Banking Blog

Finance Blogs » Banking Blog » House kills ATM fee disclosure

House kills ATM fee disclosure

By Marcie Geffner ·
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Posted: 11 am ET

Forget the "fiscal cliff."

While U.S. businesses and taxpayers wait  for a resolution to the nation's looming double whammy of federal government spending cuts and higher individual tax rates, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that would eliminate certain fee disclosure requirements on ATMs. It now goes to the Senate.

Federal law currently requires banks, credit unions and other ATM operators to give consumers two notices that a fee might or will be charged if they use an ATM. The first notice must be on the machine, the second on the screen or a paper printout.

The bill, H.R. 4367, would end the on-machine notice requirement. The on-screen or on-paper notice, which typically appears only after the consumer has initiated an interaction, would still be required.

Banks have rallied against the on-machine notice requirement, claiming that vandals have intentionally removed, destroyed or damaged the notices and then photographed the machines to demonstrate supposed noncompliance, thereby opening the door to consumer class-action lawsuits. Plaintiffs can recover $500,000, or 1 percent of the ATM operator's net worth, whichever is less.

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., one of the bill's sponsors, described the bill as a "common sense fix that cracks down on the nuisance lawsuits that have been plaguing financial institutions."

Industry representatives also applauded passage of the bill.

James Ballentine, executive vice president of congressional relations at the American Bankers Association in Washington, D.C., said in a statement that the legislation will give consumers full disclosure and protect financial institutions from frivolous lawsuits.

"The dual-disclosure requirement made some sense when it was enacted in the 1990s. However today, ATMs have become common, and consumers are more aware that fees may be charged," Ballentine said.

Dan Berger, executive vice president of government affairs for the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, also in Washington, D.C., said the legislation was "a win for everyone."

Consumers typically can avoid ATM fees by using only their own bank's ATMs or being a customer of a bank that reimburses other bank's ATM fees.

Do you worry about ATM fees? Have yours risen in the past year?

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.
1 Comment
December 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm

The banks get away with this BS removal of one notice -- claiming nonsense lawsuits -- and next year Congress will let them get away with no disclosures. Every year, industry lobbyists of some kind or another erode away consumer protections that ordinary citizens fought long years to achieve only to watch their so-called "representatives" sell them down the river for campaign contributions (America's legal form of BRIBERY) I am so sick of our elected officials being on the money when it comes to giving the banks and big business whatever they want, but then can't actually get around to doing the job they were elected to do. And the nonsense lawsuits - please, Federal Court judges are not idiots. They may be corrupt but they're not stupid. Nonsense suits get thrown out of court on day one.