A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action was filed with the federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the bank is based, and requires a judge's approval. Customers said Bank of America often charged multiple USD 35 fees for insufficient funds or overdrafts on a single transaction, sometimes reflecting the bank's repeated attempts to process it at a merchant's request.
One woman said the bank charged her USD 105 after rejecting her USD 20 credit card payment and then attempting without her knowledge to ‘retry’ processing the same payment five and nine days after the initial rejection, resulting in three USD 35 fees. The plaintiffs' lawyers said that as part of the settlement, Bank of America will stop imposing multiple fees on ‘retry’ payments for at least five years, saving customers an estimated USD 5.3 million a month and USD 318 million overall. Bank of America denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. A spokesman declined to comment. The plaintiffs' lawyers intend to seek up to USD 25 million from the settlement fund in attorney's fees. Repeated overdrafts can result in account closures and leave some lower-income customers without access to banking services.
Banks have faced many lawsuits over the years claiming they sought to illegally maximize overdraft fees. US-based banks took in USD 11.68 billion of overdraft fees in 2019, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, even before the COVID-19 pandemic left millions in financial distress. Just 9% of account holders paid 84% of the fees, the nonprofit said.
Every day we send out a free e-mail with the most important headlines of the last 24 hours.
Subscribe now
We welcome comments that add value to the discussion. We attempt to block comments that use offensive language or appear to be spam, and our editors frequently review the comments to ensure they are appropriate. If you see a comment that you believe is inappropriate to the discussion, you can bring it to our attention by using the report abuse links. As the comments are written and submitted by visitors of the The Paypers website, they in no way represent the opinion of The Paypers.