The rise of online banking has led to a proliferation of consumer fraud.  Schemes aimed at stealing consumer funds using wire transfers executed through online banking portals have proven particularly devastating to consumers because of a perceived loophole in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) that leaves consumers with full liability for funds stolen through wire transfers.  Consumer advocacy groups, and most notably the New York Attorney General, have recently argued that this loophole does not really exist; they claim that the EFTA’s text conclusively covers certain parts of modern wire transfer processes initiated through online banking portals.  Considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence purporting to end deference to agency interpretations of statutes, determining the scope of the EFTA wire transfer exemption seems to exclusively require scrutinizing the EFTA’s text.  However, the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo described multiple scenarios where deferring to agency interpretations of statutes may still be appropriate.  Given the EFTA’s explicit delegation of authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to determine the scope of the statute’s exemptions, the CFPB’s official view that the EFTA covers non-wire transfer portions of multipart wire transfer processes should be considered binding.