Citibank’s Overdraft and Insufficient Funds Fees
Allegations: Misrepresenting how many overdraft or insufficient funds fees consumers could be charged on a single transaction
Espin et al. v. Citibank, N.A.
22-cv-383, E.D.N.C.
(Sept. 2022)
Credit cards
Marketing that the bank is dedicated to military members, veterans, and their families and provides more benefits than required under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) when it systematically deprives eligible servicemembers of SCRA benefits, charges higher interest rates than promised, fails to waive fees as promised, and fails to properly calculate debt forgiveness
Stayed pending Citibank’s appeal of a decision to deny arbitration
Allegations: Misrepresenting how many overdraft or insufficient funds fees consumers could be charged on a single transaction
June 2019: A federal judge granted the bank’s motion to compel arbitration and the case was stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. February 2019: A class-action lawsuit was filed against…
In February 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Citibank for allegedly misleadingly marketing that the bank charges no more than $12 a month for basic checking account services without…
TINA.org supports consolidated FTC efforts to attack burgeoning issue.
Supplement company stumbles over discount offer.
Danielle Friedman, The New York Times
Is this finally the candidate we all can trust?
This company’s juice may not be worth the squeeze.