Bank of America Agrees to $2.25M Settlement over ATM Fees
By John Nada·May 16, 2026·4 min read
Bank of America settles a $2.25M lawsuit over excessive ATM fees charged at 7-Eleven stores. Eligible customers will share the payout.
Bank of America is set to pay $2.25 million to resolve claims of excessive ATM fees charged at 7-Eleven stores, Yahoo Finance reports. Initially filed in a California federal court in 2019, the lawsuit accused the bank of double-charging customers for balance inquiries at ATMs owned by FCTI, Inc.
The class-action suit involves account holders who used FCTI-owned ATMs at 7-Eleven locations between May 1, 2018, and November 16, 2021. Despite opting for a settlement, Bank of America doesn’t admit to any wrongdoing. Instead, the bank chose this route to sidestep ongoing litigation costs and a potential trial, the report states.
Eligibility for the payout requires that customers were assessed more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during a single visit and haven’t already been compensated under a previous settlement. Notices about the settlement were sent to current customers, who don’t need to file a claim to receive their share. However, past account holders must submit claims by the end of July.
The final approval hearing is slated for August 21, 2026. While the settlement amount is fixed, the distribution per person remains uncertain due to the unspecified size of the affected class. Eligible individuals will equally share the settlement fund.
The banking giant isn’t alone in facing litigation over ATM fees. Settlements like these highlight the broader regulatory scrutiny and consumer rights issues banks encounter. Such legal actions can potentially reshape how financial institutions handle ATM fees in the future, encouraging more transparency and fairness.
The lawsuit, which originated from a 2019 complaint filed in southern California, alleged a breach of contract by Bank of America. Customers were reportedly charged two out-of-network fees for what should have been a single balance inquiry transaction at the FCTI-owned ATMs. This practice raised significant concerns among account holders, prompting legal action.
The settlement covers a specific period, targeting those who used the implicated ATMs from May 1, 2018, to November 16, 2021. This timeframe captures a significant number of transactions, potentially affecting a large group of customers. The settlement website outlines that the decision to settle was mutual between Bank of America and the plaintiffs to avoid the costs and unpredictability of a trial.
For those uncertain about their eligibility, additional resources are available. Customers can verify their status by contacting the settlement helpline or visiting the designated website. This ensures that all potentially affected parties are informed and have the opportunity to claim their share if eligible.
The uncertainty surrounding the individual payouts stems from the unquantified size of the class action group. The settlement class is described as "so numerous," pointing to a substantial number of affected account holders. This widespread impact underscores the significance of the issue and the importance of the settlement.
The process for distribution is streamlined for current account holders, who will automatically receive their portion if they were affected. This approach simplifies the procedure, allowing for a more efficient settlement distribution. However, former account holders are required to take the initiative by filing a claim by July 29 to ensure they receive their due compensation.
The litigation against Bank of America is part of a broader trend of legal actions targeting ATM fees, reflecting increased regulatory oversight and consumer protection efforts. These cases highlight the necessity for financial institutions to adopt clearer and more equitable fee structures. As such cases become more common, banks may be driven to revise their fee policies to avoid similar disputes in the future.
The implications of this settlement extend beyond the immediate financial repercussions for Bank of America. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing vigilance required in the banking sector regarding customer fees and contract terms. The outcome may also influence how other banks approach their fee structures, potentially fostering a more consumer-friendly banking environment.