Bank of America agreed to pay $2.25 million [1] to settle a class-action lawsuit regarding balance-inquiry fees at 7-Eleven ATMs.

The settlement addresses allegations that the bank improperly charged customers twice for checking their balances, effectively imposing out-of-network fees on machines that should have been free or lower-cost. This case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of hidden banking fees and the legal risks banks face when automated systems miscalculate customer charges.

The lawsuit centered on Bank of America ATMs located inside 7-Eleven convenience stores across the U.S. [2]. According to the filings, customers alleged that the bank double-charged them for balance inquiries [1]. These charges were viewed as an unfair application of out-of-network ATM fees for transactions that occurred at the bank's own branded machines [1].

Under the terms of the agreement, the settlement fund totals $2.25 million [1], [2]. This amount is intended to compensate affected users who encountered these specific fee errors. The legal action sought to recover funds for a broad group of consumers who were impacted by the pricing discrepancy across the national 7-Eleven network [2].

Eligibility for the settlement extends to customers who used a Bank of America ATM at a 7-Eleven within the last 10 years [3]. This decade-long window ensures that a significant volume of historical transactions can be reviewed for improper charges. The settlement was reported from New York City [2].

While the bank has agreed to the payout, the settlement resolves the dispute without a trial. The case underscores the complexity of ATM partnerships between financial institutions and retail chains, where the physical location of the machine can lead to disputes over which fee schedule applies.

“Bank of America agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit.”

This settlement reflects a broader trend of regulatory and legal pressure on major financial institutions to ensure transparency in fee structures. By settling, Bank of America avoids a potentially longer legal battle over its automated fee systems, while the 10-year eligibility window suggests that systemic errors in ATM programming can persist undetected for long periods, creating significant cumulative liabilities for banks.