Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #175646

Complaint Review: Bank Of America - Nationwide

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: new jersey New Jersey
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Bank Of America Nationwide U.S.A.

Bank Of America ATM RIPOFF Nationwide

*Consumer Suggestion: Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

*Consumer Suggestion: Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

*Consumer Suggestion: Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

*Consumer Comment: Dave, try this

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: don't deny it....rejection fees have arrived...

*Author of original report: whitepaper info on unfair surcharge spreads

*Author of original report: sean close that account

*Author of original report: follow up-explaination

*Consumer Comment: So what you are saying Dave.....

*Consumer Comment: I lucked out myself.

*Author of original report: Bank of America ATM FEE Rip-Off

*Consumer Comment: This is just ridiculous

*Consumer Suggestion: Dave, READ your account agreement! It is CLEARLY spelled out.

*Consumer Comment: BofA

*Consumer Suggestion: I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

*Consumer Suggestion: I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

*Consumer Suggestion: I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

*Consumer Suggestion: I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

*Consumer Suggestion: Bank of America Scam

*Consumer Comment: You just shot yourself in the foot.....

*Consumer Suggestion: Read your deposit agreement

*Consumer Comment: Dave, I have good news for you...

*Author of original report: bank of america atm policy

*Author of original report: BANK OF AMERICA SCAM

*Consumer Suggestion: ANOTHER BANK OF AMERICA SCAM

*Consumer Comment: Dave, you just refuse to listen. One suggestion in here may help others though.

*Consumer Comment: STILL, BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS

*Consumer Suggestion: MORE SCAMS FROM BANK OF AMERICA

*Consumer Comment: You're right Dave

*Consumer Comment: Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

*Consumer Comment: Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

*Consumer Comment: Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

*Consumer Comment: Dave, They are NOT all the same ammount

*Consumer Comment: MY BANK DOES REFUND ATM SURCHARGES FROM OTHER BANKS

*Consumer Comment: Robert Leave it to you to point out the obvious

*Consumer Comment: BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

*Consumer Comment: BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

*Consumer Comment: BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

*Consumer Comment: "The customer is always wrong"

*Consumer Comment: DAVE ISN'T HEARING WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING

*Consumer Comment: BANK OF AMERICA HIDES THE ATM FEE

*Consumer Comment: Misunderstanding The only solution is to use ATMs owned by your own bank

*Consumer Comment: Get a Grip

*Consumer Comment: Get a Grip

*Consumer Comment: Get a Grip

*Consumer Comment: Get a Grip

*Consumer Comment: I think it's a different charge

*Consumer Comment: I think it's a different charge

*Consumer Comment: I think it's a different charge

*Consumer Comment: These are not hidden fees

*Consumer Comment: These are not hidden fees

*Consumer Comment: These are not hidden fees

*Consumer Comment: These are not hidden fees

*Consumer Comment: There is NO rip off here.

*Consumer Comment: This issue has already been addressed

*Consumer Suggestion: Double Bank of America is charging $1.50

*Consumer Comment: Well then.....

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

check your bank statement. bank of america is overcharging and double billing for atm use of non bank of america atm machines.

further, they hide the fee as part of your withdrawl.

for example. if you go to a non bank of america atm and withdrawl $100.00 dollars. the bank machine will ask if you authorize charges of $1.50 for use of a non bank of america atm.

if you approve the charges your withdrawl will appear as $101.50

howver when bank of america sends a statement they will show the following

1.50 bank fee
101.50 withdrawl

essentially they hide there fee as part of your withdrawl.

this is a scam and rip off

any lawyers here for a class action suit please let me know.

Dave
new jersey, New Jersey
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/10/2006 07:30 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/bank-of-america/nationwide/bank-of-america-atm-ripoff-nationwide-175646. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
56Consumer
1Employee/Owner

#57 Consumer Suggestion

Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, October 26, 2007

If you are so unhappy just take your marbles and go play somewhere else. Research other banks and see if they do the same or if they limit ATM usage.

I took all my money and put it in a credit union. When I am out of town I use my debit card to make purchases and get additional money that way if needed.

No one forces you or anyone to bank at BOA they only real way of protesting is to shop around for a better deal and go for it. Then after you have moved banks transfer your loans and credit cards as well. That way BOA loses not only your deposit but the interest from the loans you took thru them if any.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#56 Consumer Suggestion

Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, October 26, 2007

If you are so unhappy just take your marbles and go play somewhere else. Research other banks and see if they do the same or if they limit ATM usage.

I took all my money and put it in a credit union. When I am out of town I use my debit card to make purchases and get additional money that way if needed.

No one forces you or anyone to bank at BOA they only real way of protesting is to shop around for a better deal and go for it. Then after you have moved banks transfer your loans and credit cards as well. That way BOA loses not only your deposit but the interest from the loans you took thru them if any.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#55 Consumer Suggestion

Ever Thought of a Credit union or changing banks

AUTHOR: Steven - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, October 26, 2007

If you are so unhappy just take your marbles and go play somewhere else. Research other banks and see if they do the same or if they limit ATM usage.

I took all my money and put it in a credit union. When I am out of town I use my debit card to make purchases and get additional money that way if needed.

No one forces you or anyone to bank at BOA they only real way of protesting is to shop around for a better deal and go for it. Then after you have moved banks transfer your loans and credit cards as well. That way BOA loses not only your deposit but the interest from the loans you took thru them if any.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#54 Consumer Comment

Dave, try this

AUTHOR: Malachi - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 17, 2007

If you want answers or movement on this ripoff why don't you contact the people that regulate banks? Call your congressman, e-mail the FDIC, Write a letter to the newspaper. This way you can get your message out and someone out there may be able to help you.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#53 REBUTTAL Owner of company

don't deny it....rejection fees have arrived...

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 17, 2007

We all know it often costs money to get your own money at an ATM machine; but now, you might have to pay up when you don't get money. Let me introduce you to a fee you've probably never heard of -- the "ATM denial fee." Rejection, it turns out, can be costly.

Some banks are sneaky; their ability to slip itsy-bitsy fees onto your monthly statement proves their creativity knows no end. The death-by-a-thousand-cuts draining of our bank accounts happens relentlessly -- $3.00 check enclosure charge; $2 out-of-network withdrawal fee; $10 for dipping below a minimum $1,000 balance for an afternoon; $13 for new checks. One of those fancy free checking accounts can easily cost $50-$100 a year.

But the denial fee is a new entrant into this game, or at least, it is new to me and many industry insiders. Bank of America, on the other hand, says it's old hat. Either way, here's how $1.50 leaked out of my checking account for money I didn't get, and how it might be leaking out of your account too.

Quick: What's your daily ATM withdrawal limit? If you said $400, you might be wrong. At Bank of America, for example, the limit is $300. The price of making that mistake is $1.50. That's what I found out last month when I tried to grab as much cash as I could before I hopped a plane to cover Hurricane Rita in Texas. Given other reporters' experiences after Katrina, I decided to bring as much cash as possible. The ATM nearest the plane gate wasn't Bank of America, but I decided to pay the $4 or so in fees for using another bank's machine.

My first attempt to get $400 was denied and my transaction canceled. That's all I knew. I took my card back.

Moments later, I tried to withdraw $300, and was warned I'd face fees both from the machine owner and my bank for using the wrong ATM. Duly censured, I accepted the fee. And that, I thought, was that.

It was, until I spied my bank statement a month later. I found that I was charged $2 for the cash I did get, and another $1.50 for the cash I didn't get. ATM Denial Fee, my statement read.

"What is this?" I asked Bank of America's customer service telephone representative. I did not tell him I was a reporter. I was calling as a customer.

The rep calmly explained that it was, in fact, an ATM Denial Fee. I must not have read the latest disclosure statement from the bank, he said. He then explained that Bank of America is charged fees by other banks when a withdrawal is attempted, whether it is successful or not. This bank-to-bank fee can be $5, $7, or even more, he said. He then explained to me that the bank actually eats close to 90 percent of these fees and is just trying to recoup some of the costs.

To be fair, he agreed to wipe away the $1.50 fee when I told him the circumstances of the failed withdrawal. Still, I hung up wondering just how many people have been unknowingly paying these denial fees. I set out to learn more about them.

'A new one on me'
I called Tony Hayes of Dove Consulting, an ATM expert. He'd never heard of ATM denial fees, and he was skeptical that Bank of America would have to pay the $5-$7 that its customer rep quoted me for a failed withdrawal.

Then I tried Greg McBride of BankRate.com, who studies ATM fees. His oft-cited reports are among the most comprehensive in the industry.

"That's a new one on me," he said.

But Betty Riess of Bank of America knew all about denial fees. In fact, she said, there's nothing new about them. The bank had been charging them "for some time." There was no updated notice earlier this year, she said. She also wouldn't discuss the intra-bank fees my customer service agent mentioned, but she did say she had no idea where he got his facts.

Denial fees are spelled out on Bank of America's Web site.

"The denial fee applies to each request to withdraw funds at a non-Bank of America ATM that is denied because the request exceeds either your available balance or your daily cash limit," the site says. I hadn't read it.

It's unclear how many other banks charge such a fee. Washington Mutual's Mary Kelley said her bank didn't charge denial fees; A spokesman for Citibank said the bank doesn't charge a denial fee. An Internet search revealed some smaller banks do have denial fees published on their Web sites. Bank of America's $1.50 was the steepest I found, however.

'Wrong ATM' charges cost $4 billion a year
McBride, from BankRate, was surprised to learn of this denial fee, but he did say something that is probably obvious to all of us -- bank ATM fees are at the highest rate ever. In fact, in a report he issued earlier this year, McBride said consumers pay $4 billion each year as a penalty for using the wrong bank's ATM. That's up 44 percent from 1999 levels, his report said.

That's a lot of $1.50 charges. Revenue by 1,000 cuts.

But we're just trying to run a business, banks protest. In the past, I have heard the following arguments from banks: Consumers have more access to their money than ever before, and should pay a little for that. ATM machines are actually expensive to operate, and most banks lose money on them (see "Are there too many ATMs). And banks face fees from each other, so consumers should expect to cover some of that cost when they use the "wrong ATM."

It all makes some sense, except that last point, which is hard to swallow. Banks may well be charging each other indiscriminate fees, but does that mean they should pass those fees on to us?

'Gotcha' capitalism
This is not a fair market. Consumers paying the fees often don't have a choice. Often, they are forced to pay the fees when facing some crisis or time crunch, like when I was leaving for the hurricane. That's no time to change banks.

This is the first example of a phenomenon we'll discuss a lot in Red Tape Chronicles, something I call gotcha capitalism. You're in a hurry to catch a plane, you don't have time to refill that rental car tank Gotcha! Suddenly, a gallon of gas costs $6. Oh, and that ATM transaction will cost you $5.50 -- $2 to the machine, $2 to your bank, and another $1.50 for a typo that made you ask for $400 withdrawal instead of $300.

