Saturday, October 17, 2015

Golden 1 CU Settles Improper Overdraft Fee Class Action Lawsuit

Golden 1 Credit Union (Sacramento, CA) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that it improperly imposed overdraft fees even when members had enough money in their checking account to cover the transaction. The time period covered by the settlement is between April 2, 2009 and April 30, 2015.

Plaintiff Isabel Manwaring filed the overdraft fee class action lawsuit, alleging she was improperly charged the courtesy pay overdraft fees. She alleged it was improper for Golden 1 to charge courtesy pay overdraft fees when there was a positive ledger balance in her checking account that was enough to cover the transaction even though she had a negative available balance on her account.

Further, Manwaring alleges Golden 1 used a process to enroll members on the relevant dates in its overdraft program, which violated federal regulations that require affirmative consent to enrolling in an overdraft program. Her overdraft fee class action lawsuit asserted claims for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment, and Money Had and Received.

Golden 1 denies the allegations but agreed to settle the credit union overdraft fee class action lawsuit to avoid the expense and uncertainty associated with ongoing litigation.

According to the settlement agreement, Golden 1 set aside $5 million to address class members' claims.

5 comments:

  1. Golden 1 is also guilty of falsifying employees timecards which resulted in employees not being paid for worked performed and discriminating against employees with disabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since this case settled, Golden1 has gone back to their old practice of transactional reordering with a vengeance. Also, as of today's date, I have not received any notification of payment from the settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At least the official website should keep us posted, but there has been nothing. And the attorneys offices have no idea why the checks haven't been mailed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have emailed them and only been told they were mailed out from 3/22 to 5/5. However Have now seen anything.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is not reported is that Golden 1 stated that they were only guilty of not providing clarification on the process of charging over draft fees on accounts with positive balances. They said we will included in some fine print but we are not breaking any laws so we are going to continue this practice.

    ReplyDelete

 

The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.