shall not be hable to the customer under any law or regulation of the United States or any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision thereof, for such disclosure or for any failure to notify the customer of such disclosure. 12 U.S.C. § 3403(c). Plaintiffs do not dispute that the alleged disclosures by Defendant Oxford Bank, which serve as the basis for the fraud claim, were made pursuant to § 3403(c). Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that § 3403(c) does not protect Defendant Oxford Bank, relying on Lopez v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Florida, 129 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir.1997). However, § 3403(c) on its face applies in the instant case such that Defendant Oxford Bank is immune from suit. See Waye v. Commonwealth Bank, 846 F.Supp. 321, 324 (W.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Lopez is clearly
holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action holding that  3403 barred plaintiffs negligence and bad faith claims against bank for reporting to federal authorities that plaintiffs were involved in a check kiting scheme which they claim was untrue bank had no fiduciary duty to refrain from reporting suspected illegal activity on the part of their customers holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank