Revenge of the ATM Fees!
Marquette Bank must pay
Getty Images
Remember: fees must be disclosed.
Sheryl Stone was mad as hell about a $3 ATM fee that wasn't properly disclosed and decided not to take it anymore.
Of course, her law firm specializes in lawsuits against banks for wayward ATM fees, but still, we can all relate.
And now Marquette Bank might have to pony up as much as $1,000 each to other customers unknowingly charged with the same fee, the SouthtownStar reports.
"[Stone] claimed Marquette violated the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act by not disclosing that she'd be charged a fee for using the ATM because she wasn't a customer of the bank," the paper reports. "Along with a sign posted on the ATM, an electronic message on the machine's screen has to disclose any fees being charged. If either message is missing, a bank can be found in violation of the statute."
Now, truth be told, we all know by now that we'll be charged when we use ATMs from banks not our own. In a sense, the suit seems frivolous.
But on the other hand, banks and their ATMs have been nickel-and-diming us for years, so why not get some measure of revenge?
"She used the Oak Forest ATM in November 2007 and sued Marquette a year later," the SouthtownStar reports. "Her law firm . . . obtained class certification and estimates about 3,300 people who used that particular ATM could collect from Marquette as part of the settlement."
If you think you qualify, you can get a claim form from the website of the Consumer Advocacy Center.
"The Consumer Advocacy Center also is advertising for class members for a similar lawsuit it settled with Charter One Bank, alleging failure to disclose fees at 10 ATMs, including one in Oak Lawn," the paper notes.
Steve Rhodes is the proprietor of The Beachwood Reporter, a Chicago-centric news and culture review.
Copyright NBC Owned Television Stations
Posted Friday, Jul 3, 2009 - 8:17 AM CST
Top Stories
