ILNews

ATM fee notice change likely

IL Staff
December 17, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A requirement that automated teller machines post notices on or near the machine will be repealed under a bill Congress has sent to President Barack Obama.

The proposed amendment to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act has been a boon for some plaintiff attorneys who filed lawsuits against ATM providers where the notices weren’t posted, said Ice Miller partner Bart Murphy. ATM providers still are required to disclose fees onscreen and gain a user’s consent before the fees can be assessed, Murphy said.

The proposed change “means for both financial institutions and retailers that are operating ATMs that they no longer have to deal with potential class actions for what’s essentially a meaningless offense,” Murphy said. The posted notice provision is “a technical requirement that’s outlived its usefulness,” he said.

Ice Miller has represented financial institutions and retailers who have faced class-action suits filed when someone has used an ATM where the posted notice was missing or had been removed from the machine, Murphy said. He noted that one Chicago-area plaintiffs’ class action firm had collected more than $1 million in attorney fees from filing such cases.

The American Bankers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores and other national organizations have lobbied for the proposed change to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing rule, Regulation E (12 CFR 205.16), which require that all ATMs must have two notices of a usage fee – one on-screen, and one attached to or near the ATM.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT