TD Bank Sued for Overdraft Charges for Uber, Lyft Services
TD Bank is facing a lawsuit accusing it of improperly assessing overdraft fees for debit card transactions with ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft.
December 06, 2017 at 03:36 PM
4 minute read
TD Bank is facing a lawsuit accusing it of improperly assessing overdraft fees for debit card transactions with ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft.
The suit, filed Tuesday in Camden federal court, was brought by Connecticut resident Britney Lawrence on behalf of national and Connecticut classes of TD Bank debit card holders.
According to the suit, consumers who decline TD Bank's overdraft protection for debit card transactions exceeding their account balance are advised that any such purchases will be declined, with the exception of recurring expenses such as phone and utility bills. But the bank authorized transactions by those customers using Uber or Lyft, and then charges a $35 overdraft fee.
In Lawrence v. T.D. Bank, N.A., Lawrence was hit with a pair of $35 overdraft fees on March 25, 2016, when she used her TD Bank debit card to pay for two rides that left her account overdrawn, the lawsuit claims.
But TD Bank, based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, states in its personal deposit account agreement that it will decline nonrecurring debit card transactions that result in a negative balance unless customers opt into its Debit Card Cash Advance Program, the lawsuit claims.
“But as to one very significant type of business, one for which it handles literally millions of transactions each month, TD Bank has decided to accept such transactions, and charge related overdraft fees, even though customers have not opted into Debit Card Advance,” according to the lawsuit.
“When TD Bank customers use their debit card to pay for rides with Uber or Lyft—rides that are by their very nature one-time transactions and non-recurring—TD Bank approves the transactions regardless of the customer's opt-in status.”
TD Bank spokeswoman Judith Schmidt declined to comment due to the pending litigation.
TD Bank faces claims for breach of contract and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit seeks restitution of funds obtained as a result of TD Bank's misconduct, an order requiring it to cease its wrongful conduct, and enjoining it from continuing to conceal its business practices. The suit also seeks a corrective notice campaign.
TD Bank has approximately 1,300 branches in the U.S., and serves 6.5 million customers from Maine through Florida, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed by Joseph Sauder and Matthew Schelkopf of McCune Wright Arevalo of Berwyn, Pennsylvania.
Another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Adam Webb of Webb, Klase & Lemond, said similar lawsuits are pending against Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Webb said his firm is also suing TD Bank in a separate class action involving overdraft fees in South Carolina. Webb said he couldn't estimate the class size in the present case.
The complaint also listed eight other firms representing the plaintiffs—Webb, Klase in Atlanta; Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Tycko & Zavareei and Kaliel PLLC, both of Washington, D.C.; The Kick Law Firm and the Law Office of Francis J. Flynn Jr., both in Los Angeles; Sullivan Law & Associates of Bloomington, Indiana; and Consumer Protection Legal of Ellisville, Missouri.
Lawrence and some of her lawyers in the present case have sued TD Bank before, the complaint states, although no details are provided. Lawrence “has proven herself to be active and involved as a class representative in separate action against TD Bank,” and “is passionate about this litigation personally and will prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of the members of the classes,” the complaint states.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250