OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Du’Bois A. Crockrom brings this putative class action against Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) and Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”), claiming that Defendants breached their Deposit Agreement for personal deposit accounts. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants assessed overdraft fees for his and other account-holders’ non-recurring purchases, in contravention of “the express terms of the Deposit Agreement.” (Dkt. No. 1 77.) Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (6). For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion is granted in part and denied in part, and their Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted in full. I. Background In June 2010, Defendants committed to ending overdraft fees for “one-time” or “non-recurring” debit card transactions. (Dkt. No. 1
24, 27.) They updated their Deposit Agreement for personal deposit account-holders accordingly. (Id.) Defendants’ new Deposit Agreement reads: With our Standard Overdraft Setting, we do not authorize overdrafts for everyday non-recurring debit card transactions and ATM transactions. This means that we decline everyday non-recurring debit card transactions and ATM transactions when we determine that at the time of the transaction you may not have enough available funds in your account (or in any applicable Overdraft Protection plan) to cover the transaction. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 13 (emphasis in original).) The Deposit Agreement explains that “[e]veryday non-recurring debit card transactions are usually purchases made with your debit card or debit card number on a one-time or day-to-day basis.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 12.) The Deposit Agreement lists purchases of “groceries, gas, or coffee in the morning” as examples of non-recurring transactions and listed “automatic bill payments,” like “rent, mortgage, car, or utility payments,” as examples of recurring transactions. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he had a personal deposit account with Defendants during his proposed class period, which spans from June 18, 2010, to April 6, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1 57.) He alleges that Defendants “routinely” assessed overdraft fees on his account in relation to “transactions that were plainly ‘non-recurring’ within the meaning of the Deposit Agreement.” (Id.) Plaintiff highlights five transactions, in the amounts $10.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, and $30.00, with Starbucks that he undertook in November 2015. (Dkt. No. 1 58.) Each of these transactions was logged as a recurring transaction by Defendants; Defendants approved the transactions, allowing Plaintiff to overdraft his account; and Defendants assessed five overdraft fees on Plaintiff’s account, amounting to $175.00 in fees. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n several other occasions,” Defendants likewise assessed overdraft fees in relation to Plaintiff’s purchases from vendors other than Starbucks. (Dkt. No. 1 59.) Plaintiff emphasizes that none of these supposedly recurring transactions “had been set up to occur automatically at a predetermined interval of time.” (Dkt. No. 1
