Bank of America has agreed to a $2.25 million settlement to resolve claims that it charged customers multiple out-of-network fees for a single balance inquiry at ATMs inside 7-Eleven stores. The deal, reported Friday by USA Today, covers account holders who used FCTI-owned machines between May 1, 2018, and November 16, 2021. Many will receive automatic payments. Others must file claims.
But this modest payout barely registers against the bank’s other recent obligations. In March, Bank of America settled a class-action lawsuit brought by women who accused the institution of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. That agreement totaled $72.5 million, according to court documents filed in late March and detailed by BBC News. The bank denied any wrongdoing. It described the resolution as a way to achieve closure.
Short. Simple. Two separate legal headaches. One small. One far larger. Together they highlight persistent questions about how the nation’s second-largest bank handles customer fees and high-risk client relationships.
The ATM case began with a 2019 complaint filed in federal court in Southern California. Plaintiffs argued Bank of America breached its deposit agreements. Customers who checked their balances at certain 7-Eleven ATMs often saw two out-of-network charges instead of one. The machines, operated by FCTI Inc., apparently triggered separate inquiries that the bank billed individually. An earlier settlement with FCTI itself in 2024 left some claims against Bank of America unresolved.
Under the new terms, current Bank of America checking account holders who qualify receive payouts without filing paperwork. Former customers have until July 29 to submit claims through the settlement website. A final fairness hearing sits on the court calendar for August 21. Bank of America, which denied liability, chose to settle to sidestep further litigation expenses and the uncertainty of trial.
The sum will be divided equally among class members. How many? Court papers call the group “so numerous” that exact figures remain unclear. Payouts could prove modest. Still, for consumers hit with unexpected fees years ago, any recovery counts.
High-Profile Settlements Raise Broader Questions
Contrast that consumer matter with the Epstein litigation. A woman identified in filings as Jane Doe sued in Manhattan federal court. She alleged Epstein directed her to open accounts at Bank of America. Those accounts showed “incredibly alarming and erratic banking behaviour,” according to the complaint. The suit claimed the bank possessed ample warning signs about Epstein’s activities yet continued the relationship to protect profits.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff had already ruled that the claims against Bank of America could proceed. Depositions, including one involving Leon Black, were underway. Black, the Apollo Global Management co-founder, had paid Epstein more than $150 million for tax and estate planning advice through a Bank of America account. Black has denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
Then, in mid-March, lawyers informed the judge they had reached a settlement in principle. Details emerged later. Bank of America would pay $72.5 million with no admission of liability. “While we stand by our prior statements made in the filings in this case, including that Bank of America did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes, this resolution allows us to put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs,” a bank spokesman told the BBC.
Sigrid McCawley, an attorney for the women, called it “one more step on the road to much deserved justice.” The payment follows earlier deals by other banks. JPMorgan Chase paid $290 million to Epstein victims. Deutsche Bank settled for $75 million. All three institutions faced accusations that they ignored red flags while maintaining lucrative ties to the financier, who died by suicide in jail in 2019.
And yet Bank of America’s exposure did not end there. The Epstein case was one of several. But the ATM settlement, though tiny by comparison, touches far more ordinary customers. It arrives at a moment when banks face growing scrutiny over fee practices. Regulators and class-action lawyers continue to examine everything from overdraft charges to surprise ATM costs.
So what does this mean for Bank of America? The $2.25 million outlay represents pocket change for a firm with trillions in assets. The $72.5 million Epstein payment, while larger, also fits within its financial capacity. Neither will dent earnings. But the pattern matters. Multiple settlements in quick succession signal litigation risk that investors track closely.
Recent coverage of the ATM deal spread quickly across local news outlets on May 16. Reports from KBTX and others repeated the eligibility criteria. Customers who received two balance inquiry fees during one visit to a 7-Eleven ATM operated by FCTI may qualify. Those who already collected from the FCTI settlement do not.
Bank of America has not commented publicly on the ATM matter beyond the standard denial of wrongdoing included in settlement papers. The bank maintains its deposit agreements clearly disclosed fee policies. Plaintiffs disagreed. They said the double-charging violated those very terms.
Consumer advocates see these cases as evidence of systemic issues. Banks generate significant revenue from fees. When technology or vendor relationships create ambiguities, customers pay the price. In this instance, the third-party ATM operator created the technical trigger. Bank of America still assessed the charges.
The Epstein matter carries heavier weight. It touches on compliance failures, know-your-customer rules, and suspicious activity reporting. Banks must file such reports with regulators. The lawsuits alleged Bank of America failed to act on obvious warning signs. The bank countered that it provided routine services and that allegations of deeper involvement lacked merit.
Whatever the truth, the payments keep coming. And the scrutiny continues. No criminal charges have resulted against any bank executives in the Epstein cases. All resolutions have been civil. That fact frustrates some victims and observers. It also allows the institutions to resolve matters without admitting fault.
For industry insiders, the lesson sits in risk management. High-net-worth client relationships can deliver profits but also invite massive reputational and legal exposure. Consumer fee structures require precise disclosure and robust back-office controls. When third parties enter the picture, as with FCTI, those controls become even more essential.
Bank of America stock barely moved on news of the ATM settlement. The Epstein deal had been anticipated for weeks. Markets price in these costs. Yet repeated settlements can erode trust. They invite fresh lawsuits. They keep legal teams busy.
Look ahead. The ATM claims process begins soon. Notices have gone out by email and postcard. Current customers simply wait for their share. Former ones must act. The Epstein funds will distribute to a defined class of victims once final approval arrives.
Both cases close chapters. Neither erases the questions they raised. How carefully do large banks monitor vendor-driven fees? How aggressively should they police powerful but controversial clients? Answers remain elusive. The payments, however, are concrete. Bank of America has written the checks. Customers and victims may soon see the results.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication