News

BofA customer files suit over fee at unmarked ATM

February 26, 2002

A Bank of America customer, Jeremy Knapp of Seattle, on Sept. 20 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle, accusing Bank of America of breach of contract and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the national Electronic Funds Transfer Act for charging its customers a $1.50 surcharge to access their funds at unbranded, off-site ATMs.

According to the Seattle Times, Knapp's attorneys are seeking to have the lawsuit certified a class-action to include other Bank of America customers who unwittingly may have paid fees for cash withdrawals from so-called "unbranded" ATMs that are actually operated by the bank.

"The bank should not be charging its customers to access their own money," said attorney Adam Berger. "It's in violation of an agreement written by the bank itself. This is precisely the kind of thing Congress wanted stopped when it passed the (Electronic Funds Transfer Act)."

In part, that act requires financial institutions to fully disclose fees to customers who access their accounts through ATMs.

The lawsuit pinpoints a specific machine inside the Market Time Market on Fremont Avenue North in Seattle. Although the machine is unbranded, the receipt bears the familiar red and blue Bank of America logo. And a toll-free number on the machine itself rings to the bank's customer-service representatives.

"It is probable that the ATM at Market Time in Seattle is only one of many unbranded ATMs owned or operated by Bank of America in Seattle," the lawsuit says.

Berger claims that when Knapp first noticed in June he was being charged $3.25 for each transaction at the machine -- the $1.50 noted on the receipt and another $1.75 that showed up on his monthly statement -- he called the bank to complain and was given a refund for his transactions that month.

If the suit is awarded class-action status, the bank could be required to compensate any customers who paid the fees. If the court finds a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, it could triple compensation for each plaintiff.