Bank Of America Customer? Be Careful With Uber Rides

Thank Bank of America for a whole new definition of surge pricing.
Author:
Publish date:

Thank Bank of America for a whole new definition of surge pricing.

brimo-uber

In a class-action case, the bank was accused of charging unwarranted overdraft fees to customers taking Uber rides with too little cash in their accounts, a violation of BofA’s terms. As plaintiffs allege, the charges had the effect of multiplying more than fivefold the cost of a short $8 Uber ride.

The bank “breached its contractual promises,” the lawsuit states, by assessing overdraft charges on one-off purchases that were wrongly classified as “recurring,” and thus liable to incur charges.

It’s not the first time BofA has come under scrutiny for its overdraft practices. In January, the bank agreed to pony up $27.5 million in order to settle a class-action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees being wrongfully charged to some 3 million customers. The settlement came nearly six years after the bank announced, to minor fanfare, that it would reclassify the way it charges overdraft fees on retail accounts

But overdraft issues persist, according to the suit, Pantelyat v. Bank of America.

The issue comes down to how BofA classifies different types of debits: recurring and non-recurring. For recurring charges, like gym memberships and rent payments, BofA’s terms allow the bank to charge fees when accounts are overdrawn. But for ordinary one-off charges like cab rides or groceries, the bank promises to simply decline purchases that would put account balances in the red.

As then-BofA executive Susan Faulkner said of the policy in 2010, “Our customers have been clear that they want to know if a purchase is going to overdraw their account.”

But if the lawsuit is any indication, the same kind of overdraft fees that raised hackles before the reforms are still hitting customers.

On March 4, 2016, Pantelyat’s account balance sat at just $3.44. Still, she ended up taking two Uber rides, the first costing $10, the second $7.67. These were one-time, non-recurring purchases – the sort that aren’t supposed to trigger fees.

Yet BofA hit her with two $35 overdraft charges, turning the $18 in Uber rides into $88 combined.

“Bank of America has systematically authorized overdrafts on everyday non-recurring debit card transactions and has charged a $35 overdraft fee for each transaction,” the lawsuit states. “Bank of America authorizes these misclassified transactions in order to maximize its overdraft fee revenue.”

It’s not clear that BofA really engineered the charges in the way the lawsuit claims, or simply saw the plaintiff’s Uber rides happening on such a regular basis as to assume they were recurring charges. Though overdraft fees have come down in recent years, they still contribute a healthy profit margin for major banks, totaling $6 billion last year between the nation's three biggest lenders – BofA, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. 

A consumer banking representative at Bank of America did not respond to a request for comment.

Debit spendthrifts: Don’t let your accounts dwindle to zero. But if you can’t help it, stay away from Uber.

Related

Layoffs Watch '12: Bank Of America

In April 2010, Bank of America said ENOUGH. Enough with this losing of money business. We want to know what it's like to have a quarter in which we actually make a little-- wouldn't that be something? As this was a very lofty goal for the firm, the higher-ups knew they had to get serious-- really focus and hone in an on plan of action. First, they gave their new (money-making) mission a special codename: Project New BAC. Then, 44 executives "fanned out around the company to ask employees low- and high-level for ideas on how BofA [could]...reduce expenses." As we now know, what they came up with re: the reduction of expenses was that 30,000 people should be fired and over the last year, exactly that has happened. And even though a whole bunch of senior people have quit, which has helped the bottom line a bit, it hasn't been enough for meddlesome investors to put a sock in it re: "reining in expenses" and "profit outlook" in general. So, a couple things are going to happen: 1. A whole bunch of well-paid* bankers are going to be escorted out of the building and 2. In order to pick up the slack left, clusters of junior bankers are going to put in a van which will drop them off in whatever division needs them most at the time. The Charlotte, N.C., company is planning about 2,000 staff cuts in its investment banking, commercial banking and non-U.S. wealth-management units, said people familiar with the situation. Those operations were vastly expanded with Bank of America's 2009 purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. The reductions are significant because of whom they target: the high-earning employees whose efforts helped Merrill Lynch account for the bulk of Bank of America's profit since the financial crisis. The cuts come on top of a plan announced last year that will see Bank of America eliminate 30,000 jobs over three years in its consumer banking divisions...The No. 2 U.S. bank by assets already is facing a wave of high-profile defections in its institutional businesses, such as investment banking, amid Wall Street's annual post-bonus job-hopping season. The upheaval comes as investors are pressuring banks to rein in expenses without giving ground competitively. Despite a 46% rise this year, Bank of America shares have lost a third of their value in the past year, amid questions about the industry's profit outlook. Cutbacks aren't Bank of America's only response to surging costs. The bank is loath to cut too deeply in businesses, such as the fixed-income trading operation, that are showing improvement and highly competitive. One structural shift being planned will pool junior investment-banking employees across different industry sectors so the younger bankers can be routed to whatever area is most in demand at that moment, said people familiar with the situation. Proponents say that move will help younger workers gain more experience, while others say it will detract from the bank's service to clients. BofA To Cut From Elite Ranks [WSJ] *For BofA.

Who Wouldn't Want To Sue Bank of America?

August was kind of rough for Bank of America on the legal front, to the point that we once said in Write-Offs "Everybody who hadn’t yet sued BofA did today, or will soon." But that turned out to be wrong! Or at least, it underestimated the continuing appeal of suing Bank of America, because now not only is everyone who is not Bank of America suing Bank of America, but so is Bank of America: [I]n Florida's Palm Beach County alone, Bank of America has sued itself for foreclosure 11 times since late March, according to foreclosure fraud activist Lynn Szymoniak, who forwarded one such foreclosure filing, dated March 29, 2012, to The Huffington Post. ... In the March 29 filing, Bank of America is seeking to foreclose on a condominium and names the condo owner and Bank of America as defendants in the suit. The company is literally seeking damages from itself in order to foreclose on the condo owner. Ha ha ha but why is Bank of America a delinquent condo owner? Because of course it's not; it's the second lien holder: