ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Home Uncategorized

BofA agrees to pay $150M to resolve CFPB, OCC allegations over NSF fees, credit cards

August 1, 2023
Reading Time: 3 mins read
FDIC: ‘Authorize positive, settle negative’ overdraft fees present risks of unfairness 

Payments
In Re: Bank of America N.A.
Date: July 11, 2023

Issue: Bank of America’s (BofA) consent orders with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees and credit card practices.

Case Summary: BofA agreed to pay $150 million in civil penalties to CFPB and OCC to resolve allegations related to its credit card rewards, overdraft policies, and sales practices.

CFPB and OCC alleged until 2021 and 2022, respectively, BofA charged consumers $35 NSF Fees each time the bank returned as unpaid a re-presented Automated Clearing House (ACH) transaction or check, despite already charging these consumers an NSF fee on the initial returned transaction. Additionally, from September 2018 to February 2022, CFPB and OCC alleged BofA generated hundreds of millions of dollars from its practice of charging multiple NSF fees on re-represented checks or ACH transactions.

CFPB found BofA’s charging of re-presentment NSF fees was an unfair act or practice in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. CFPB claimed this practice caused substantial injury that consumers could not reasonably avoid. According to CFPB, consumers did not know when merchants would re-present transactions, nor could they generally stop payments or revoke authorizations on transactions easily in time. CFPB also found the substantial injury was not outweighed by any benefits to consumer or competition.

In addition, OCC noted BofA’s practice of charging either an NSF fee or an overdraft fee on re-presented transactions was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. OCC alleged BofA engaged in a deceptive practice because its disclosures contained materially misleading representations and omissions on re-presentment fees. Specifically, OCC asserted the disclosures did not inform customers they may be charged additional fees when a merchant resubmitted a transaction for payment. Instead, OCC alleged the bank’s disclosures explained consumers could be assessed an overdraft or insufficient funds fee of “$35 [for] each item.” According to OCC, the disclosures defined an “item” in a way that could have led a reasonable customer to think an “item” and a “transaction” were the same thing.

Under the consent orders, BofA agreed to provide consumers at least $80.4 million in total redress. BofA must also pay a $60 million civil money penalty to CFPB and a $60 million civil money penalty to OCC. The regulators also noted BofA already waived, refunded, or agreed to refund tens of millions of dollars to customers to whom it charged multiple re-presentment fees.

On credit card practices, CFPB found the bank engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA in connection with promotions of rewards credit cards. For rewards credit cards, CFPB found that BofA’s marketing did not make clear that specific advertised bonuses were only limited to customers who applied for a rewards card online. According to CFPB, BofA did not provide the advertised bonuses to customers.

For credit card opening practices, CFPB also determined BofA unlawfully opened a small percentage of the bank’s new credit card accounts for consumers without their permission, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. CFPB claimed this caused negative impacts to consumers’ credit reports, unjustified fees, and other harms. CFPB also claimed BofA employees opened these accounts to reach sales goals affecting their pay and performance evaluations. In addition, CFPB alleged BofA obtained consumer reports in connection with these applications in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The consent order requires BofA to pay a $30 million civil money penalty to CFPB and provide consumer redress, such as adjustments to rewards accounts.

Under the settlements, BofA agreed to provide consumers at least $80.4 million in total redress. BofA must also pay a $60 million civil money penalty to CFPB and a $60 million civil money penalty to OCC. The regulators also noted BofA already waived, refunded or agreed to refund tens of millions of dollars to customers to whom it charged multiple re-presentment fees.

Bottom Line: BofA did not admit any wrongdoing in agreeing to the consent orders.

Documents:
CFPB Consent Order on Credit Cards

CFPB Consent Order on NSF Fees
OCC Consent Order

Tags: Banking Docket
ShareTweetPin

Related Posts

ABA files coalition amicus brief supporting Huntington National Bank over scope of guaranty agreements

Ohio Supreme Court clarifies no duty to disclose ‘increased risk’ to sureties

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

Supreme Court of Ohio reversed an Ohio appellate court decision that ruled a creditor has no duty to disclose facts that materially increase a surety’s risk.

Florida federal court holds False Claims Act qui tam provision is unconstitutional

ABA files amicus brief urging N.J. Supreme Court to uphold dismissal of False Claims Act lawsuit

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

ABA filed a coalition amicus brief urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling that barred Edelweiss, a private investment fund, from bringing a qui tam suit based on publicly disclosed information.

ABA, trade groups file amicus brief supporting Bank of America in National Bank Act preemption lawsuit

North Carolina federal court trims Zelle fraud class action against BofA

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

A North Carolina federal court partially sustained Bank of America’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation allowing a proposed class action over alleged Zelle fraud to proceed, determining the lawsuit fails to plausibly plead claims under any state...

Fourth Circuit affirms denial of COVID loan relief for six-time modified loan  

Fourth Circuit affirms denial of COVID loan relief for six-time modified loan  

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that the SBA properly concluded PACEM’s $5 million loan was ineligible for COVID-19 debt relief under the CARES Act.

CFPB Sues Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo over alleged fraud on Zelle network

N.Y. attorney general sues Early Warning Services over Zelle fraud allegations

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

CFPB previously sued Early Warning Services LLC over Zelle fraud allegations, but the new administration dropped the lawsuit. NYAG now similarly sues EWS over its Zelle protocols. 

Second Circuit affirms class certification in VRDO lawsuit

Second Circuit affirms class certification in VRDO lawsuit

Uncategorized
September 2, 2025

In a unanimous decision, a Second Circuit panel upheld a Southern District of New York order granting class certification to American cities and others accusing eight banks of inflating interest rates on VRDOs.

NEWSBYTES

ABA-backed bill to ban abusive trigger leads signed into law

September 5, 2025

FinCEN, banking agencies issue guidance on cross-border information sharing

September 5, 2025

ABA DataBank: Trade policy weighs on shipping rates

September 5, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

The Connectivity Dividend

The Connectivity Dividend

September 1, 2025

Building Trust with Every Transaction

September 1, 2025
10 Essentials of a New Loan Origination System

10 Essentials of a New Loan Origination System

August 29, 2025
Planning Your 2026 Budget? Allocate Resources to Support Growth and Retention Goals

Planning Your 2026 Budget? Allocate Resources to Support Growth and Retention Goals

August 1, 2025

PODCASTS

Demographic trends shaping the U.S. banking outlook

July 30, 2025

Podcast: How institutional banking helps build one regional bank’s strategy

July 24, 2025

The future of careers in risk and compliance

July 17, 2025

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.