That's not to say ATM fees are entirely unfair. Consumers shouldn't expect to receive something for nothing. The convenience of getting cash from any bank's machines is worth something. But when banks are charging something for nothing, then we know something is wrong.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#52 Author of original report

whitepaper info on unfair surcharge spreads

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 17, 2007

ATM Fee Backlash: Local Rebellions Against Unfair Surcharge Spread

An ATM Surcharge White Paper by The State PIRGs--March 2000

Four years ago, on April 1, 1996, the national ATM networks, Plus and Cirrus, first allowed their member banks to impose a second double fee, called a surcharge, on non-customers using their ATMs. Before 1996, ATM owners in shared ATM networks had always been compensated by receiving part of the so-called foreign fee that most banks already charged their own accountholders who used an ATM owned by another bank. The part sent to the ATM owner is called an interchange fee. Even in those circumstances where a bank didn't impose a foreign fee on its own accountholders using others' machines, the ATM owner always received an interchange fee, which is a bank-to-bank payment. The network itself also receives a fee from the consumer's bank, called a switch fee.

That second fee now received by ATM owners, the ATM surcharge, has more than doubled the cost to consumers for using foreign ATMs and isn't shared with anyone. The surcharge contributes dramatically to the profits of ATM owners, lessens the benefit to consumers of shared ATM networks and encourages the growth of bigger banks. According to both the Federal Reserve Board's Annual Reports to Congress and PIRG studies, bigger banks charge bigger fees, across the board. Not only is ATM surcharging unfair to consumers, since it is charging them twice for one transaction, it is also anti-competitive, since it encourages consumers to switch their accounts to bigger, higher-fee banks, ultimately limiting consumer choice.

In response to the unfair, anti-competitive surcharge, the Congress and more than half the states sought, unsuccessfully, to ban surcharges between 1996-98. Not surprisingly, the powerful bank lobby was able to stymie these surcharge repeal efforts. Advocates came closest in Massachusetts, where a surcharge ban passed the Senate unanimously and had a majority of House co-sponsors, but was not brought up for a vote by the House Speaker. Two state Banking Commissioners, in Iowa and Connecticut, did use existing authority to impose administrative bans on surcharges. Meanwhile, the cost of using foreign ATMs rose from 1995's $1, to 1999's $2.50 or more.

Cost of "Convenience"

COST OF USING FOREIGN ATM

MORE THAN DOUBLES

1995-1999 Rise = 151%
Foreign Fee
$1.00
$1.14

Surcharge
$0.00
$1.37

TOTAL
$1.00
$2.51

Data: USPIRG

It appeared in the summer of 1999 that efforts to repeal the surcharge were dead. The courts had overturned the Iowa ban and the banks expected a similar decision in Connecticut. State legislative action was stalled. Then, however, the rebellion over unfair fees spread to the local level. Taking a page from the book of tobacco control and campaign finance reform advocates, opponents turned their attention to city surcharge bans. In October 1999, the City Council of Santa Monica, California voted to ban surcharges. On Election Day, November 2, 1999, San Francisco voters banned surcharges by a margin of 66-34%. Since then, several major cities, including New York and Chicago, began taking the first steps toward banning surcharges. On February 15, 2000, the town of Woodbridge, NJ banned surcharges, by a 9-0 vote. Meanwhile, in a little-noticed filing, the Pentagon proposed banning surcharges on all military bases. That decision is pending.

Following the victories by the California cities, the banks, aided by federal regulators, immediately obtained court injunctions against enforcement of the local laws, arguing that the National Bank Act preempts both state and local action over national banks. The cities, the states and consumer groups argue instead that the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act clearly gives them authority over ATM fees.

Now, the two California cities are fighting to reinstate their bans in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state of Iowa has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate its ban. Connecticut's attorney general is fighting a legislative campaign to reenact that state's ban, which was eliminated not by federal courts, but by a state court holding only that the Banking Commissioner misinterpreted his authority.

Throughout the battle, the banks have primarily made three arguments. First, they have argued that consumers got a free lunch before surcharges (and that surcharges are somehow not a second, double fee). Second, nationally-chartered banks and federal regulators have argued that the National Bank Act preempts any authority over them by either states or localities. Finally, banks have argued that the marketplace should decide the level of ATM fees, not lawmakers.

This paper attempts to do two things. First, it summarizes the status of ATM surcharge ban proposals across the country. Second, it examines, and provides evidence to dismiss, each of the banker's arguments.

1. STATUS OF ATM SURCHARGE BAN PROPOSALS [ALSO SEE APPENDIX]
The year 1999 saw a resurgence of efforts to ban unfair ATM surcharges that has continued in 2000. The attached chart summarizes the status of ATM surcharge ban efforts by cities, states, the Congress and the Pentagon. Military spokespersons point out that soldiers often earn low wages while serving their country and can ill afford to pay up to $3.50 just to withdraw $20 of their own money. The chart[1] makes a compelling case that the rebellion against unfair ATM surcharges is spreading:

Three cities, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and Woodbridge, NJ, have banned surcharges.

Three major cities, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, among others, are considering bans. The New York ban is sponsored by the Speaker of the City Council and has a majority of council members co-sponsoring.

Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, is pushing hard to reinstate his state's ban, after a state court held only that the Banking Commissioner had misinterpreted his authority when he banned surcharges in 1995. Ban proposals are before at least five other legislatures, as the chart shows.

The military is so concerned about the effect of ATM surcharging on the morale of its personnel, that it too is far along in considering a ban.[2]

The local officials in California who took on the surcharge battle at the request of CALPIRG deserve great credit. They had the perseverance to take on an unfair bank practice that state and national legislators had failed to address. They also had the vision to try to solve what others perceived as a problem for Congress at the local level. Ideally, their efforts, which built on local strategies first used by the tobacco control and campaign finance reform movements, will serve as models for other cities seeking to force big banks to end unfair practices.

First, credit goes to San Francisco's Tom Ammiano, President of the Board of Supervisors. He first attempted to enact a surcharge ban by ordinance, but his proposed amendment was blocked in February 1999 by the efforts of Wells Fargo and Bank of America, two powerful corporate players, even at the local level. Ammiano then worked to develop a broad-based coalition that ultimately included numerous consumer, labor and good government groups, to qualify the citizen's initiative to ban double ATM surcharges, Proposition F, for the November ballot. Members of the Campaign To End Extra ATM Fees ranged from CALPIRG and the United Steelworkers to AARP, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, and numerous local political clubs. It is estimated that the California Bankers Association spent $500,000 in attempts to defeat the initiative, including direct mail and television and radio buys. The citizens' campaign spent about $15,000.

Second, two progressive members of the Santa Monica City Council, Kevin McKeown and Michael Feinstein, deserve credit for enacting the nation's first ATM surcharge ban ordinance, in October 1999. Working with CALPIRG, they were able to win in the City Council and didn't need to go to the ballot.

2. ATM Surcharges Are Double Fees. Charging Consumers Twice Is Unfair

No business should be expected to provide free service to non-customers, said Gene Taylor, president of the bank's Western Region. Bank of America built the nation's largest ATM network for people who choose to do business with us, and we think it's reasonable to charge non-customers for the optional convenience of this service. --Bank of America press release announcing it was blocking ATM access to non-customers in Santa Monica to protest new ordinance, 10 November 1999

Blocking ATM access in the city is an attempt by Wells Fargo and Bank of America to punish consumers for being in a community willing to protect them.

-- Santa Monica City Attorney Adam Radinsky, in reply.

A. Consumers Don't Get A Free Lunch. Consumers Pay Twice For Lunch.

Over the last few years, bank public relations firms have worked hard in an attempt to re-define their own industry term "ATM surcharge" to the softer, more benign-sounding terms access fee or "convenience fee." Their not so transparent effort is more sophisticated than it seems-- it is part of a larger effort to confuse consumers, the media, and policymakers into the mistaken belief that ATM owners were not compensated by non-customers before national surcharging began in 1996. Incredibly, they have claimed, "there is no such thing as a free lunch" or "who could expect banks to give away our services for free?"

In fact, since banks first formed shared ATM networks, and allowed other banks' customers to use their ATMs, ATM owners have been compensated by a customer's own bank, through a fee known as the interchange fee. According to numerous studies, the interchange fee, set by the ATM network member-owners and paid by the customer's bank to the ATM owner, averages between 40-60 cents per transaction. The customer's bank compensates the network itself with a "switch" fee of between 2-12 cents.

Where does the interchange fee and switch fee payment come from? That's up to the consumer's bank. However, most banks now pass it along by imposing a foreign fee on their own customers that use other banks' machines, although some may waive this fee for high-balance customers. According to the 1999 Federal Reserve Board Annual Report to Congress, in 1998, 82% of multi-state banks and 73% of local banks imposed foreign fees. The Fed noted that, for a two year period following the imposition of national surcharging, the number of banks charging foreign fees had dropped, but that in 1998 the incidence of foreign fees increased significantly and sharply.

In PIRG's most recent bank fee report, Big Banks, Bigger Fees, released in October, all banks nationally imposed average foreign fees of $1.14. Big banks imposed higher fees, averaging $1.27, while small banks charged foreign fees averaging $1.03.[3] PIRG's most recent report on surcharging, released one year ago, found that for 1999, the average ATM surcharge increased to $1.37 in 1999, up from $1.23 in PIRG's 1998 survey. Big banks imposed average 1999 surcharges of $1.42 and small bank surcharges averaged $1.30. Credit union surcharges averaged $0.98. Fully 93% of all banks surcharged, with big banks surcharging at a rate of 95%, small banks at a rate of 91% and credit unions at a rate of 42%.

Adding PIRG's 1999 average surcharge of $1.37 to PIRG's average foreign fee of $1.14 gives a combined cost to most consumers who use foreign ATMs totaling $2.51. In PIRG's 1995 bank fee survey, foreign fees averaged $1.01. Since national surcharging began in 1996, the full cost of most foreign transactions has gone up about 166% in the past five years. If competition were working, fees would decline, or at least remain stable. Surcharge income would offset the need for higher foreign fees, resulting in an equilibrium. Competition isn't working.

B. How The ATM Fee Structure Works
This chart, based on a 1998 Congressional Budget Office report to Congress, shows the relationship between the different ATM fees paid by a consumer and paid by a consumer's bank. It shows who pays, and who receives, each fee.

Who Pays Which ATM Fees? Who Receives Which ATM Fees?
Type of Fee
Who Pays It?
Who Receives It?
Who Sets It?
Amount
Network Membership (a)
Consumer's Bank
Network
Network
$0-125,000/yr
Switch (b)
Consumer's bank
Network
Network
2.5-12 cents

Interchange(b)
Consumer's bank
ATM owner
Network
20-60 cents (c)
Foreign Fee (b)
Consumer
Consumer's bank
Consumer's Bank
$0-2.50
Surcharge(b)
Consumer
ATM owner
ATM owner
$0-3.00

Adapted from Competition in ATM Markets: Are ATMs Money Machines?, Congressional Budget Office , July 1998, prepared for Senate Banking Committee. SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office based on the Debit Card Directory, 1998 Edition (New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1997), and General Accounting Office, Automated Teller Machines: Survey Results Indicate Banks' Surcharge Fees Have Increased (April 1998).

a. The membership fee is usually paid either monthly or annually.

b. This fee is paid per transaction.

c. The range stated is for a cash withdrawal. Interchange fees vary for different types of transactions. For example, the interchange fee is usually higher for a deposit transaction than for a balance inquiry.

