1st Phorm’s ‘110% Money-Back Guarantee’
Money-back guarantee comes up woefully short of advertised percentage.
June 2019: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement.
February 2019: A federal judge preliminarily approved a proposed settlement agreement that would reimburse class members for overdraft fees that they were charged when they had enough money in their accounts to cover their transactions. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2019. For more information, go to http://www.overdraftfeessettlement.com/.
2015: A class-action lawsuit was filed against United Federal Credit Union for allegedly promising that customers in its overdraft program would only be charged overdraft fees if there is not enough money in their accounts to cover transactions when, according to plaintiffs, the credit union assessed these fees using an artificial internal calculation based on anticipated future transactions instead of the actual balance resulting in customers being charged overdraft fees when accounts have enough money to cover transactions. (Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in 2016.) (Gunter et al v. United Federal Credit Union, Case No. 15-cv-483, D. NV.)
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.