consumer credit contract for the sale or lease of goods or services contain the following language: “Any holder of this consumer credit contract is subject to all claims and defenses which the debtor could assert against the seller of goods or services obtained pursuant hereto or with the proceeds hereof. Recovery hereunder by the debtor shall not exceed amounts paid by the debtor hereunder.”  However, no private right of action exists under the Holder Rule.92 Instead, it allows a debtor to assert any claim or defense against a holder of a consumer credit contract that it could assert against the seller.  Thus, the Plaintiff cannot assert an independent cause of action under the Holder Rule against Bank of America. The Holder Rule only allows the Plaintiff to assert claims that he has against Camping Time as derivative claims against Bank of America, since Bank of America is the “holder” of the consumer credit contract. The Plaintiff agrees that “his claims against Bank of America are derivative claims.” Therefore, the Plaintiff’s independent claims under the FTC Holder Rule are dismissed.