
1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
In December 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Trustmark National Bank for allegedly promising consumers that it only charges overdraft fees on their transactions if there is not enough money in their account to cover the transaction when, according to plaintiffs, the accounts always have enough money to cover transactions because the bank sets aside money to cover the transaction and deducts the amount from the account as soon as the transaction is authorized. In addition, the complaint alleges that the bank charges multiple out-of-network fees on individual transactions. For example, the complaint claims that the bank charges two out-of-network ATM fees on a single cash withdrawal and three out-of-network fees on out-of-network ATM withdrawals if accountholders perform a balance inquiry before a withdrawal. (McDonald et al v. Trustmark National Bank, Case No. 18-cv-852, S. D. MS.)
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
Is it still a guarantee if it has strings attached?
Lawsuits allege “100%” marketing on front label is misleading.
TINA.org reader was charged a lot more than the advertised price. He’s not alone.
TINA.org explores the divide between the marketing and the science.