Tag: Uber

Claim $20 Per Overdraft Bank of America Uber Ride Overdraft Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

You are included in the Bank of America Uber Ride Overdraft Settlement “if you hold or held a consumer deposit (bank) account with Bank of America, and were charged (and not refunded) overdraft fees on debit card transactions made with Uber between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016 that were coded (or classified) by Uber and/or Uber’s agents as recurring transactions.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.

Settlement Amount

  • $22,000,000.00

Estimated Award

  • $20 Per Overdraft Fee

Your share of the Settlement Amount will depend on, among other things, the number of overdraft fees you paid. It is estimated that each Class Member will receive approximately $20 for each overdraft fee you were charged (and not refunded) as a result of a transaction involving Uber.

Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • There is no claim form. Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the Settlement will automatically receive payment via direct deposit into your Bank of America account or via check.

Bank of America Uber Ride Overdraft Settlement Notes

  • Pantelyat, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.
  • Case No. 1:16-cv-08964-AJN
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs Nicoletta Pantelyat, Michael Edwards, and Isabelle Scherer collectively brought this class action lawsuit against Bank of America alleging the bank unfairly imposed overdraft fees for “non-recurring” debit card transactions made with Uber.

In Pantelyat’s case, she claims that on March 4, 2016 with a balance of $3.44 in her Bank of America Core Checking account, she used her BofA debit card to purchase a ride with Uber across town for $10. Later that same day, with a balance of -$6.56 in her account, she used her BofA debit card to purchase a second ride with Uber across town for $7.67. Pantelyat claims that her Uber transactions on March 4, 2016 constituted “non-recurring debit card transaction” because Uber purchases are made on a one-time, day-to-day, and were not set up by Pantelyat to occur automatically at a set interval. Since these Uber transactions on non-recurring, they cannot incur an overdraft fee under Bank of America’s accountholder terms.

Still, Bank of America treated Pantelyat’s Uber transactions as recurring and charged her two separate $35.00 overdraft fees.

Bank of America disagrees with the claims but entered into the settlement to avoid further litigation. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the Bank of America Uber Ride Overdraft class action settlement website.

Class members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the settlement must do so by March 13, 2018. Class members who wish to participate in the settlement do not need to do anything.

Important Dates

  • 6/22/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 8/8/18: Final Hearing at 11:00 am ET* (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.RideOverdraftSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.

Contact Information

  • Mail: Pantelyat v. BOA Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3127, Portland, OR 97208-3127
  • Phone: 1-844-659-0617
  • Email: info@RideOverdraftSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Settlement Website

Posted on by CAWClass 1

Class Action: TD Bank Charges Improper Overdraft Fees for Uber, Lyft Rides

TD Bank is being taken to task by its customers who say they were improperly charged overdraft fees when they used their debit cards for Uber and Lyft rides.

Plaintiff Britney Lawrence filed the TD Bank overdraft fees class action lawsuit in New Jersey federal court Tuesday, claiming the bank violated its contract when it charged her two overdraft fees on non-recurring debit card transactions.

Specifically, Lawrence says that on March 14, 2016, she made a one-time payment with her TD Bank debit card to Uber in the amount of $7.53 for an Uber ride, and again the same day for $8.21 for another Uber ride.

Instead of declining the two transactions, TD Bank approved the transactions and Uber processed the payments, putting her account into overdraft. Then, on March 15, 2016, TD Bank charged Lawrence two $35 overdraft fees for the one-time debit card transactions with Uber and seized the $70 from the next deposit made to her account, even though such fees are only authorized under the TD Bank Agreements for “recurring” debit card transactions.

According to the complaint, debit card transactions can either be “one-time” or “recurring”. One-time transactions are unique transaction not scheduled to regularly reoccur, while recurring transactions are often automatically charged on a prearranged schedule. Examples of recurring transactions include gym memberships, cable bills, cell phone bills, utility bills, monthly magazine subscriptions, streaming content service memberships like Netflix, and insurance premiums.

But Lyft and Uber are considered one-time ride-shares and are not subscription services wherein customers pay a monthly fee, the lawsuit states. Yet, TD Bank “repeatedly charges overdraft fees for these one-time debit card transactions” even though the bank promises in its Personal Deposit Account Agreement (PDAA) that non-recurring debit card transactions that will lower a customer’s balance below zero will not be approved and overdraft fees will not be charged.

“When TD Bank customers use their debit card to pay for rides with Uber or Lyft – rides that are by their very nature one-time transactions and non-recurring – TD Bank approves the transaction regardless of the customer’s opt-in status.”

Lawrence is seeking to recoup the overdraft fees assessed by TD Bank, as well as damages and other relief arising from TD Bank’s alleged routine practice of charging standard overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions with Uber and/or Lyft, in violation of its contract with accountholders.

She also proposes to represent a nationwide class of all TD Bank accountholders who incurred one or more overdraft fees on Uber or Lyft transactions while not enrolled in TD Debit Card Advance, as well as a Connecticut subclass.

Lawrence and the proposed classes are represented by several law firms including McCune Wright Arevalo LLP; Webb Klase & Lemond LLC; Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert; Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Kaliel PLLC; The Kick Law Firm; Law Offices of Francis J. Flynn Jr.; Sullivan Law & Associates; and Consumer Protection Legal LLC.

The TD Bank Uber/Lyft Overdraft Fees Class Action Lawsuit is Britney Lawrence, et al. v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-12583-NLH-AMD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Posted on by CAWClass 0

Uber Data Breach Prompts Filing of Two Class Action Lawsuits in California

Uber is once again under fire legally. This time, the ride sharing giant is facing at least two proposed class action lawsuits alleging it was negligent in failing to protect consumer data in the now infamous Uber data breach.

