Civil Rights Act
Becker v. Citigroup Inc.
Date: March 27, 2025
Issue: Whether Citi violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and California Unruh Civil Rights Act by waiving ATM fees for minorities.
Case Summary: A Florida federal court dismissed a lawsuit accusing Citi of waiving fees for customers of minority-owned banks while charging others through its “Citi ATM Community Network” (the policy).
Under the policy, Citi waived all ATM fees for customers of minority-owned banks and credit unions at its branch offices. Citi also covered any out-of-network fees these financial institutions might charge their customers for using Citi ATMs in the Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., metro areas.
Werner Becker and Dana Guida (plaintiffs) sued Citi claiming it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act by waiving ATM fees for minorities. Plaintiffs claimed they used Citi ATMs and paid out-of-network fees because they were not customers of minority-owned banks or credit unions. Plaintiffs argued Citi intentionally discriminated against them and others in similar situations for banking with institutions owned by people of the “wrong race.”
Judge Raag Singhal of the Southern District of Florida ruled that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court concluded that paying out-of-network fees to use Citi’s ATMs did not harm plaintiffs, who bank with Citi’s close competitors. The court also noted that, even if Citi had never launched its policy, plaintiffs would still have paid the same fees to use Citi’s ATMs. Further, even if Citi never launched the policy, plaintiffs would still have paid the same fees to use Citi’s ATMs.
In addition, the court criticized plaintiffs’ proposed remedy. While they wanted Citi to stop waiving fees for customers of qualifying institutions, the judge pointed out that this remedy would not change their situation. According to the court, plaintiffs would be in the same position even if the alleged discrimination had never occurred.
The court found that plaintiffs lacked standing because only financial institutions — not individual customers like plaintiffs — can join the Policy by signing a contract. Because plaintiffs cannot access the policy, their interest in using Citi ATMs did not establish standing. The court also noted that plaintiffs did not allege their banks tried — or intended — to join the program. Without such allegations, plaintiffs could not demonstrate an injury in fact.
The court also rejected plaintiffs’ request for “retrospective relief against discrimination that has already happened.” Citing Haaland v. Brackeen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that financial harm cannot support standing if the same costs would occur regardless of the challenged policy. Following that reasoning, the court emphasized that plaintiffs would still pay out-of-network fees even if Citi had never adopted the policy.
Bottom Line: As of April 1, 2025, plaintiffs have not appealed the district court’s decision.
Document: Order