C. How ATM Surcharges And Foreign Fees Contribute To Bank Profits

In 1999, banks had their ninth straight year of record profits. The $71.7 billion reported to the FDIC exceeded last year's record of $61.8 billion by 16%, or $9.9 billion. According to the FDIC, continued strength in non-interest revenues, particularly fee income, is a critical part of commercial bank income. For example, non-interest income accounted for 44% of net operating revenues in the fourth quarter 1999.

In the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's quarterly reports on bank income and expenses, ATM surcharges are incorporated in the lump-sum category, other non-interest income. This fast growing category includes credit card fee income and other fees. Foreign ATM fees are incorporated in the category Revenue from deposit account service fees.
Specific 1999 data on contributions from service fees on deposit accounts and other non-interest income, are not yet available, but 1989-1998 data on these income categories shows impressive growth. In 1989, service charges on deposits, including foreign fees, were $10.3 billion, rising to $19.8 billion in 1998. Other non-interest income, including surcharges, rose from $29.0 billion in 1989 to $77.2 billion in 1998.

In March 2000, BankRate.com projected that ATM surcharge revenues would total $2 billion in 2000, consistent with previous PIRG and U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that ATM surcharge revenues annually total over $2 billion.[4] Although the total number of foreign transactions has declined slightly, the percentage of banks surcharging and the amount of the surcharge have both increased, maintaining surcharge revenue at over $2 billion.

Data from the banks' lawsuits against Santa Monica and San Francisco are illustrative. In declarations to the court, Bank of America and Wells Fargo estimated that their surcharge revenues annually in these two cities alone, totaled $5,840,000. Other banks had combined annual surcharge revenue of $1,182,820. So, banks in those two cities alone earn $7 million annually on surcharges[5]. These totals for ATM surcharges revenue do not include interchange fee revenue, foreign fee revenue, and other ATM fee income.

Surcharging actually saves banks money. In 1997, a study by the Federal Office of Thrift Supervision reported that the average human teller transactions costs a bank $2.93, while the average ATM transaction costs the bank 27 cents. ATMs are cheaper than branches and tellers.

It has been argued that surcharge fees are necessary to cover the costs of new ATM deployment. However, thousands of consumers may never benefit from using one of these new ATMs. Further, assuming that surcharging has led to the deployment of an additional 40,000 ATMs, the "cost" of $2 billion in surcharges amounts to $50,000 a year per "new" ATM. Yet, cash-only machines now cost as little as $5,000. Most studies estimate the true cost of maintaining machines at only $12,000/year, including depreciation costs.

3. WHY STATES AND CITIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BAN SURCHARGES
Throughout the ATM surcharge legal battle, nationally-chartered banks have argued that the National Bank Act of 1863 prohibits state and local action regulating ATM surcharges of nationally-chartered banks. Historically, banks have argued that this general law preempts any consumer laws as it applies to national banks, even though, for example, in this case, it fails to even mention ATM fees and includes no explicit preemption of state ATM laws. Advocates argue, on the other hand, that the clear and explicit anti-preemptive language of the specific law pertaining to ATM and other electronic transactions, the 1978 Electronic Fund Transfer Act, should prevail. Here is the critical savings clause, or anti-preemption language of the EFTA, describing its relation to state laws:

This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect the laws of any State relating to electronic fund transfers, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with the provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. A State law is not inconsistent with this subchapter if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection afforded by this subchapter. [15 USC 1693a(6)]

A. Stronger State Laws Should Always Be Allowed To Stand
Consumer groups, and the states and cities, believe that local action should be allowed whenever it protects consumers better than federal law, or whenever there is no federal law, provided that there is no conflict between complying both with local laws and any federal law on the same subject matter. In this case, there is clearly no conflict. Since national banks and their regulators can point to no federal law governing ATM fees, they have developed a convoluted case based on OCC's view of conflict preemption theory derived from the general powers of the NBA. They believe that even in circumstances where the federal law fails to protect consumers at all, or provides less protection, that state consumer laws should always be preempted anyway. Their logic is that virtually all state consumer laws conflict with the broad powers that the NBA supposedly gives national banks to do whatever they want, even where no federal law protects consumers. Regardless of their views, most subject matter consumer banking laws are written the way EFTA is written, allowing for passage of stronger state laws that are not inconsistent with federal law.

As CALPIRG and other consumer groups argued last month to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their friend of the court brief supporting the cities' efforts to overturn a district court injunction blocking their surcharge bans:

The District Court erred in ruling that the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. 21, et seq. (NBA), preempts the Santa Monica and San Francisco ordinances, which seek to protect customers from the excessive non-customer ATM surcharges. Far from preempting the ordinances at issue, Congress specifically authorized local governments to enact laws which afford consumers greater protection in their ATM transactions in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act , The primary objective of the EFTA is the provision of individual consumer rights in [the] electronic fund transfer systems. The EFTA specifies that regulation of ATMs is within its authority.[On the other hand], the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly and unmistakably held that Congress must express a clear and manifest desire to preempt state laws in areas of its historic police power of the states.[6]

Throughout the ATM surcharge rebellion, the chief national bank regulator , the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), has supported efforts by national banks to overturn or ignore state or local authority. Consumer groups also argue strongly in their brief that OCC has misinterpreted not only the alleged preemptive authority of the National Bank Act, but also its own power. The brief continues:

The District Court was persuaded by OCC's informal letters sent to the Banks in anticipation of this litigation. It stated: The Supreme Court has made clear that interpretations of the National Bank Act by the [OCC] are entitled to great weight. In this case the Comptroller of the Currency has made abundantly clear that he considers the ordinances at bar to be preempted by the [NBA]. Once again, the District Court failed to acknowledge or accept the true state of the law with regard to deference to OCC rulings.

Based on OCC's zeal in issuing informal, non-published letters or opinions regarding the preemptive scope of the NBA, Congress required the agency to promulgate formal opinions subject to a notice and comment period. In this instance, the OCC failed to follow the established procedures for issuing a formal decision and, instead, issued interpretative letters to support the Banks' litigation position. Contrary to the District Court's holding, the Supreme Court has expressed an unwillingness to defer to informal OCC opinions, such as those at issue here, even in cases in which the NBA is applicable. See Smiley (Of course we deny deference to agency litigation positions that are wholly unsupported by regulations, rulings or administrative practice.' The deliberateness of such positions, if not indeed their authoritativeness, is suspect.)

Similar arguments, that the courts erred in granting deference to the political efforts of the OCC have been raised in a brief supporting the California cities filed by the nine states of California, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia. In its petition to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's reversal of a District Court decision overturning its EFTA law, the state of Iowa, makes the same points.

B. OCC Preemption Determinations Have Had a Chilling Effect On State Consumer Protection Efforts

In general, the pattern and practice of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to abuse its preemption authority has hindered the ability of the states to regulate bank and credit card fees, ban usurious triple-digit payday lending[7], or enact low-cost checking accounts. In 1992, the OCC preempted (held that national banks do not need to comply with it) a New Jersey Lifeline Banking law, despite the absence of any federal law explicitly requiring banks to provide lifeline banking accounts. Despite a regulatory petition filed in 1995 to overturn that preemption, no Comptroller has taken action to do so.[8] The existence of the New Jersey preemption determination (#92-572) has had a chilling effect on state legislative attempts to enact further lifeline laws or enact other pro-consumer laws. In an attempt to rein in what Congress called the OCC's overly aggressive preemption determinations, the 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Branching and Efficiency Act amended the NBA to require the OCC to both publish a notice and meet a higher standard before preempting state consumer and community reinvestment laws. Unfortunately, as noted in the consumer group brief to the Ninth Circuit, above, the OCC has attempted numerous end-runs around that law.[9]

4 COMPETITION ISN'T WORKING.
Banks argue that ATM surcharges are needed to cover the cost of remote ATMs. They claim that ATM growth is being spurred by ATM surcharges. Actually, ATM surcharging is part of the big banks' anti-competitive strategy to squeeze out smaller banks and credit unions by encouraging their customers to switch their accounts to banks with larger ATM networks. When confronted with the argument that, in fact, banks are surcharging at local branches as well as in far-off convenience stores, casinos and at ski areas, banks reply that, "consumers should pay for convenience" and "consumers have a choice between ATMs that surcharge and those that do not."

PIRG believes that consumers should choose their bank on the basis of its fees, including its ATM fees. Surcharging makes that selection process imperfect. First, the big banks changed the rules in the middle of the game, after convincing small banks not to capitalize their own ATM networks, but instead, to join theirs. Second, when a consumer is walking down the street looking for an ATM that doesn't surcharge, he or she is faced with the dilemma of paying an inconvenience charge, not a convenience charge. In Boston, over half the bank-owned machines are owned by Fleet. In San Francisco, 362 of 423 bank-owned machines (86%) are owned by Wells Fargo or Bank of America.[10]

However, the real question of choice in the marketplace is not between surcharge and no-surcharge ATMs. It is between high-cost and low-cost banks and credit unions. If surcharging helps the big banks get bigger, all consumers lose, since big banks have higher fees. When only big banks are left, consumers will have no choice, except to pay higher fees, whether or not they want the "convenience."

A. The Market Isn't Working. Surcharges Keep Going Up
Competition isn't working: If the marketplace were working and competition existed, ATM owners would compete on the basis of price. For example, machines in less expensive locations, such as the machines attached to branches, would not impose surcharges, while remote machines would impose surcharges. At the very least, we would see higher surcharges at some machines and lower surcharges at others. Instead, we see only higher and higher surcharges. This is especially true in an environment of rising numbers of machines, where ATM growth has skyrocketed to 225,000 total machines in 1999, but fees have not declined, despite the saturation.[11]

Competition in a free market should decrease prices for consumers. However since April 1, 1996, when surcharging was permitted by the ATM networks, there has been a massive increase in ATM deployment, but no reduction in ATM fees.

In fact ATM fees have steadily risen over time.

In 1999, PIRG found that the most common surcharge had increased from $1.00 to $1.50, found at 57% of all banks, up from 40% of banks in 1998.
Now, in 2000, at least one bank, Cleveland's Fifth Third, is imposing a $2 surcharge.
Another, Mellon Bank, (PA) is charging $1.75.
Surcharge percentages are at least 95% for big banks, over 90% for all banks.
There is no price differential between on-premise and remote ATM location surcharging. In a free market, the higher cost machines would have higher fees.

Other analysts find similar results: According to a March 2000 study by BankRate.Com:

More institutions are surcharging non-customers, and charging more, for use of their ATMs. Although the most common charge remains $1.50, 56 percent of the institutions charge non-customers $1.50 or more for this service. This is an increase in the number of institutions requiring these high surcharges from 49 percent in October 1999 and 44 percent a year ago. [Businesswire, 20 Mar 00].

Why isn't competition working? Why isn't the ATM marketplace competitive? As antitrust expert David Balto has suggested:

Those who advocate for surcharges suggest that surcharging is simply a "free market" at work. But is the market competitive?

