Regions Bank Region Bank's online banking routinely misreports charges to cause NSF's Internet

It still is believed by many that this is practiced by the banks solely to yield addition fees... US Banks collected $12 billion in overdraft fees in 2007. US Banks are projected to collect over $38.5 billion in overdraft fees for 2009; nearly double compared to 2000 to be exact. I can't argue with the advice that being careful with your account balance and keeping an accurate register can prevent these fees..but there are many reasons someone may overdraft... Intentional short-term loan ATM overdraft Temporary Deposit Hold Unexpected electronic withdrawals Merchant error Chargeback to merchant Authorization holds Bank fees "Playing the Float" Returned check deposit Bank Error Victimization Intraday overdraft It is within reason to expect that keeping an accurate register may not always prevent an overdraft, and it is reasonable to expect consumers to make errors in their accounting..especially some living paycheck to paycheck and have no savings account or credit to depend on if funds fall short..or an emergency arises so they don't have a linked account, hence an overdraft fee is nothing more then a short term loan at extreme interest rates.

Now the reason a fee is applied when you overdraft is because whether you signed for it of not..you have overdraft protection..which is in essence a short term loan the bank gives you as a "courtesy" if you will. You can "opt out" or decline overdraft protection as well..which is what I did. This way if I have any circumstance where my funds will not cover a transaction at a POS or ATM, the transaction is declined..that to me is the best form of overdraft protection. All this aside..is it in the banks best interest if you overdraft??? Especially if they can manipulate and re sequence transactions as they see fit to cause additional fees? You tell me. So of course the bank convinced you to online bank..and now you are told it is not accurate so do not rely on it...thanks. The banks are aware that many consumers are against this practice..it has been fought before..and we lost..but we can't give up... "H.R. 946, introduced in the US House of Representatives on February 8, 2007, would increase regulation of overdraft loan programs. The proposed legislation would Amend the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) to clarify that overdraft fees are covered, require written consent before enrollment in the overdraft loan program, require financial institutions to warn the customer when an ATM withdrawal will trigger a fee, and prohibit financial institutions from changing the order of check clearing or delaying the posting of deposits solely to increase overdraft fees. This bill was referred to committee in April 2007 and died in committee. As of February 2009, the FDIC was taking comments on the issue". As well you can google "Finkelstein Thompson LLP" to find contact info there to help with an "investigation" if you wish to... Finkelstein Thompson LLP is currently investigating claims that several banking institutions are systematically re-sequencing their customer's checking and electronic debit transactions from the highest to lowest dollar amount instead of posting the transactions in the order in which they were actually received.  It is alleged that the practice of re-sequencing electronic debits from largest to smallest maximizes the bank's profits from overdraft fees by putting the customers' accounts into a negative balance as quickly as possible.  Many customers claim they had sufficient funds in their accounts to cover the transactions when they made the purchase and when the bank authorized the charges. It is alleged that some banks, are in violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) for their failure to disclose that the condition precedent of a pre-existing overdraft could cause the assessment of additional overdraft fees.  Instead, the banks have been lying to consumers that the condition precedent was insufficient funds. [The true reason why you were assessed the additional overdraft fees that you did NOT cause is because you actually had a pre-existing overdraft in your account that the bank used to manipulate your account to create additional overdraft fees by a creative accounting practice]. [The bank then falsely accused you of being at fault for the additional overdrafts you didnt cause by lying to you about having insufficient funds in your account.  In fact, without the pre-existing overdraft(s) in your account (condition precedent), it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the banks creative accounting practice to have assessed additional overdraft fees against you that you did not create]. [That is why the bank engages in tactics to make you overdraft your account. For example, the bank will not immediately post your correct available balance or the bank will drop a hold on your account to only apply it later to make you believe you have more available funds in your account then you do. The bank will also split two pre-existing overdrafts created on the same date so it can create additional overdraft fees on two different posting dates instead of one].

Not only is the practice legal, it is universal throughout the banking industry.  In the most recent court cases, the court has decertified class action lawsuits against the banks for this practice because the account holders failed to keep a check register. 

See, you would never need to check your online banking for your balance if you keep a check register.  The truth is, if you kept a check register - you would probably never overdraw your account unless you chose to.  There are Federal agencies to contact, but none of them are going to waste time with a process they have no jurisdiction over and no ability to effect change.

All banks are the same.  The only difference is the name in front of the building.

Then you're not being as careful as you think. Online banking was never intended to be a substitute for keeping a ledger or check register. It is simply not accurate enough to be used in that manner.