Judge blasts Wells Fargo for overdraft fees
Wells Fargo is ordered to return $200 million in overdraft fees a federal judge says were obtained through deceptive manipulation.
This post comes from Jon Hood at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.
A federal judge has ordered Wells Fargo to shell out more than $200 million in restitution to California customers for "massive" overdraft fees.
- Bing: Overdraft horror stories
In a spirited 90-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup wrote that "Wells Fargo has devised a bookkeeping device to turn what would ordinarily be one overdraft into as many as 10 overdrafts, thereby dramatically multiplying the number of fees the bank can extract from a single mistake."
According to the judge, Wells Fargo created a "deceptive" system whereby it processed consumers' transactions from largest to smallest, meaning that the most expensive transaction would be processed first. Under this system -- as opposed to one in which transactions are processed in chronological order -- consumers are more likely to overdraw their account multiple times, which means more overdraft fees for Wells Fargo.
"The bank went to considerable effort to hide these manipulations while constructing a facade of phony disclosure," Alsup wrote.
Wells Fargo countered that consumers prefer having transactions processed highest to lowest, since it means that their biggest -- and presumably most important -- bills get paid first. Alsup didn't buy that argument.
"The trial record here demonstrates that depositors do not prefer high-to-low posting, that there is no net benefit, and that the bank's actual motive in imposing a high-to-low regime was to multiply the number of overdrafts and thereby increase its overdraft revenue," he wrote.
He added, "The bank's dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as possible out of" its customers.
Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to stop those practices by Nov. 30, and to refund any overdraft fees charged to California customers between Nov. 15, 2004, and June 30, 2008, as a result of those policies. Those fees total more than $200 million.
The bank plans to appeal the decision.
"We're disappointed with the judge's ruling," company spokeswoman Richele Messick told The New York Times. "We don't believe the ruling is in line with the facts of the case."
The Times also said:
Other federal lawsuits regarding overdraft fees have been consolidated into one class-action suit in Florida, which also claim that Wells Fargo and other banks manipulated transactions to maximize overdraft fees.
Whatever the outcome on appeal, Wells Fargo is unlikely to be hurting for cash anytime soon. The bank collected a staggering $1.8 billion in overdraft fees from California consumers between 2005 and 2007 alone.
More from ConsumerAffairs.com and MSN Money:
Most banks do process largest to smallest and it's perfectly legal for them to do so - they disclose this when you open your account. If you don't like it, don't open an account there and choose another bank.
I wonder if the reason Wells is being fined is because the disclosure they were giving at account opening time said something else.
This post comes from Jon Hood at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.
A federal judge has ordered Wells Fargo to shell out more than $200 million in restitution to California customers for "massive" overdraft fees.
- Bing: Overdraft horror stories
In a spirited 90-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup wrote that "Wells Fargo has devised a bookkeeping device to turn what would ordinarily be one overdraft into as many as 10 overdrafts, thereby dramatically multiplying the number of fees the bank can extract from a single mistake."
According to the judge, Wells Fargo created a "deceptive" system whereby it processed consumers' transactions from largest to smallest, meaning that the most expensive transaction would be processed first. Under this system -- as opposed to one in which transactions are processed in chronological order -- consumers are more likely to overdraw their account multiple times, which means more overdraft fees for Wells Fargo.
"The bank went to considerable effort to hide these manipulations while constructing a facade of phony disclosure," Alsup wrote.
Wells Fargo countered that consumers prefer having transactions processed highest to lowest, since it means that their biggest -- and presumably most important -- bills get paid first. Alsup didn't buy that argument.
"The trial record here demonstrates that depositors do not prefer high-to-low posting, that there is no net benefit, and that the bank's actual motive in imposing a high-to-low regime was to multiply the number of overdrafts and thereby increase its overdraft revenue," he wrote.
He added, "The bank's dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as possible out of" its customers.
Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to stop those practices by Nov. 30, and to refund any overdraft fees charged to California customers between Nov. 15, 2004, and June 30, 2008, as a result of those policies. Those fees total more than $200 million.
The bank plans to appeal the decision.
"We're disappointed with the judge's ruling," company spokeswoman Richele Messick told The New York Times. "We don't believe the ruling is in line with the facts of the case."
The Times also said:
Other federal lawsuits regarding overdraft fees have been consolidated into one class-action suit in Florida, which also claim that Wells Fargo and other banks manipulated transactions to maximize overdraft fees.
Whatever the outcome on appeal, Wells Fargo is unlikely to be hurting for cash anytime soon. The bank collected a staggering $1.8 billion in overdraft fees from California consumers between 2005 and 2007 alone.
More from ConsumerAffairs.com and MSN Money:
RELATED ARTICLES
DATA PROVIDERS
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Think saving money, paying bills, comparing prices and shopping for deals take way too much work? All of these can be done with very little effort on your part.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
TOOLS
How much will my savings grow?Play with the factors that affect the size of your stash.
- How much should I save for college?
- Am I saving enough for retirement?
- How much car can I afford?
