District Court dismisses bank from class action on out-of-network ATM fees

Courts Class Action State Issues Fees Consumer Finance ATM California

On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment and denied class certification in an action concerning out-of-network fees charged on purportedly invalid balance inquiries performed at out-of-network (OON) ATM machines. The defendant is a member of two cardholder networks, which permit account holders to access and use OON ATMs. In 2019, plaintiff account holders filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant violated several California state consumer protection laws and breached its deposit account agreements by systematically charging excessive fees. Plaintiffs further alleged the defendant assessed multiple fees if a consumer made a balance inquiry at the same time as a cash withdrawal. The defendant argued in its motion for summary judgment that the deposit agreement was unambiguous and that its assessment of the OON fees for balance inquiries is permitted under the agreement’s express terms. In agreeing with the defendant that no ambiguity existed in the language in the agreement regarding such fees, the court, among other things, also held that language in the agreement providing the defendant and ATM operators discretion to charge or waive fees for use of OON ATMs did not imply that the defendant relied on that contract term in bad faith. The court found that nothing about the use of the word “may” in the phrase “[w]e may also charge you a fee,” necessitates “the conclusion that the bank ‘abuses its power and takes advantage of contractual uncertainty by charging OON Fees when it knows, or should know, of the [alleged] systematic deception occurring at [OON] ATMs resulting in invalid balance inquiries.’”

In its motion, the defendant bank also maintained that the claims against it fail because the plaintiffs failed to follow express reporting and pre-dispute notification procedures outlined in their agreements, which require account holders to review their statements and notify the bank within 60 days of any problems or unauthorized transactions. The court declined to find that the pre-dispute procedures provided an alternative basis for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that it was not clear that plaintiffs’ obligation to provide defendant with notice of unauthorized transactions covered disputed OON ATM fees. The court explained that such fees may not be apparent on the plaintiffs’ billing statements and that “the notice provisions seem to relate to major issues such as fraud and unauthorized or stolen checks” rather than problematic fees.