ClassActionWallet

Settlements, Money, Finance

  • Open Class Settlements
  • Largest Settlements
  • Contact Us
  • About Us

Recent Posts

  • NoomClassSettlement.com: How to Claim up to $167
  • www.coorslightrebates.com rewards – Enter Offer Code
  • WalmartWeightedGoodsSettlement.com – Claim Form, Info, and Dates
  • www.survey.walmart.ca – Take Walmart Canada Survey – Win $1,000 Gift Card
  • www.mortgagequestions.com – PHH Mortgage Questions Login, Guide, and Review
  • www.everifactasettlement.com – Claim Form, Guide, and Settlement Dates
  • www.smartphoneperformancesettlement.com – Claim $500 Million Dollars
  • www.hardees.com/feedback survey – Provide Feedback Now
  • www.DrazenTCPASettlement.com – File Claim in $35,000,000 Settlement
  • www.amerisavetcpaclaims.com – $6.25 Million Dollar Settlement

Pages

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Contact Us
  • Largest Class Action Settlements
  • Open Class Action Rebates and Settlements
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Skip to content

ClassActionWallet

Tag: bank fees

Citibank Class Action Says Checking Account Fees Are Misleading

Citibank is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it charges more for basic checking account fees then advertised, purposely misleading California accountholders in order to maximize the bank’s fee revenue.

Plaintiff Petra Lopez filed the Citibank class action lawsuit in California federal court last month, claiming the bank routinely charges more than the $12 per month represented for basic checking accounts – a practice, she claims, punishes Citibank’s “most economically vulnerable and cash-strapped consumers.”

According to the complaint, Citibank promises accountholders that they will never pay more than $12 per month for basic checking account services, but in reality, the fees can go up as high as $46 a month. This massive price increase occurs when, on accounts like Lopez’s that have insufficient funds at a certain point in the month to pay the monthly checking account fee, Citibank assesses $34 overdraft fees on its own checking account service charges.

These overdraft fees are in essence an additional charge for the monthly checking account services in disguise, since Citibank provides no other service in exchange for the overdraft fee, other than the provision of the checking account services that were marketed at $12 a month, the deceptive checking account fees lawsuit alleges.

The Citibank class action lawsuit goes on to detail Lopez’s experience when she opened a basic checking account at a Citibank branch in California in September 2017. Lopez says she was told that the basic checking account would carry a $12 maximum monthly fee and that in some cases, the account would cost nothing. She was also provided a fee schedule that reiterated in writing what she was told.

Essentially by telling customers about the lowest potential price of a basic checking account but not similarly disclosing the maximum price, Citibank is purposely deceiving customers. Specifically, its low-income consumers are hit especially hard, since higher income accountholders have the means to maintain sufficient balance and avoid fees. Lopez accuses Citibank of exacerbating this dynamic by making low-income people pay even more for monthly checking account fees.

“Besides being deceptive, unfair and unconscionable, these practices breach contract promises made in Citibank’s contracts. These practices also exploit contractual discretion to gouge consumers like Plaintiff,” the Citibank class action lawsuit states.

Lopez contends that she would have never chosen Citibank as her checking account provider had the bank truthfully informed her that her basic checking account services could cost nearly $50 a month. She is seeking to represent a class of all Citibank checking account holders in California who were charged overdraft fees on monthly checking account service fees.

Lopez and the proposed Class are represented by Robert R. Ahdoot, Tina Wolfson, and Theodore W. Maya of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC; and Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Sophia Gold of Kaliel PLLC.

The Citibank Deceptive Checking Account Fees Class Action Lawsuit is Petra Lopez v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 2:18-at-00146, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Posted on April 3, 2018April 3, 2018 by CAWClass 0

$66.6M Bank of America Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

  • The Bank of America Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges Class Action Settlement includes “all holders of BANA consumer checking accounts who, between February 25, 2014 and December 30, 2017, were assessed at least one EOBC that was not refunded.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.  Also check out No Proof Required Class Action Lawsuits.


Settlement Amount

  • $66,600,000.00

Estimated Award

  • Varies

Current Bank of America accountholders will receive a cash payment deposited directly to their account. Former Bank of American account holders will receive a check payment. Actual settlement payouts are dependent on the number of overdraft fees incurred by Class members.

Additionally, “debt relief will be provided to Settlement Class members whose checking accounts were closed in overdrawn status with an EOBC still pending and whose overdrawn balances remain due and owing to BANA. Debt relief will be provided in the form of debt reduction, in an amount up to $35.”


Check out other settlements!

  • Robocall Lawsuit (list)
  • Sekure Merchant TCPA Lawsuit

Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • N/A

Bank of America Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges Settlement Notes

  • Joanne Farrell, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.
  • Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiffs Joanne Farrell, Ronald Dinkins, Larice Addamo, and Tia Little filed this class action lawsuit against Bank of America alleging the bank routinely and intentionally wrongfully assessed its customers so-called “Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges.” According to the plaintiffs, the gist of the Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges is as follows:

“If Customer “A” were to overdraft his or her account by $500.00, the bank first charges an overdraft fee of $35.00 per transaction. However, if Customer “A” fails to replenish his or her account to bring the balance to a positive figure within five (5) days, then the bank deducts yet another $35.00 from the account of Customer “A” for having extended this credit. Unlike an initial overdraft fee, the Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge is an additional charge to a customer for which the bank has provided nothing new. The charge is based solely on the alleged indebtedness to the bank remaining unpaid by the customer for a period of time.”

Specifically in Farrell’s case, her monthly bank statements for her “BofA Core Checking” show that she went into “overdraft” status on October 13, 2015, and remained in that status for thirteen days. On day seven, (October 20, 2015), Bank of America charged her an Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge of $35.00. During that limited period, Farrell’s negative account balance fluctuated from -$3.59 to -$284.86. The $35.00 sustained overdraft fee that Bank of America charged Farrell was in addition to six overdraft charges totaling $210.00 that Bank of America also charged her during this same time period for the two transactions that created her “overdraft” status in the first place.

Bank of America denies liability. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the Bank of America Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges settlement website.

Class action lawsuit members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the Bank of America Extended Overdrawn Balance Charges settlement must do so by April 20,  2018. Class members who wish to payment from this settlement do not need to do anything.


Important Dates

  • 4/20/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 6/18/18: Final Hearing at 11:00 am PT (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.EOBCSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: EOBC Litigation, P.O. Box 3170, Portland, OR 97208-3170
  • Phone: 1-888-396-9598

Class Counsel

  • Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei LLP
  • Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA
  • Bryan Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy PA
  • Cristina Pierson and John R. Hargrove of Kelley Uustal PC

Settlement Website

  • www.EOBCSettlement.com
Posted on March 1, 2018November 11, 2018 by CAWClass 48
Proudly powered by WordPress ~ Theme: Scrawl by WordPress.com.