PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Banks push back against lawsuits that target fee-warning signs on ATMs

| No Comments


Jarrett Dieterle
Legal Intern, Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy

When ATM users withdraw cash from an ATM that is not owned by their bank, they can often expect to be subjected to a fee that can range from $1-$5 for the transaction. Before administering the fee, an on-screen warning pops up and informs the ATM user of the impending charge if they choose to go through with the transaction. According to a rule that is a part of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, ATMs must also have an external sign attached to the outside of the ATM that warns of fees. Although such a requirement may sound innocuous, it has led to a rash of costly lawsuits:

[I]n recent years, banks say, the requirement of a physical, external notice has made them vulnerable to so-called "A.T.M. vigilantes," who use A.T.M.'s that are missing the placards and file lawsuits against the institutions. The notices are typically affixed on or near the A.T.M. with adhesive. (A Michigan couple has filed dozens of suits, which were settled for thousands of dollars, according to news reports.) The Credit Union National Association says at least 110 class-action lawsuits have been filed against credit unions over the last two years, at least 20 of which were filed in the first four months of this year.

The banking industry is fighting back by pushing legislation in Washington that would eliminate the requirement for the duplicative external fee-warning signs:

The goal is to stop nuisance lawsuits. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., said that in his home state one man visited five ATMs, threatened to sue over missing fee-disclosure signs, and settled the case for more than $100,000. 'And apparently it's been going on throughout the county,' said Luetkemeyer, who is sponsoring the House legislation. 'Everybody realizes this is a situation that's got to be fixed.'"

The bill, known as H.R. 4367, unanimously passed the House (by a vote of 371-0), and is now heading to the Senate.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.