Plaintiffs in California filed two separate class action lawsuits against Uber claiming they were harmed by having their personally identifiable information compromised. The plaintiffs also allege that they were not notified about the Uber data breach in a timely manner.

One of the cases, filed Nov. 21 in Los Angeles federal court by plaintiff Alejandro Flores, brings counts of negligence and deceptive practices in California federal court, and is seeking to represent a class of riders and drivers affected by the Uber data breach.

“Uber failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach,” Flores’ complaint states.

Another Uber data breach class action lawsuit, filed in San Francisco federal court by plaintiffs Danyelle Townsend and Ken Tew allege the company should have had “administrative, physical, and technical safeguards, such as intrusion detection processes that detect data breaches in a timely manner, to protect and secure Plaintiffs’ and Nationwide Class members’ [personally identifiable information].”

“Major corporations like Uber face a higher threat of security breaches than smaller companies due in part to the large amounts of data they possess,” the lawsuit contends. “Uber knew or should have known its security systems were inadequate, particularly in light of the prior data breaches that Uber had experienced, and yet Uber failed to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the PII of Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class.”

The news about the 2016 Uber data breach broke earlier this month and details have emerged that Uber waited over a year to disclose the breach to the public. According to Uber, hackers accessed names, email addresses, and phone numbers of 57 million riders and nearly 600,000 Uber drivers’ license numbers were reportedly compromised.

Adding fuel to the fire, Uber announced last week they opted to pay a $100,000 ransom to the hackers to have the stolen data deleted and to withhold details of the Uber data breach from its drivers and riders, prompting five attorneys general to launch investigations into Uber’s actions in handling the data breach.

“We have serious concerns about the reported conduct,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in a statement.

In fact, the majority of states have notification laws in place requiring companies like Uber to disclose a data breach incident to consumers, specifically when sensitive customer information is compromised.

Earlier this month, Uber was hit with a class action lawsuit over allegations its background check practices are inadequate and leave women riders vulnerable to sexual assault. The company is also facing an employee discrimination class action lawsuit brought by its female software engineers who say Uber failed to promote them because of their gender.

Flores is represented by Bobby Saadian and Colin M. Jones of Wilshire Law Firm.

Townsend and Tew are represented by Matthew J. Preusch, Christopher L. Springer, and Lynn Lincoln Sarko of Keller Rohrback LLP.

The Uber Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits are Alejandro Flores v. Rasier, Case No. 2:17-cv-08503-FMO-GJS in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and Danyelle Townsend and Ken Tew et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06756 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

Posted on by CAWClass 0

Uber Class Action Lawsuit Alleges “Inadequate” Driver Background Checks Led to Rape

Uber is facing another proposed class action lawsuit brought by two women who were allegedly assault by their drivers in Miami and Los Angeles, saying the company puts profits over the safety of their riders by not properly vetting its drivers.

In the class action complaint filed Tuesday, the two unnamed plaintiffs claim the ride share company engaged in unlawful and “fraudulent” practices that led them to believe their Uber drivers would safely transport them to their destinations, but instead they were allegedly assaulted. According to the women, Uber fails to conduct proper background checks on their drivers, allowing for a “system” in which “bad actors can gain access to vulnerable victims.”

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 ordered an Uber to ride home with a friend from a restaurant on October 17, 2016. The plaintiff was intoxicated and barely conscious when she was transported to her home in South Miami. A series of events occurred which led the plaintiff to believe she had been raped and reported it to the police. The Uber driver, who had previous felony charge, was subsequently arrested and admitted to raping Doe. The case is pending in Miami-Dade Count, the complaint says.

The California case alleges that Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 was picked up alone after ordering an Uber ride and fell asleep in the backseat of the car. She claims she woke up during the alleged assault. Both plaintiffs say they reported the incidences to Uber but that company failed to “take appropriate action”. The lawsuit states that the $69 billion ride share giant likens itself as a designated driver for riders who may have one too many drinks, when it actuality it fails to screen drivers and puts their safety at risk.

“Uber has done everything possible to continue using low-cost, woefully inadequate background checks on drivers and has failed to monitor drivers for any violent or inappropriate conduct after they are hired. Nothing meaningful has been done to make rides safer for passengers — especially women. This is no longer an issue of “rogue” drivers who act unlawfully,” the complaint reads.

Specifically, the women claim Uber only screen drivers going back 7 years and that it uses a credit-reporting system, not a fingerprint background check. They are requesting an injunction against Uber that would mandate the company to implement stricter background checks, including fingerprint background checks on its drivers. In addition, the complaint seeks to prohibit registered sex offenders or those convicted of assault or rape from driving for Uber.

However, Uber has held the position that since it’s a “technology platform” and its drivers are independent contractors, they are not subject to the same legal requirements as an employee would be, including inclusive background checks. The proposed class action lawsuit is calling upon the company to “make drastic changes” to protect its female riders from sexual harassment and rape.

Uber is no stranger to legal battles concerning sexual harassment. The accusations brought in this latest class action lawsuit are similar to those in a 2014 case pending in India, where a woman claims not only was she raped by an Uber driver but that Uber executives attempted to discredit her by illegally obtaining her medical records. And, just last month, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company by female software engineers alleging they were discriminated against because of their gender. The Uber Employee Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit says the ride sharing company compensates and fails to promote its female employees less than their male counterparts.

The plaintiffs are represented by Anderson & Poole P.C. in San Francisco and Widgor Law LLP in New York.

The Uber Sexual Assault Class Action Lawsuit is Doe 1 et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06571 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Posted on by CAWClass 0