Standing at an ATM, tapping through a balance inquiry at a 7-Eleven, and not realizing you’re being charged twice for the same request is a subtly unsettling experience. Never once. twice. For one glance at your own balance. Customers of Bank of America essentially claim that this is what happened to them, and it is the main allegation of a $2.25 million class action settlement that is presently awaiting final approval.
The case centers on the period from May 1, 2018, to November 16, 2021. During that time, some Bank of America customers were allegedly charged multiple out-of-network fees for simply checking their balance when using FCTI ATMs inside 7-Eleven locations. The settlement itself indicates how seriously the claim was taken, even though Bank of America has not acknowledged any wrongdoing.
Here, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Since 2011, a much larger legal drama has been unfolding, of which the Bank of America dispute is just one strand. In that case, Andrew Mackmin, et al., v. Visa Inc., et al., it was claimed that large banks had conspired to inflate ATM surcharge fees nationwide in violation of federal antitrust laws. A settlement was reached by JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, who together contributed about $67 million to a joint fund. JPMorgan contributed $19.5 million, Wells Fargo contributed $20.8 million, and Bank of America contributed about $26.4 million. Notably, Visa and Mastercard did not reach a settlement and continued to be parties to the lawsuit.
Although there are some significant differences based on your account status, the procedures for taking part in the settlement are generally simple. In the 7-Eleven ATM case, current Bank of America account holders will automatically receive a proportionate share if they qualify; they are not required to file a claim. However, former account holders are required to submit a claim form, which is accessible via the settlement website. The final approval hearing is scheduled for August 21, 2026, and the deadline to object or withdraw from that specific settlement is July 7, 2026.
The claims procedure for the larger ATM surcharge settlement involving JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America required impacted cardholders to complete the ATM Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Form on the settlement website, attesting under oath that they had paid unreimbursed ATM access fees. The case’s eligibility window ran from October 1, 2007, to November 12, 2021, which was an exceptionally long time frame that probably attracted a sizable number of cardholders without their knowledge.
The way these fees typically function in the background of daily life is intriguing, if a little annoying. The majority of people take a quick look at an ATM receipt, cringe at the additional fee, and move on. Millions of impacted consumers might have accepted the expense as one of those contemporary annoyances, failed to see the connection between those minor fees and anything bigger, or failed to consider whether the fee structure was legal. A closer examination of whether that acceptance was truly warranted was compelled by the lawsuit.
Observing these settlements gives the impression that the legal system is doing something truly beneficial, not only for the named plaintiffs but also for regular people who would never consider suing a bank on their own. Class actions are specifically designed for circumstances such as these, in which the collective harm is significant but the individual harm is too minor to be litigated separately. Since the per-person amount is solely dependent on the number of valid claims filed, it is another matter entirely whether the final payouts feel meaningful to each claimant.
It’s important to verify your eligibility if you paid an access fee during the covered period and used an ATM owned by a different bank than the one that issued your card. It’s a simple form. It’s a quick process. And you were the original owner of the money, no matter how small.
