A proposed class action recently transferred from California to Ohio federal court takes issue with defendant Fifth Third Bank’s alleged practice of charging unlawful fees on ATM and payment transactions.
A proposed class action recently transferred from California to Ohio federal court takes issue with defendant Fifth Third Bank’s alleged practice of charging unlawful fees on ATM and payment transactions. More specifically, the case alleges the bank applies Out-of-Network (OON) fees to in-network ATM withdrawals and sometimes assesses multiple Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fees on a single transaction.
The plaintiff says he often uses one of Fifth Third Bank’s in-network ATMs located in a 7-Eleven on Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles. According to the lawsuit, the man noticed that the bank sometimes properly codes the cash withdrawal as an in-network transaction and codes it other times as out-of-network, charging him a $2.75 fee. The case argues that this practice blatantly contradicts the terms of the bank’s contracts with its customers, which specifically state that Fifth Third will not charge customers for using in-network ATMs.
Fifth Third Bank further violates its contract terms, the suit alleges, by charging multiple non-sufficient funds fees on the same transaction. The plaintiff says the bank rejected a payment of $13.16 for an Uber ride due to insufficient funds in his account and charged him a $37 NSF fee. The following week, the same transaction was submitted for payment two more times, the case says, and Fifth Third improperly applied two additional $37 fees despite having knowledge that the same transaction was being resubmitted.