Banking Blog

Finance Blogs » Banking Blog » ATM fee notice under attack

ATM fee notice under attack

By Marcie Geffner ·
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Posted: 11 am ET

Class-action lawsuits alleging violations of ATM fee disclosure notices aren't new.

But now, the Credit Union National Association, or CUNA, is urging the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, to suspend one of the notice requirements to stop the lawsuits.

At issue is the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires ATM operators, such as banks and credit unions, to provide two notices a fee might or will be charged to use the machine. One notice must be on the machine. The second notice must be on the screen or a paper printout.

Failure to provide the notices creates an opportunity for a consumer class-action lawsuit.

In a letter to the CFPB, CUNA CEO Bill Cheney said called the notices "duplicative." He also said on-machine notices in some cases are being intentionally removed, destroyed or damaged without the operator's knowledge and  pictures are then being taken to document the alleged noncompliance.

"If the litigants were concerned about compliance," Cheney wrote, "they should first bring the issue to the institution's attention to correct it or to the attention of the regulator. That is not happening, and ATM 'chasers' are going straight to court."

Class-action lawsuits over nominal fees tend to benefit attorneys more than consumers when the awards are distributed. Still, these lawsuits can serve as an incentive to companies to get serious about regulatory compliance.

The pitfall for consumers is that on-screen or paper printout notices typically appears only after some sort of interaction with the ATM has been initiated. It's a reasonable assumption a consumer who has already begun a transaction might be less inclined to walk away and avoid the fee.

Rather than attack the requirement, ATM operators should place and affix the on-machine notice in a way that deters malicious vandalism and take their own pictures to demonstrate good-faith compliance.

Follow me on Twitter: @marciegeff

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
Lefty Gomez
February 07, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Again the US Government is creating rules that are ridiculous for law abiding business owners to comply with. If I were a scum lawyer I would just tear off the fee the notices and file the suit - why wouldn't I?

January 19, 2012 at 11:39 am

The statute requires 2 notices. If the ATM doesn't contain both notices, the ATM is not allowed to charge transaction fees.

Some ATM operators are not following the rules, but are still charging fees.

Hopefully, hitting an ATM operator with lawsuits will provide incentive for them to either obey the law or stop charging fees.

January 06, 2012 at 12:53 pm

I agree this is duplicative, and because the stickers get damaged, this leads to lawsuits, that really makes for serial lawsuits.