Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior
From what I can tell here, the judge basically reversed every overdraft fee ever made to their customers between 2004-2008? It seems almost too good to be true. It says "as a result of the policy" which I think most people's situations are a result of when you think about it. AMIRITE?
|
I don't think the ruling would call for a refund of every overdraft fee. WF is supposed to refund the OD fees that were a result of this policy--so if one day, a person got hit by 4 OD charges because they were ordered biggest to smallest, they would have been hit by at least on OD fee regardless of what order they were processed. And if the test to see which OD fees to refund is to reorder the charges in chronological order, that customer might still be hit with 2 or 3 of the 4 OD charges.
So on any given day that OD charges were triggered, the customer would still owe at least one of them (otherwise there would have been no OD in the first place), and possibly more.
What I don't understand is why a bank that is pulling in over a billion in profit is being so aggressive with a policy that most customers and potential customers will be outraged by when they find out about it--especially if it only brought in 203M over 4 years. Why risk the PR hit for 50M/year when you're pulling in 2B overall?