The way it began has an almost ordinary quality. Somewhere in California, a customer enters a 7-Eleven, inserts a card into one of those slightly worn-out FCTI ATMs next to the slushie machines, taps the screen to check their balance, and leaves a little lighter than anticipated. Instead of one fee, there are two. A couple of dollars, lost. Most people complain about this type of charge for ten seconds before forgetting about it when they get to the parking lot.
However, someone remembered. Seven years later, Bank of America has consented to pay $2.25 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging that the duplicate fees were a pattern that occurred across thousands of accounts between May 2018 and November 2021 rather than an error. As expected, the bank disputes any misconduct. It always does. The settlement was reached to avoid “the burden, expense, risk, and uncertainty of continuing litigation,” according to the careful corporate wording you learn to read between the lines in the filings. To put it roughly, paying was less expensive than continuing to argue.
Schertzer v. Bank of America is not the type of scandal that makes headlines and appears on cable news for weeks. It is more granular, quieter, and smaller. However, that’s part of what makes it intriguing. In American finance, class actions pertaining to ATM fees typically feel like background noise, the legal equivalent of static. However, they frequently highlight a specific reality about how banks function, which is that the little fees—the ones that go unnoticed—are frequently the most profitable. A business model is created by multiplying a dollar here and a dollar there by millions of transactions.
It’s also difficult to ignore the timing. A few weeks prior to the completion of this settlement, Bank of America also consented to pay $72.5 million to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims in a different lawsuit that claimed the bank had disregarded years of suspicious activity connected to his trafficking business. Despite arriving in the same season, two settlements with drastically different levels of damage were both turned away. As this develops, it seems as though the legal calendar for big banks has just turned into a constant drumbeat of payouts, each of which is designed to appear like a concession but isn’t.
The practical question is easier for customers. The payout should arrive automatically if you are eligible and currently have a Bank of America deposit account. Those who wish to object or opt out have an earlier deadline of July 7. Former account holders must submit a claim through the settlement website by the end of June. August 21 is the date of the final approval hearing. The number of valid claims will determine how much money each person actually receives, so the payout may be small—a few dollars, perhaps even more. With this money, no one is purchasing a car.
It’s remarkable how commonplace these settlements have become and how little they appear to alter behavior. In 2025, the average out-of-network ATM fee reached a record $4.86. Clients continue to pay. Banks continue to charge. Lawsuits continue to be filed. A 7-Eleven ATM continues to blink its worn-out green welcome screen, ready for the next transaction, at some point during that cycle.
Reading the court documents gives me the impression that this isn’t really about the $2.25 million. It’s about the cost of getting caught, which is what that number stands for. To be honest, it’s still unclear if that cost is significant enough. Last year, Bank of America turned a profit of about $27 billion. As usual, the numbers speak for themselves.