Typically in a competitive market we would expect that price would be pushed down to marginal cost. That is, with any product, if there is sufficient consumer choice, consumers will seek out those competitors that offer the best combination of price, quality, and service. For an undifferentiated product like ATM access, one would expect that firms would compete aggressively on price, and prices would be driven down to marginal cost. Yet, as the evidence shows, in spite of an increase in the number of ATMs and the number of ATM deployers, the average price for surcharges has consistently increased over time.[12]

Balto goes on to argue that ATM surcharging could lead customers to move from small banks to big banks, as the big banks use ATM market power to offset the generally lower fee structures on all accounts offered by smaller institutions:

ATM surcharges changed the pro-competitive aspects of ATM sharing. With surcharges, large banks can impose higher costs on the customers of small banks and credit unions. In turn, the large banks can try to induce customers to defect from these smaller institutions. In essence, ATM surcharges return the competitive dynamic to that which existed before ATM shared networks were formed.

Moreover, surcharges present a perverse form of price competition where firms can actually gain customers by raising prices (and the costs of their rivals). As Professor Paul Horvitz observes: "there is little downside to such a strategy -- either you gain substantial market share or earn substantial fee income." [Paul M. Horvitz, ATM Surcharges: Their Effect on Competition and Efficiency, 18 Journal of Retail Banking Services 57, 61 (Autumn 1996).]

It is important to recognize that small banks and credit unions often can be of far greater competitive significance than their size suggests. Recent studies by the Federal Reserve Board and consumer groups have shown that credit unions and small banks on average offer higher interest rates and lower fees for deposit and checking accounts. Simply they are often the leaders in providing the most efficient, consumer friendly level of service. Often they are far more committed and knowledgeable of local community concerns. Losing, or even hobbling these efficient, low-cost rivals will harm all consumers. Thus, preserving a level playing field may be important to bring consumers a competitive retail banking market.

Balto then makes the following important argument:

ATM surcharges, especially surcharges imposed by the larger banks, could deter the ability of these smaller institutions to effectively compete. Because these smaller institutions cannot offer as large a network of "surcharge free" ATMs, consumers may depart to the larger banks. By focusing competition on the size of a bank's ATM network, competition in terms of interest rates and fees may be weakened.

Balto's thesis is also argued in an article by Federal Reserve Board economist James McAndrews, who agrees that ATM surcharging has potential to affect competition negatively. If enough customers migrate accounts to larger banks for ATM convenience, the fewer, bigger banks may gain the market power necessary to set deposit interest rates for all consumers artificially low.[13]

B. Surcharging Is One of Numerous Anti-Competitive ATM-related Practices of Big Banks

Small banks and credit unions also contend that surcharges are just one of the anti-competitive ATM practices imposed by ATM networks. As bank mergers continue, ATM network control and ownership also concentrates in the hands of the bigger players. Community banks argued before Federal Reserve Board hearings on recent mergers that the larger institutions would change ATM network rules in ways that would make it more difficult for small banks and their customers to participate. They would raise customer fees, bank membership fees, and impose unfair restrictions on participation. As the California Independent Bankers testified before a Federal Reserve Board hearing on the Bank of America merger with Nationsbank:

A key concern in large interbank mergers, and one that does not get the attention it warrants, is the effect on ATM networks. Market concentrations resulting from bank mergers and acquisitions have potential anti-competitive implications for ATM network markets (specifically control of ATM switches).

ATM networks are joint ventures between competing banks. ATM networks are self-regulated, private sector entities, owned and controlled in the majority of cases by large banks, that set their own pricing and related operating rules subject only to the constraints imposed by the antitrust laws. Given the structure of ATM networks, certain anti-competitive aspects are inherent. For community banks, these anti-competitive aspects are more pronounced as they generally have little influence over network fees, bylaws or operating rules. Access at a fair price to ATM and other electronic financial services networks is critical for community banks to insure their customers also have fairly and competitively priced access to these networks to transact their banking business.[14]

C. Partial Solution Of Selective Surcharging Nearly Blocked By Anti-Competitive Practices

Some people pay a surcharge at the ATM. SUM don't.
-- From the SUM Program website.

As another example of anti-competitive practices by bigger banks, until the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in 1998, large ATM networks had prohibited small banks from forming "selective surcharge" alliances. In numerous states, small banks and credit unions had sought to compete with bigger banks by forming sub-networks that didn't surcharge each other's customers, but did surcharge others. Selective surcharge alliances are a way for small, community banks to fight back against the unfair market power of the ATM network owners.

However, establishment of the alliances was blocked by unfair rules imposed by the networks. Had small banks been able to form selective surcharging alliances earlier, more might have formed. Nevertheless, the fragile, partial success of one selective surcharging alliance is illustrative.

The Massachusetts-based SUM program of the NYCE ATM network has managed to fight the trend. It is a community-bank based selective surcharging bulwark against big bank surcharging, although it precariously nests within NYCE, a big-bank owned network. Following the DOJ intervention that allowed its formation, SUM has expanded significantly from its Massachusetts roots into Connecticut and New York. A few of its members even have branches in other states, including one each in Kentucky and Tennessee. However, the SUM program of the NYCE ATM network, and similar efforts by credit unions around the country, are the exception, rather than the rule.

SUMMARY OF THE SUM
SELECTIVE SURCHARGING PROGRAM
Number of Banks, Credit Unions and ATMs by state.
ATMs
Banks/Credit Unions
CT
275
40
KY
1
1
MA
1493
246
ME
1
1
NH
15
5
NY
60
8
RI
5
2
TN
1
1

TOTALS
1851
297

State by state totals greater than 297 due to multi-state members.

[SUM IS OWNED BY THE NYCE ATM NETWORK]

Second, consumers should beware that the benefits of the SUM program (and similar selective surcharge alliances) are partial. These programs helpconsumers avoid surcharges, but not foreign fees. Consumers seeking to avoid ATM fees should still seek to use their own bank's machines. A March 2000 survey by MASSPIRG, for example, found that 12 of 27 SUM members impose foreign fees on their customers using other SUM bank's machines. Two others gave consumers 3 free foreign transactions before imposing foreign fees. [See and click Free Checking]

Third, community banks should beware that Sum's existence is fragile. It is primarily owned by surcharging big banks. Further, SUM is owned by NYCE, which is 96% owned by 8 large, surcharging banks, each with a 12% share: Bank of New York, BankBoston, Chase, Citibank, Fleet, Marine Midland, Peoples[15] and Summit. The other 4% is owned by 150 community banks.

Finally, policymakers should beware that the SUM program isn't a market-based solution to surcharging. In fact, it wasn't until the Department of Justice intervened that the SUM participants were allowed to set it up. If left up to the market, the big banks would have been successful in their attempt at blocking the creation of selective surcharging programs.

Unfortunately, these efforts may be too little, too late, as big banks have developed powerful ATM networks of their own, through mergers and acquisitions. In Boston, for example, the dominant bank, Fleet, owns more than half of the ATMs. It owns 40% of all ATMs in the state. In San Francisco, Wells and Bank of America own an even larger share, 86%, together. City residents, especially, bear the brunt of big-bank dominated surcharges and the other negative effects of bank mergers and bank consolidation. It is entirely appropriate that cities, and their citizens, lead the fight against unfair surcharges.

D. Wells Fargo and Bank of America Denial of Access May Violate Network Rules

As part of their orchestrated campaign to chill further surcharge ban activity by other cities, Bank of America and Wells Fargo widely trumpeted their plans to restrict access to Santa Monica and San Francisco ATMs to their own customers unless an injunction was granted. In November, Bank of America, for example, said No business should be expected to provide free service to non-customers. In fact, at least in Santa Monica, the two big banks are still banning access to non-customers. But other banks in the city are saving consumers money, since most are not surcharging despite the temporary injunction blocking the ban.

Nevertheless, their prohibition on non-customer access may violate ATM network anti-discrimination rules that require a bank's machines to be open to other bank's customers if it wants to participate in the network. The rule is a logical one. Since networks are special arrangements between supposed competitors, those competitors are supposed to act fairly, as a condition of network participation.

In effect, the action by Wells Fargo and Bank of America gives their customers all the benefits of access to the full ATM network, including ATMs owned by other banks, but blocking non-customers means they don't have full access to Wells Fargo and Bank of America ATMs. The problem illustrates a fundamental issue: Big bank surchargers want to obtain excess, monopolistic fees characteristic of a closed proprietary network while simultaneously taking special advantage of an open, shared network.

Industry insiders inform us that network rules may allow a de minimis number of machines to be removed from a network without violating anti-discrimination rules. In Santa Monica, the two banks only own 33 machines, with 21 Bank of America ATMs and 12 Wells Fargo ATMs. However, had the either of the two restricted access in San Francisco as well, where they own more machines (Bank of America 188 and Wells 174) their actions would have likely violated network rules. Regardless, claiming that access without surcharges is free is patently false. The Santa Monica action is deserving of review by regulators as a potential violation of competition laws as well as network rules.

E. Some banks are surcharging their own customers

Banks are exploring more ways to surcharge their own customers. For years, Bank One has deployed private label machines known as Bank One Rapid-Cash ATMs which impose $1.00 surcharges on Bank One customers and higher $1.50 surcharges on non-customers. In Canada, the consumer group Democracy Watch is fighting the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has rolled out 180 similarly unbranded or white-label Ready Cash machines[16]. Bank of America maintains unbranded machines in casinos that surcharge its own customers.[17] Although bankers claim that the growing number of non-bank ATMs, owned by Independent Service Operators (ISOs), offer competition to them, expect more joint venture ownership schemes between banks and ISOs where banks attempt to mask their ownership of machines to obtain more surcharge revenue from their own customers.

F. Surcharging Battle Spreads Across Atlantic

The British consumer group Consumers Association has been campaigning against double ATM fees. Consumers Association calls foreign fees disloyalty fees and calls surcharges :direct charges.

Some banking institutions offer free access to their Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) or cash machines as they are commonly known. Some banks already charge a so-called disloyalty fee to customers using the ATMs of other banks within the LINK network. Now, some banks within the LINK network want to impose direct charges that will put an end to customers being able to choose a bank that offers free access to all ATMs.

According to Bloomberg News, a British government panel announced in March that the nation's largest banks use their dominant position to charge unfair prices and offer ''slow and inflexible'' service. Bloomberg reports further that banks overcharge 5 Billion Pounds ($8 Billion):

Customers withdrawing money from automated teller machines are charged as much as six times more than it costs banks to run them, the review said.Link, a network of 34 banks, recently said it would discourage double charging. That came after a decision last month that would have enabled some banks to charge as much as 2.50 pounds for a cash withdrawal. [U.K. Banks Overcharge 5 Billion Pounds ($8 Billion), Panel Says Tom Giles, Bloomberg London Bureau, March 20, 2000]

CONCLUSION
Surcharges are unfair for at least three reasons. First, surcharges are unfair since consumers already compensate ATM owners, through the foreign fee paid to their own bank that are shared with the network and the ATM owner. Second, surcharge revenue primarily benefits big banks, which tend to also impose anti-competitive higher fees on their own customers, too. Third, the threat of surcharges causes consumers to switch banks to avoid fees. If consumers leave low-cost small community banks, then big banks gain even more market power, exacerbating their ability to charge higher fees and eliminating marketplace choice.

