An important thing to note that he did not make clear in that video. He references Article 4 of the UCC. What he does not tell you is that the UCC itself is not law. It is a recommendation to the states to adopt so that states will have a uniform law on certain commercial and financial topics. Most states have adopted most articles of the UCC, including Article 4, but some have made one or more tweaks to their version of the UCC. So while he referenced the UCC in his story, he was really referring to Michigan's version of it. Moreover, each state that has adopted the UCC of course has its own case law interpreting the UCC, and those decisions too, can vary from state to state. So, while the law on this is largely uniform in most states (Louisiana in particular is one that has not adopted the UCC at all), it is not identical. There are differences. This is why knowing the state makes a difference. While the feds regulate some aspects of banking activity, much of the law relating to how customers interact with banks is state law. In short, banking is heavily regulated by both the federal government and the states. It's not just primarily federal law as one might assume.
I agree that the bank generally has a pretty limited time to recover the erroneous deposit, which I referenced in my post. But I also mentioned the possibility that the true owner of the funds might sue the OP to get their money back (assuming he/she didn't get that from the bank(s) involved). That lawsuit would not involve Article 4 of the UCC nor involve the bank. Whether that person would have a good claim to pursue who depend on who that person was, what the details were that lead to the deposit error, and of course the applicable state law. Mr. Lehto's video did not touch at all on this possibility.