Bank of America has reached a $2.25 million settlement to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging the bank overcharged customers for balance inquiries at specific ATMs. The agreement aims to compensate U.S. Checking account holders who were hit with excessive out-of-network fees while using machines located within 7-Eleven stores.
The legal dispute centers on a technical or contractual failure involving ATMs owned by FCTI, Inc. According to the settlement details, customers were allegedly charged two separate out-of-network fees for a single balance inquiry request. The lawsuit, which first entered the federal court system in southern California in 2019, claimed this practice constituted a breach of the bank’s contract with its clients.
Throughout my career reporting from more than 30 countries on the friction between institutional policy and individual rights, I have found that the most enduring frustrations often stem from these “invisible” costs. While a few dollars in fees may seem negligible to a global banking giant, for the average consumer, these charges represent a systemic failure in transparency.
Who is eligible for Bank of America $2.25M settlement payouts?
Not every Bank of America customer will qualify for a payment. Eligibility is strictly limited to a specific window of time and a specific set of circumstances. To be eligible for the Bank of America $2.25M settlement payouts, you must meet the following criteria:
- You must have held a Bank of America checking account.
- You must have used an FCTI-owned ATM located inside a 7-Eleven store between May 1, 2018, and November 16, 2021.
- You must have been charged more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during a single visit.
- You must not have already received a payment from the earlier 2024 settlement in the case of Weiss vs. FCTI.
The bank has begun notifying eligible members of the class via email and postcard. If you are unsure of your status, the settlement administration has provided a dedicated phone line at (833) 447-8321 to help customers verify their eligibility.
How to claim your payment and key deadlines
The process for receiving funds depends entirely on whether you still maintain an active relationship with the bank. Current account holders who received a notice do not need to take any action. the settlement is designed to distribute these payouts automatically to their accounts.
However, former account holders—those who closed their Bank of America accounts after the qualifying period—must be proactive. These individuals are required to file a formal claim through the official settlement website to receive their share of the fund.
To ensure you do not miss the window for reimbursement or the opportunity to object to the terms, keep the following timeline in mind:
| Deadline/Date | Action Required |
|---|---|
| July 7 | Final date to object to the settlement or request exclusion to preserve the right to sue separately. |
| July 29 | Deadline for former account holders to submit a claim via the settlement website. |
| August 21, 2026 | The scheduled final hearing for court approval of the settlement. |
Regarding the actual amount of the payout, the exact figure remains uncertain. The $2.25 million fund will be divided equally among all eligible class members. Because the court records describe the settlement class as “so numerous” that a specific head-count was not listed, the individual payouts will depend on the total number of valid claims filed.
The broader context of “junk fees” and banking litigation
While Bank of America has denied any wrongdoing as part of this agreement, the decision to settle reflects a broader strategic move to avoid the escalating costs of prolonged litigation and the uncertainty of a trial. This case is part of a larger trend in the U.S. Financial sector where regulators and consumer advocates are cracking down on what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) often refers to as “junk fees.”
Out-of-network ATM fees have long been a point of contention. When a customer uses a third-party ATM, they are often hit with a “double dip”—a fee from the ATM operator and a separate fee from their own bank. In this specific instance, the allegation that the bank charged twice for a single inquiry suggests a glitch or a policy that unfairly penalized the user for a routine balance check.
This settlement follows other similar actions in the industry, highlighting a growing legal appetite for holding financial institutions accountable for the minutiae of their fee structures. For the consumer, these settlements serve as a reminder to regularly audit monthly statements for duplicate or erroneous charges.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. For specific legal guidance regarding class-action claims, please consult a licensed attorney.
The next critical milestone for this case is the final court hearing on August 21, 2026, where a judge will determine if the settlement is fair, reasonable, and sufficient for the affected customers. Once approved, the administration will begin the process of distributing the funds.
Do you have experience with unexpected ATM fees? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this guide with others who may be eligible for a payout.