As PIRG's series of "Big Banks, Bigger Fees," reports have shown, big banks are using their leverage to raise fees, impose new fees and make it harder for customers to avoid fees, all the while watching their profits soar to record highs. In 1998, bank profits peaked for an eighth year in a row, reaching nearly $62 billion, with fee income being a growing piece of the profits. Bank revenue from ATM surcharges alone totaled over $2 billion.

With bank fees skyrocketing, basic services are being placed beyond the reach of many citizens -- about 10% of Americans nationwide now cannot afford a bank account. In order to keep consumers from being ripped off, we need to stop these outrageous fees by big banks. Banning the surcharge is a step in the right direction; it will keep consumer's money in their wallets, and show banks they cannot continue to gouge customers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cities, states and Congress should continue to seek to ban the ATM surcharge, which is unfair and anti-competitive.

Congress should rein in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The federal bank regulator's abusive interpretations of its authority have had a chilling effect on the ability of states and cities to regulate unfair banking practices, including ATM surcharges, over-priced checking accounts and triple-digit payday loan companies.

Congress should reinstate a requirement that the Federal Reserve Board publish an annual study of bank fees, a requirement that the Congress sunset in 1999.

ATTACHMENTS:
(1) STATUS OF STATE AND LOCAL SURCHARGE BAN PROPOSALS (2 pages)
(2) GRAPHIC DESCRIBING HOW CONSUMER PAYS TWICE AND BANK GETS PAID TWICE

STATUS OF ATM SURCHARGE BANS -- REGULATIONS/LAWS/ORDINANCES
STATE REGULATIONS
IOWA banned ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of October 23, 1997.
Although a District Court upheld Iowa's EFTA regulation on July 24, 1998, that decision was overturned by the 8th Circuit on September 2, 1999. The ruling was silent on the EFTA's surcharge provisions, and only discussed other provisions. On appeal, the Iowa Bankers Association, the Iowa Community Bankers Association, and the Iowa Credit Union League filed friend of the court briefs on the side of the state.
On February 2, 2000, the Iowa Attorney General filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking review of its case.

CONNECTICUT Banned ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of November 9, 1998.
The State Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that the Banking Commissioner did not have authority to ban surcharges. Since no preemption determination was made, the matter is proceeding in the legislature, not the federal courts.
Proposed House bill 5014 in the legislature would impose a surcharge ban by law. See below.

ENACTED CITY ORDINANCES BANNING ATM SURCHARGES
Santa Monica (Ordinance proposed by Council members McKeown and Feinstein)
On October 5, 1999 the City Council voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction blocking implementation was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99.
On December 10, 1999 , the cities filed notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, supported by friend of the court briefs filed by 9 state Attorneys General (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia and also by CALPIRG and other consumer groups.

San Francisco
On November 2, 1999 city voters, by referendum (66%-34%), voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction blocking implementation was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99.

Woodbridge, NJ
Enacted February 15, 2000 by 9-0 City Council vote, temporary injunction blocking implementation granted on February 17, 2000.
City is drafting appeal

PENTAGON BAN ON MILITARY BASES
Proposed Rule, FR 11 Aug 1999 (Volume 64, Number 154)

Page 43855-43858
Would ban ATM surcharges on military bases.
Following comment period, is under consideration by Pentagon. Decision possible in April.

CITIES CONSIDERING ORDINANCES
New York City (Intro 680, Vallone)
City Council Speaker Peter Vallone has drafted bill, has more than half of council as co-sponsors, and has released a detailed staff report, Guilty As Surcharged
Hearings expected, April 2000

Newark, NJ
Bill introduced by Council member Carrino February 17, 2000.


Chicago
Introduced by Alderman Joe Moore, February 2000.
Hearing held 13 Mar 00

Los Angeles
Voted unanimously in October to instruct City Attorney to examine City's authority to ban fees. Motion made by Council members Alex Padilla and Mike Hernandez. Heard in committee on February 16, 2000
At City Attorney's advice, waiting until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided before taking action.

San Diego County
San Diego County - Chairwoman Pam Slater first proposed the ban October 19, 1999.
No action expected until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided

San Diego
San Diego City - Deputy Mayor Byron Wear proposed an ordinance October 18, 1999.


Mayor refuses to docket issue for vote.

West Hollywood
To ban surcharges
Voted December 20, 1999 to file an amicus brief on behalf of Santa Monica Sponsor was Council member Paul Koretz

Eugene (OR)
To ban surcharges
Campaign underway, bill may be drafted soon.

Salem, (OR)
To ban surcharges
Council voted 5-4 not to draft bill at this time.

Portland (OR)
To ban surcharges
Campaign underway, bill may be drafted soon.

STATE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS-2000 Session
Connecticut (HB 5014-Landino)
Would ban ATM surcharges. The State Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that the banking commissioner's administrative ban had overstated his authority. Since no preemption determination was made, the matter can be resolved in the legislature.
Hearings held February 17, 2000. Bill passed by Joint House-Senate Committee by vote of 11-6 on March 7, 2000 despite opposition of State Senator McDermott, Co-chair of Banking Committee (Similar to bill that passed House in 1999 by 125-20 but Senate floor action blocked by McDermott)

Illinois
To ban surcharges.
Committee defeated proposed ban 4-3 in February

Massachusetts (SB 19) Senator Andrea Nuciforo

(Senate Chair of Banking Committee) and Representative Carol Donovan.
To ban surcharges

Pending in the Ways and Means Committee in the Senate. The bill has a majority of lawmakers signed on in support of the bill.

Minnesota HF 1849 (Entenza)
To ban surcharges.
March 11,2000, First Reading, referred to Commerce

W. Virginia (SB 188) (Majority Leader Chafin and Senator Bowman) Introduced January 25, 2000.
Would limit total cost to consumer of combined foreign fee and surcharge to a total of fifty cents for any single ATM transaction
Pending in Banking and Insurance Committee

Wisconsin (SB 325) Sen. Robson/Rep. Lehman.
To ban surcharges
Passed Senate Financial Institutions Comm. 3-2, killed on Senate floor 16-17 on February 8, 2000.

CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSALS
H.R.3229 (Sanders-I-VT)
Introduced November 14 1999, would ban ATM surcharges.
No action by committee.

H.R. 3494 (Sanders-I-VT)
Introduced November 18, 1999, would clarify that no federal law supercedes Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) provision clearly granting states and localities authority to ban ATM surcharges.
No action by committee

H.R. 3503 (Waters-D-CA)
Introduced November 18, 1999, would ban ATM surcharges, would enact low-cost lifeline banking requirements and would reinstate Federal Reserve Board Annual Report to Congress on bank fees that was allowed to sunset in 1999.
No action by committee
For more information, see the state PIRG's ATM website:
---------

[1] For ongoing coverage of ATM surcharge ban efforts, see the state PIRG website Also, subscribe to the free email ATM Surcharge Bulletin of the New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self Reliance

[2] Pentagon officials have also been instrumental in allowing base commanders in Florida and other states to join local efforts by consumer, low-income and religious groups against high-cost auto-title pawn and payday lenders that have targeted military personnel for their deceptively marketed, tripled-digit loan products. See discussion in Section (3) of how the chief national bank regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), encourages banks to partner with these usurious firms.

[3] PIRG surveys compare the 300 largest banks by deposits(big banks) to all other banks and finds that big banks charge bigger fees. The Fed compares multi-state to one-state banks and finds that multi-state banks charge higher fees. The methodologies are different, yet yield nearly identical fee results.

[4] According to GAO, banks owned 132,000 ATMs in January 1998 and averaged 1,023 off-us ATM transactions per machine per month (the increase in the number of ATMs has resulted in a decline in per-ATM transactions). At a 93% surcharging rate at $1.37/transaction, this corresponded to annual ATM surcharge revenue of approximately $2.1 billion.

[5] Throughout report, all data on San Francisco and Santa Monica ATM market and profits from Briefs and Declarations of bank officials in Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and California Bankers vs. City and County of San Francisco and City of Santa Monica, CV 99-4817 VRW, see, e.g., declaration of William Raymond, Senior Vice President, Bank of America, November 2, 1999.

[6] Brief amicus curiae of CALPIRG, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, et al, in Bank of America, Wells Fargo and California Bankers Association vs. City and County of San Francisco and City of Santa Monica, On Appeal of CV 99-4817 VRW, to the Ninth Circuit, Cases 99-17590, 99-17591, February 4, 2000.

[7] See Show Me The Money, February 2000, a PIRG/Consumer Federation of America payday loan study, which details how the OCC is allowing national banks to partner with the firms, which make triple-digit short-term loans until payday, at rates as high as 390-780% APR or more. The national bank partnership allows the payday lender to use the protection of the national bank charter to avoid compliance with state laws that ban or restrict their outrageous practices. . Also see PIRG's OCC Watch page at PIRG's site.

[8] In response to the 1995 petition, the OCC did in 1996 meet the minimum requirements of the 1994 Riegle-Neal Act by issuing a Federal Register Notice (Docket #96-01) to obtain comments on overturning the rule, but has done nothing since.

No regulatory policy of either the OCC, the FDIC or the Federal Reserve Board or any other agency explicitly requires financial institutions to provide any account or service in conflict with the New Jersey Checking Account law. In the absence of conflicting federal law, it has long been the federal tradition of this country that the states proceed to protect their consumers, as New Jersey has correctly done. Over 700,000 New Jersey consumers have obtained New Jersey Checking Accounts.

[9] For a detailed list of OCC and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) preemption determinations, see a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report to House Banking Chairman James Leach. (Report # B284372, 7 Feb 2000, Role of the Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the Preemption of State Law).

[10] See Declarations of Wells Fargo and Bank of America to U.S. District Court, November 1999. Even when the 292 non-bank owned ATMs are added to the equation, Bank of America and Wells Fargo still own 51% of the machines in the city. A consumer can't open an account at a non-bank owned ATM, so the 86% figure is more significant.

[11] U.S. PIRG contacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for up-to-date information on current numbers of bank-owned ATMs, the number of foreign transactions at each ATM, and the numbers of on and off-premise ATMs. The FDIC stated that it no longer keeps track of ATMs, and referred us to two consulting firms that track the industry. Neither firm, Speer Associates or Faulkner and Gray, publishers of Bank Network News, were able to give precise data on foreign transactions, but their estimates were that, in 1999, there were 225-250,000 ATMs and banks owned at least 60% of them. [Telephone interviews by USPIRG researcher Jenny Anderson, March 2000.]

[12] Regulatory, Competitive, and Antitrust Challenges of ATM Surcharges, 70 BNA Banking Report 82 (July 13, 1998) by David Balto

[13] ATM Surcharges, James McAndrews, Current Issues In Economics And Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, July 1998, Vol $, #4, pages 1-6.

[14] Testimony of Craig Collette President, Marathon National Bank, Los Angeles and Member, California Independent Bankers Board Of Directors at the hearing of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on planned merger of Nationsbank and Bank of America July 10,1998 San Francisco.

[15] Peoples may not yet surcharge, since surcharging was banned in Connecticut until December 15, 1999.

[16] Cost of convenience, Canadian style, ATMMagazine.com, 13 Dec 99

[17] Personal communication with USPIRG, former Bank of America employee.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#51 Author of original report

sean close that account

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 17, 2007

i am with you. i want to switch banks also

bank of america does not care about its customers. i agree.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#50 Author of original report

follow up-explaination

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, March 17, 2007

Leticia - your theroy is right, A machine thgat says $4.00 would then charge $2.00 from each bank. but that is not what happens.

if the bank machine your at says 4.00 they charge you 4.00 - bank of america will double that when they take 4.00 from your account. so it says 4 but you pay 8.

please check your bank statement, although the bank machine you took money out of says there was a 4.00 charge, your bank statement shows 8.00 was taken from your account. yes the money was split, sometimes they add it to the withdrawl and sometimes it appears as a seperate charge.

so for a 400 dollar withdrawl with a 4 dollar charge the withdrawl would say 404 and there would be a seperate 4.00 fee from bank of america thus you pay double.

either way BANK OF AMERICA SCREWS ITS CUSTOMERS

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#49 Consumer Comment

So what you are saying Dave.....

AUTHOR: Leticia - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, March 11, 2007

Is that if you were charged $4.00 to use a non bank of america ATM, and they just split that payment then it wouldn't be ripoff?

Also unlike what Pete says, everytime I have used an outside ATM, no matter what bank I was dealing with at the time, I would get a message telling me about the fee and also informing me that the fee was in ADDITION to any fee that my own bank may access me.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#48 Consumer Comment

I lucked out myself.

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, March 11, 2007

My bank-Peapack Gladstone-used to do the same thing. Then all of a sudden they told us they would no longer charge us to use another vendors machine, plus, would refund the funds the other vendor charged us.
I guess alot of customers must have *&*& and this bank is nowhere near the size of BofA.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#47 Author of original report

Bank of America ATM FEE Rip-Off

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, March 11, 2007

Any way you justify it, it is a rip-off. to double charge you to take out your own money via a machine is un-just. think about it, the place you use the machine charges you 2 bucks and bank of america doubles it when they charge 2 bucks for same use.

in the old days when the banks ripped you off - the one fee would be split two ways, now they just double bill you and take you money a dollar or two at a time.

not only does bank of america ripp you off with atm fees, the small business banking fees are also a rip off.

so do the math and justify it your own way, disclaimers and all...

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#46 Consumer Comment

This is just ridiculous

AUTHOR: Chip - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Dave, you just don't get it. Why do you suspect those of us with reason and understanding as Bank of America loyalists, employess, paid message posters, etc.? Right, because it's easier for you to conclude that rather than accept the fact you just don't get it.

I'm not going to re-hash all the other posters' comments that this is not a ripoff.

Some people on here just need to get a grip. Just because you don't understand how banking works does not mean that you're being ripped off by the bank.

I'm a little concerned about how these folks are coping out in society.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#45 Consumer Suggestion

Dave, READ your account agreement! It is CLEARLY spelled out.

AUTHOR: Steve [Not A Lawyer] - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Dave,

No rip off here. Period.

These fees are all disclosed in your account agreement that you signed when you opened the account.

Almost all banks charge for using another bank's ATM's. And all ATM's charge a fee unless you are an account holder at that bank.

2 charges are involved because 2 banks are involved. Very simple.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#44 Consumer Comment

BofA

AUTHOR: Shawn - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Dave,

I've had similar issues with Bank of America. They are very deceptive with their posting of fees and such. I've dealt with my last problem with them. I'm disputing some charges and closing my account after my last direct deposit goes through. The Bank does not care enough about you unless you have a lot of money in the bank. I'm very responsible and read the fine print, yet still there are fees that have no logic and seem to come from no where. It's not that I'm no responsible with my accounts, it's just near impossible to comprehend the enormous fees and thus keep up with them financially.

Shawn
New Jersey

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#43 Consumer Suggestion

I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 18, 2006

I am a Bank of America customer and have been for approx 15 years. I never pay ATM fees.

It is called making a choice. I ONLY use BofA ATM's or I use my debit card to make the purchase.

It is called being financially aware. Read the terms of your account agreement and these fees are clearly disclosed.

AND..you will be hard pressed to find a bank that does not charge you to use another bank's ATM's. It is common banking practice.

So, if you are paying these fees, you are ripping yourself off. You are making a choice to pay the fees.

Just have some discipline and do not use that non Bof A ATM. Simple. No fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#42 Consumer Suggestion

I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 18, 2006

I am a Bank of America customer and have been for approx 15 years. I never pay ATM fees.

It is called making a choice. I ONLY use BofA ATM's or I use my debit card to make the purchase.

It is called being financially aware. Read the terms of your account agreement and these fees are clearly disclosed.

AND..you will be hard pressed to find a bank that does not charge you to use another bank's ATM's. It is common banking practice.

So, if you are paying these fees, you are ripping yourself off. You are making a choice to pay the fees.

Just have some discipline and do not use that non Bof A ATM. Simple. No fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#41 Consumer Suggestion

I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 18, 2006

I am a Bank of America customer and have been for approx 15 years. I never pay ATM fees.

It is called making a choice. I ONLY use BofA ATM's or I use my debit card to make the purchase.

It is called being financially aware. Read the terms of your account agreement and these fees are clearly disclosed.

AND..you will be hard pressed to find a bank that does not charge you to use another bank's ATM's. It is common banking practice.

So, if you are paying these fees, you are ripping yourself off. You are making a choice to pay the fees.

Just have some discipline and do not use that non Bof A ATM. Simple. No fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#40 Consumer Suggestion

I never pay ATM fees. NEVER.

AUTHOR: Steve - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 18, 2006

I am a Bank of America customer and have been for approx 15 years. I never pay ATM fees.

It is called making a choice. I ONLY use BofA ATM's or I use my debit card to make the purchase.

It is called being financially aware. Read the terms of your account agreement and these fees are clearly disclosed.

AND..you will be hard pressed to find a bank that does not charge you to use another bank's ATM's. It is common banking practice.

So, if you are paying these fees, you are ripping yourself off. You are making a choice to pay the fees.

Just have some discipline and do not use that non Bof A ATM. Simple. No fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#39 Consumer Suggestion

Bank of America Scam

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 17, 2006

Yes Don, for once we agree.
looks like a cut and paste.

bank of america will wave all atm fees if your daily balance over 50k. once it drops under 50k they hit you up with fees.

no matter what you say or bank of dave says anyone using bank of america and using atm machines is getting screwed from bank of america.

bank of america is ripping off these customers

thanks,

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#38 Consumer Comment

You just shot yourself in the foot.....

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, February 16, 2006

This is a DIRECT cut and paste from your last rebuttal and I'm asking you, so what does this statement meen to you? "Bank of America may assess a fee for some transactions performed at ATMs operated by others and the ATM operator may charge an additional fee for cash withdrawals." Please tell us what this meens to you.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#37 Consumer Suggestion

Read your deposit agreement

AUTHOR: Stile - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Dave,

You say you were never notified that BofA would charge you a fee for using a foreign ATM, but I'm betting if you review your cardholder agreement you'll notice that a schedule of fees is included which shows the cost for a foreign ATM fee. I'm guessing this is the first checking account you've had, because practically all banks charge foreign ATM fees and if you'd had a prior account you would know what this fee is all about. Now you know, and if you choose to bank elsewhere, I imagine you'll be sure to check that deposit agreement so that you're not surprised again.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#36 Consumer Comment

Dave, I have good news for you...

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Dave, I have good news for you, I found a bank that doesn't charge for withdrawls. It's called "THE BANK OF DAVE" and it's right in your back pocket. In other words CLOSE YOUR d**n ACCOUNT ALREADY. And GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE! ! I look forward to your response, which I know you will.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#35 Author of original report

bank of america atm policy

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

right off the website.

Bank of America customers can withdraw cash with their Bank of America Check Card or ATM Card without a fee at nearly 13,000 Bank of America ATMs in the United States and at over 12,000 international ATMs operated by members of the Global ATM Alliance. Bank of America may assess a fee for some transactions performed at ATMs operated by others and the ATM operator may charge an additional fee for cash withdrawals.


** no where does it say that they will add the fee to your withdrawl

** there is no specific fee mentioned.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#34 Author of original report

BANK OF AMERICA SCAM

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

Folks, check the hidden fees in your bank of america statements. If you use a non- bank of america atm they abuse your money.

It is clear to me that this is a big scam - and i dont disagree that other banks scam also -
but bank of america is abusive in these fees.

check your statement folks - bank of america is not a small time trustworthy bank - they will rape you with bank fees whenever possible - this also includes non-amt fees.

yes all banks have fees - but bank of america is a w***e when it comes to these fees - especially the atm fees.

time to find a new bank - it is clear i am not the only unhappy banker with bank of america.

can anyone recommend a better bank? one that does not rip you off?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#33 Consumer Suggestion

ANOTHER BANK OF AMERICA SCAM

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

How many people did Bank of America hire to post messages on this and like sites?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#32 Consumer Comment

Dave, you just refuse to listen. One suggestion in here may help others though.

AUTHOR: Mike - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

I do not work for Bank Of America. Bank Of America did not solicit, encourage, or compensate me for my comments here.

There are two fees. Bank Of America keeps one. The owner of the non-Bank Of America ATM keeps the other one. THIS IS NOT A "DOUBLE BILL." It is TWO fees that go to DIFFERENT companies.

The Bank Of America fee is shown as a SEPERATE LINE ITEM on your statement. IT IS NOT HIDDEN. It was disclosed to you in the fine print when you opened the account. You can ask the bank for further explanation or to send you a copy of the terms of your account. IT IS NOT HIDDEN.

The other bank's fee is added to the amount of the withdraw. It was disclosed to you by a sign on the ATM and also a message on the ATM screen. IT IS NOT HIDDEN. The reason it is added to the amount of withdrawal is that the ATM computer network just transfers money between banks. To save processing costs, the ATM requests a single transfer of the amount of cash plus the fee. The ATM dispenses the cash and the company that owns it keeps the fee. NOT BANK OF AMERICA.

The other ATM can't inform you of the fee that Bank of America will charge because IT DOESN'T KNOW. The computer network that links the ATM to Bank of America is not used for this type of information. It is only for transferring money.

Now it is SIMPLE to avoid these fees.

* Use a Bank of America ATM. There are NO fees of any sort then.

* Go to one of the many major stores that accept debit cards. With any purchase, MOST of them give you an option to get "CASH BACK." Ask the cashier if the store has a cash back option on debit cards (most do), and if they charge a fee (most don't). Select "Debit" on the terminal and enter your PIN number. You will be prompted for the amount of cash back. The cashier will take money out of the register and hand it to you like a HUMAN ATM. Bank of America should not charge you a fee, though with certain types of accounts they might. (I can't say for sure because I DON'T WORK FOR BANK OF AMERICA.)

* Find a "no surcharge" ATM. These are rare, usually owned by credit unions. The amount withdrawn from you account will be exactly the amount of cash you receive. YOU WILL STILL BE CHARGED THE BANK OF AMERICA FEE AS A SEPERATE LINE ITEM ON YOUR STATEMENT.

* If you must use a non-Bank of America ATM, withdraw a significant amount of cash so you don't have to use a foreign ATM again for a while. The fees are a FLAT RATE. The more money you withdraw the less they are on a percentage basis.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#31 Consumer Comment

STILL, BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

ok Pete, i see your working for bank of america too.

i disagree with you because when you use your atm card, the bank or banks can each line item the charges.

there is no need for bank of america to deduct there fee and hide it as part of your withdrawl.

before bank of america took over fleet bank - fleet bank did not double charge for the withdrawl of non fleet atms.

howver bank of america does double charge you.

as for checks, it cost the bank alot more money when you walk in to the bank then when you use a atm.

ps. pete, when did bank of america hire you to reply to negetative pr they get?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#30 Consumer Suggestion

MORE SCAMS FROM BANK OF AMERICA

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

come one people - it is too obvious that you are on the payroll of bank of america

so bank of america hires you to make noise and trash the person filing the complaint.

this does not change the fact that bank of america is ripping off its customers when they dont use a bank of america atm.


so you all think it is fair to be double billed by your bank?

so you all think paying 1.5% to 4% to withdrawl your money is fair?

ok- so i guess you all only use your own bank's atm machines...

BOTTOM LINE - BANK OF AMERICA CUSTOMERS WHO USE NON BANK OF AMERICA ATM ARE BEING BILLED TWICE. THIS IS A DOUBLE BILL AND THE BILL IS HIDDEN IN THE FORM OF A WITHDRAWL

IF IT WAS NOT A RIP OFF THEN WHY DOSENT YOUR BANK STATEMENT INDICATE THE SEPERATE FEE FROM EACH BANK CHARGING YOU TO USE THE ATM.

BANK OF AMERICA BANK STATEMENTS ONLY SHOW THE NON BANK OF AMERICA ATM FEE - AND THEY ADD THERE FEE TO YOUR WITHDRAWL (ESSETIALLY HIDING THE FEE)

SHOULDENT YOU BANK TELL YOU THE TRUTH ON THE BANK STATEMENT - WHY DOES BANK OF AMERICA HIDE ITS ATM FEES? WHERE IS THIS IN THE AGREEMENT?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#29 Consumer Comment

You're right Dave

AUTHOR: Pete - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

'take a close look at the bank machine when it asks you to charge money for the withdrawl. no where does it say your bank will also charge you for this withdrawl.'

Why should they? The only exact figure they know is the charge for using that particular ATM machine. BUT you were advised by your bank what they would charge you if you used a foreign ATM. You were either given this information when you opened up your account or if you've had your account since before the advent of ATM cards (as have I), you received the information in the same mailing as your ATM card.

Why would you consider this illegal? Banks are in business to make money, as is everyone. I suppose you also think if you bring a check into my bank where you don't have an account, they should just hand over the cash with no charge, right? Doesn't work that way. Best thing for you to do is not use an ATM machine. But, then, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, would you?

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#28 Consumer Comment

Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

Any way you look at it bank of america hides these fees.

they add there fee to your withdrawl. this is unethical, border line illegal, and a major scam and rip off.

take a close look at the bank machine when it asks you to charge money for the withdrawl. no where does it say your bank will also charge you for this withdrawl.

some banks offer free use of any atm machine - bank of america wants to profit from this area - and they do - they have hugh profits - from atm fees- it is a money maker for them

so let bank of america staff come on to this site and lie that they do not rip you off, double charge you, or take advantage of its customers by overcharging for withdrawl of money

1) BANK OF AMERICA IS SNEAKY AND UNETHICAL IN THE WAY THEY HIDE THE WITHDRAWL FEES.

2) USE OF BANK OF AMERICA ATM CARD ON NON-BANK OF AMERICA ATM MACHINE IS A RIP OFF.

3.) WITH SOME ATM MACHINES, BANK OF AMERICA WILL CHARGE YOU MORE MONEY TO WITHDRAWL MONEY THAN THE ATM MACHINE YOUR USING.

do not beleive any rebuttals by paid bank of america employees hired to bury the truth.

BANK OF AMERICA IS A RIP OFF.
BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS

IF YOU NEED A BANK - DO NOT BANK WITH BANK OF AMERICA - THEY ARE NOW THE WORST BANK.....


ALSO NOTE THAT BANK OF AMERICA HAS ACQUIRED THERE WAY TO YOUR ACCOUNT - IF BANK OF AMERICA TOOK OVER YOUR PREVIOUS BANK - YOU ARE PAYING MORE MONEY NOW THAN YOU DID BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED YOUR OLD BANK...

ATTENTION: BANK OF AMERICA CUSTOMERS -- IT IS TIME TO FIND A NEW BANK - A BANK WITH ETHICS.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#27 Consumer Comment

Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

Any way you look at it bank of america hides these fees.

they add there fee to your withdrawl. this is unethical, border line illegal, and a major scam and rip off.

take a close look at the bank machine when it asks you to charge money for the withdrawl. no where does it say your bank will also charge you for this withdrawl.

some banks offer free use of any atm machine - bank of america wants to profit from this area - and they do - they have hugh profits - from atm fees- it is a money maker for them

so let bank of america staff come on to this site and lie that they do not rip you off, double charge you, or take advantage of its customers by overcharging for withdrawl of money

1) BANK OF AMERICA IS SNEAKY AND UNETHICAL IN THE WAY THEY HIDE THE WITHDRAWL FEES.

2) USE OF BANK OF AMERICA ATM CARD ON NON-BANK OF AMERICA ATM MACHINE IS A RIP OFF.

3.) WITH SOME ATM MACHINES, BANK OF AMERICA WILL CHARGE YOU MORE MONEY TO WITHDRAWL MONEY THAN THE ATM MACHINE YOUR USING.

do not beleive any rebuttals by paid bank of america employees hired to bury the truth.

BANK OF AMERICA IS A RIP OFF.
BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS

IF YOU NEED A BANK - DO NOT BANK WITH BANK OF AMERICA - THEY ARE NOW THE WORST BANK.....


ALSO NOTE THAT BANK OF AMERICA HAS ACQUIRED THERE WAY TO YOUR ACCOUNT - IF BANK OF AMERICA TOOK OVER YOUR PREVIOUS BANK - YOU ARE PAYING MORE MONEY NOW THAN YOU DID BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED YOUR OLD BANK...

ATTENTION: BANK OF AMERICA CUSTOMERS -- IT IS TIME TO FIND A NEW BANK - A BANK WITH ETHICS.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#26 Consumer Comment

Bank of America ATM fees are a Scams and Rips You Off

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

Any way you look at it bank of america hides these fees.

they add there fee to your withdrawl. this is unethical, border line illegal, and a major scam and rip off.

take a close look at the bank machine when it asks you to charge money for the withdrawl. no where does it say your bank will also charge you for this withdrawl.

some banks offer free use of any atm machine - bank of america wants to profit from this area - and they do - they have hugh profits - from atm fees- it is a money maker for them

so let bank of america staff come on to this site and lie that they do not rip you off, double charge you, or take advantage of its customers by overcharging for withdrawl of money

1) BANK OF AMERICA IS SNEAKY AND UNETHICAL IN THE WAY THEY HIDE THE WITHDRAWL FEES.

2) USE OF BANK OF AMERICA ATM CARD ON NON-BANK OF AMERICA ATM MACHINE IS A RIP OFF.

3.) WITH SOME ATM MACHINES, BANK OF AMERICA WILL CHARGE YOU MORE MONEY TO WITHDRAWL MONEY THAN THE ATM MACHINE YOUR USING.

do not beleive any rebuttals by paid bank of america employees hired to bury the truth.

BANK OF AMERICA IS A RIP OFF.
BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS

IF YOU NEED A BANK - DO NOT BANK WITH BANK OF AMERICA - THEY ARE NOW THE WORST BANK.....


ALSO NOTE THAT BANK OF AMERICA HAS ACQUIRED THERE WAY TO YOUR ACCOUNT - IF BANK OF AMERICA TOOK OVER YOUR PREVIOUS BANK - YOU ARE PAYING MORE MONEY NOW THAN YOU DID BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED YOUR OLD BANK...

ATTENTION: BANK OF AMERICA CUSTOMERS -- IT IS TIME TO FIND A NEW BANK - A BANK WITH ETHICS.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#25 Consumer Comment

Dave, They are NOT all the same ammount

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, February 13, 2006

Dave, How would the bank (that you are making the withdrawl from) know how much YOUR bank would charge? They are NOT all the same ammount.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#24 Consumer Comment

MY BANK DOES REFUND ATM SURCHARGES FROM OTHER BANKS

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

I get up to $15 a month rebated to my account each month, as well as no charge from my bank for using a foreign ATM (up to ten per month), but banks that do that are very few and far between. My bank is in your hometown, Cory. They are a one "brick and mortar" branch bank and they are fabulous. After going to USAA, I would never in a million years go back to the "branch-on-every-corner" banks. They act as if they are doing you a favor by allowing you to deposit your money.

You are right...Dave didn't read his disclosures and probably didn't listen to the New Accounts rep as he/she explained this policy to him.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#23 Consumer Comment

Robert Leave it to you to point out the obvious

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

Leave it to you to point out the obvious. Everyone else just reads those posts, like Dave's, and laughs. Why do you think they put those signs on coke machines that say; Don't Rock or Tip Might be Hazardous To Your Health, When It Falls on You, with pictures at that.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#22 Consumer Comment

BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

Posted?

Don't use ATM's. Last time I used an ATM machine was in the early '80's. When I deposit my check, I get out enough cash to last me until the next one. Every ATM machine that I've looked at, has some kind of sign posted on it about what the fee will be to use that machine ($1.50-$2.00) PLUS whatever your bank charges. Was downstairs at a mall one day and a couple was discussing the ATM there. If they used that one, it would cost them $1.50 because it was from another bank. If they walked upstairs the ATM there was from their bank and they wouldn't pay a fee. So what I'm wondering is, did this ATM have a sign posted on it about fees? It figures with BoA. Some banks will refund other bank's ATM fees. Good old BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee. Had a women who worked for me. Her moron boyfriend hit the ATM machine SIXTY times in one month. He hit it for breakfast AND lunch, twice a day for the whole month. I think they paid $75 in ATM fees that month and I think their bank did't charge ATM fees, so it had to come from the other banks. I doubt the OP read any of his paperwork when he opened his account or what is on the ATM machines, otherwise he'd know about the fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#21 Consumer Comment

BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

Posted?

Don't use ATM's. Last time I used an ATM machine was in the early '80's. When I deposit my check, I get out enough cash to last me until the next one. Every ATM machine that I've looked at, has some kind of sign posted on it about what the fee will be to use that machine ($1.50-$2.00) PLUS whatever your bank charges. Was downstairs at a mall one day and a couple was discussing the ATM there. If they used that one, it would cost them $1.50 because it was from another bank. If they walked upstairs the ATM there was from their bank and they wouldn't pay a fee. So what I'm wondering is, did this ATM have a sign posted on it about fees? It figures with BoA. Some banks will refund other bank's ATM fees. Good old BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee. Had a women who worked for me. Her moron boyfriend hit the ATM machine SIXTY times in one month. He hit it for breakfast AND lunch, twice a day for the whole month. I think they paid $75 in ATM fees that month and I think their bank did't charge ATM fees, so it had to come from the other banks. I doubt the OP read any of his paperwork when he opened his account or what is on the ATM machines, otherwise he'd know about the fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#20 Consumer Comment

BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee

AUTHOR: Cory - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

Posted?

Don't use ATM's. Last time I used an ATM machine was in the early '80's. When I deposit my check, I get out enough cash to last me until the next one. Every ATM machine that I've looked at, has some kind of sign posted on it about what the fee will be to use that machine ($1.50-$2.00) PLUS whatever your bank charges. Was downstairs at a mall one day and a couple was discussing the ATM there. If they used that one, it would cost them $1.50 because it was from another bank. If they walked upstairs the ATM there was from their bank and they wouldn't pay a fee. So what I'm wondering is, did this ATM have a sign posted on it about fees? It figures with BoA. Some banks will refund other bank's ATM fees. Good old BoA not only doesn't refund other banks fees it adds on another $2.00 to the other bank's ATM fee. Had a women who worked for me. Her moron boyfriend hit the ATM machine SIXTY times in one month. He hit it for breakfast AND lunch, twice a day for the whole month. I think they paid $75 in ATM fees that month and I think their bank did't charge ATM fees, so it had to come from the other banks. I doubt the OP read any of his paperwork when he opened his account or what is on the ATM machines, otherwise he'd know about the fees.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#19 Consumer Comment

"The customer is always wrong"

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, February 12, 2006

Does anyone actually wonder why I made this saying up? Can anybody deny it's usefullness, and accuracy? Just look at Dave.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#18 Consumer Comment

DAVE ISN'T HEARING WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING

AUTHOR: Sherri - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 11, 2006

As much as I don't care for Bank of America, what they are doing is common practice by 99.9% of the commercial banks in the country. You use a foreign ATM (an ATM not belonging to the bank you bank with) and that bank charges you a surcharge, as well as your bank for not using their ATM. It is a very simple concept, and is fully disclosed in the account disclosures when you open an account. It is not rocket science, and other than drawing stick figures, I have no clue how to simplify it for you further.

Sounds to me that you are not ready to have a checking account or bank account of any kind.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#17 Consumer Comment

BANK OF AMERICA HIDES THE ATM FEE

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Saturday, February 11, 2006

look, when the machine asks if it is ok if this bank charges you $1.50 - it does not say that your bank will also charge you for the same withdrawl.

when you get your statement - they do charge you.

do not be confused - this is a hugh rip off -

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#16 Consumer Comment

Misunderstanding The only solution is to use ATMs owned by your own bank

AUTHOR: Richard - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

What you're decribing happens at nearly every bank, but it's not what you think. One of those $1.50 charges goes to your bank and the other goes to the bank which owns the ATM machine you are using. Actually, those charges are pretty low. I've seen banks that charge up to $4.00 to use their ATM machine if you're not one of their customers. The only solution is to use ATMs owned by your own bank

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#15 Consumer Comment

Get a Grip

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

The Bank that owns the ATM you are using is charging the first 1.50....

Bank of amnerica then charges you a fee because you used another Bank to take money out of your account.

Every bank charges this. Read your account agreement and you will see that you were informed of tghis. The only way for you to get a free ATM transaction is to use your own banks ATM.

The Fee Free ATMS don't charge the first fee but your bank will still chharge you.

Got to your own bank and use the ATM and you will save some money.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#14 Consumer Comment

Get a Grip

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

The Bank that owns the ATM you are using is charging the first 1.50....

Bank of amnerica then charges you a fee because you used another Bank to take money out of your account.

Every bank charges this. Read your account agreement and you will see that you were informed of tghis. The only way for you to get a free ATM transaction is to use your own banks ATM.

The Fee Free ATMS don't charge the first fee but your bank will still chharge you.

Got to your own bank and use the ATM and you will save some money.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#13 Consumer Comment

Get a Grip

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

The Bank that owns the ATM you are using is charging the first 1.50....

Bank of amnerica then charges you a fee because you used another Bank to take money out of your account.

Every bank charges this. Read your account agreement and you will see that you were informed of tghis. The only way for you to get a free ATM transaction is to use your own banks ATM.

The Fee Free ATMS don't charge the first fee but your bank will still chharge you.

Got to your own bank and use the ATM and you will save some money.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#12 Consumer Comment

Get a Grip

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

The Bank that owns the ATM you are using is charging the first 1.50....

Bank of amnerica then charges you a fee because you used another Bank to take money out of your account.

Every bank charges this. Read your account agreement and you will see that you were informed of tghis. The only way for you to get a free ATM transaction is to use your own banks ATM.

The Fee Free ATMS don't charge the first fee but your bank will still chharge you.

Got to your own bank and use the ATM and you will save some money.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment

I think it's a different charge

AUTHOR: Jenifer - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

I believe the extra $1.50 is not a double charge by B of A, but a charge by the owner of the foreign ATM machine. Have you called the bank and asked them? I am with US Bank; if I take out money from a non US Bank ATM, US Bank will charge me $1.50 as will the owner of the ATM-therefore, I expect to pay $3 for the transaction on top of the amount of $ I took out....hope this helps.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Consumer Comment

I think it's a different charge

AUTHOR: Jenifer - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

I believe the extra $1.50 is not a double charge by B of A, but a charge by the owner of the foreign ATM machine. Have you called the bank and asked them? I am with US Bank; if I take out money from a non US Bank ATM, US Bank will charge me $1.50 as will the owner of the ATM-therefore, I expect to pay $3 for the transaction on top of the amount of $ I took out....hope this helps.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment

I think it's a different charge

AUTHOR: Jenifer - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

I believe the extra $1.50 is not a double charge by B of A, but a charge by the owner of the foreign ATM machine. Have you called the bank and asked them? I am with US Bank; if I take out money from a non US Bank ATM, US Bank will charge me $1.50 as will the owner of the ATM-therefore, I expect to pay $3 for the transaction on top of the amount of $ I took out....hope this helps.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Comment

These are not hidden fees

AUTHOR: Melanie - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

the 1.50 that you said yes to at the time of the transaction is the owner of the atm's fee not BOA's fee and is the reason your w/d shows as 101.50. the other 1.50 is BOA's charge to you for use of a non-BOA atm.
All banks charge foreign customers a charge. Your bank in turn may charge you a fee for using an atm that is not owned by them since it does cost them money for that transaction being done. This information is part of the disclosure that you received when you either A)opened your account or B) may have been given to you when you asked for/got the card.

I can say this, you are not going to get a class action lawsuit out of this. The fee is legal and has been disclosed to the customers as is required by law.

Before anyone says I work for BOA I don't, never have and never will, I do work on banking software though (worked specifically with atm code for 4 years)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

These are not hidden fees

AUTHOR: Melanie - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

the 1.50 that you said yes to at the time of the transaction is the owner of the atm's fee not BOA's fee and is the reason your w/d shows as 101.50. the other 1.50 is BOA's charge to you for use of a non-BOA atm.
All banks charge foreign customers a charge. Your bank in turn may charge you a fee for using an atm that is not owned by them since it does cost them money for that transaction being done. This information is part of the disclosure that you received when you either A)opened your account or B) may have been given to you when you asked for/got the card.

I can say this, you are not going to get a class action lawsuit out of this. The fee is legal and has been disclosed to the customers as is required by law.

Before anyone says I work for BOA I don't, never have and never will, I do work on banking software though (worked specifically with atm code for 4 years)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment

These are not hidden fees

AUTHOR: Melanie - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

the 1.50 that you said yes to at the time of the transaction is the owner of the atm's fee not BOA's fee and is the reason your w/d shows as 101.50. the other 1.50 is BOA's charge to you for use of a non-BOA atm.
All banks charge foreign customers a charge. Your bank in turn may charge you a fee for using an atm that is not owned by them since it does cost them money for that transaction being done. This information is part of the disclosure that you received when you either A)opened your account or B) may have been given to you when you asked for/got the card.

I can say this, you are not going to get a class action lawsuit out of this. The fee is legal and has been disclosed to the customers as is required by law.

Before anyone says I work for BOA I don't, never have and never will, I do work on banking software though (worked specifically with atm code for 4 years)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

These are not hidden fees

AUTHOR: Melanie - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

the 1.50 that you said yes to at the time of the transaction is the owner of the atm's fee not BOA's fee and is the reason your w/d shows as 101.50. the other 1.50 is BOA's charge to you for use of a non-BOA atm.
All banks charge foreign customers a charge. Your bank in turn may charge you a fee for using an atm that is not owned by them since it does cost them money for that transaction being done. This information is part of the disclosure that you received when you either A)opened your account or B) may have been given to you when you asked for/got the card.

I can say this, you are not going to get a class action lawsuit out of this. The fee is legal and has been disclosed to the customers as is required by law.

Before anyone says I work for BOA I don't, never have and never will, I do work on banking software though (worked specifically with atm code for 4 years)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

There is NO rip off here.

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

There is no rip off here, a little misunderstang maybe, but NO rip off. The original $1.50 fee is fro the atm that OWNS THE ATM. Let me say that again, "THAT OWNS THE ATM". Lets say for example that you go to a Wachovia Bank ATM. You willingly insert your card. Request to do a withdrawl. The ATM then states that there will be a $1.50 fee to compleate this transaction, "DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?" At this point you can say YES, get charged the $1.50 and you take your cash, OR you can say NO, get your card back, and go on your merry way. If you do select YES, they give you the cash plus a recept stating that the total amount withdrawn was $101.50 . And then, this is where you think you are getting ripped of at, Wachovia then tells BOA that you went to their atm and withdrew $101.50, and BOA then charges a fee of $1.50 to you. ALL this information is in the paperwork that you recieved when you opened the account. So go re-read or MORE THAN LIKELY read the information for the first time. IF you still don't understand go to your local branch and ask someone there to explane this VERY SIMPLE information. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU RESPONSE. On a side note, I work for a national bank and a lady came and made a complaint that the at didn't give her her money. I went out there to make sure she was doing everything correctly. Saw her put in her card, NOT ONE OF OURS in to the atm and when it got to the point of asking "Do you agree to the fee to complete this transaction?" She pressed NO. and tha atm gave her back her card. What a STUPID lady.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

This issue has already been addressed

AUTHOR: Dave - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

I assume you are young and naive. This is how ATM withdrawls work.

If you take money out of an ATM that is NOT your own bank's, that ATM will charge you a fee. Then, when your OWN BANK gets the transaction, it will charge you their fee. It's called double-dipping and has been around for years. It is perfectly legal.

To avoid this, go to a B of A ATM or, get an account at a bank that doesn't charge for a foreign ATM. However, you will STILL be charged to withdraw money from the foreign ATM.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Suggestion

Double Bank of America is charging $1.50

AUTHOR: Bob - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

Bank of America is charging $1.50 the bank's ATM that you are using is charging $1.50, thats were you get 101.50. You should not be using a ATM card if you don't know this

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Well then.....

AUTHOR: D - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, February 10, 2006

Well then, CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT and only use cash then. I look forward to your response.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now