Bank of America, N.A. has agreed to fund a $2,250,000 class settlement in federal litigation over balance-inquiry fees tied to FCTI-operated automated teller machines inside 7-Eleven convenience stores. The case, captioned Schertzer, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., sits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under docket 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB. Court-approved notices describe the dispute window as 1 May 2018 through 16 November 2021 for customers who say they were charged more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during a single ATM visit—behavior plaintiffs framed as a contract breach and the bank denies while still seeking closure.
Because judges—not news desks—grant final approval, treat payment timing as contingent: money moves only after any fairness objections and appeals are resolved in favor of the deal.
What the lawsuit alleged in plain terms
Out-of-network balance inquiries often carry a small disclosed fee when you use another bank’s ATM operator. The class theory here is narrower and more mechanical: at certain FCTI-branded machines co-located with 7-Eleven stores, Bank of America customers allegedly saw duplicate balance-inquiry charges for what was effectively one inquiry session. That fact pattern implicates core retail-banking plumbing—host processor messaging, fee decision tables, and how quickly reversals post—rather than headline interest-rate policy.
Who is inside the settlement class
Eligibility turns on four pillars repeated in the long-form notice materials: being a current or former Bank of America accountholder in the United States; incurring more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during the same visit to an FCTI ATM in a 7-Eleven; falling inside the 2018–2021 window; and not already recovering on overlapping claims in Weiss v. FCTI Inc., a separate California state action the notices cite by case number 37-2024-00016908-CU-BT-NC. If you received email or postcard notices, you are likely in the class definition, but the authoritative list is always the court-approved text.
Current versus former customers: different chores
Settlement class mechanics often split this way: current accountholders who received notice may receive an automatic pro rata distribution if the court finally approves the deal—no web form required in the summary posted on the administrator site. Former accountholders generally must submit a claim by the published deadline to stay in the cash pool. Electronic payment is available for online filers; mail-in paper claims typically default to checks. Read your own notice for the class member identifier fields the administrator requires.
Calendar anchors worth writing on a sticky note
The settlement website’s documents page lists a Monday, 29 June 2026 deadline for many former accountholders to file claims, a Tuesday, 7 July 2026 cutoff to postmark exclusion or objection paperwork, and a Friday, 21 August 2026 final fairness hearing at 1:30 p.m. Pacific—dates that can shift if the judge adjusts the schedule, so verify against the PDF notices before mailing anything time-sensitive.
Where the money goes before it reaches consumers
The $2.25 million headline is a gross fund, not a per-person guarantee. Court filings bundled with preliminary approval typically carve out administration expenses, plaintiffs’ counsel fees and costs subject to judicial reasonableness review, and a modest service award for the named class representative before the remainder is divided pro rata among valid claimants. That structure explains why individual payments may be modest even when the conduct annoyed millions of retail customers in the abstract.
Why banks settle fee micro-cases while denying liability
Denying wrongdoing while paying nuisance-to-medium eight-figure sums is standard settlement economics: legal spend, discovery burdens, and reputational drag from years of litigation can exceed a capped fund even when the bank believes it would win at trial. For consumers, the trade-off is speed and certainty versus the slim odds and high friction of individual arbitration or small-claims suits over a few dollars of fees.
Practical cautions readers should keep in mind
Never pay a third party who promises to “file your class claim” for a cut of money you can request yourself through the administrator’s free portal or PDF. Phishing sites mimic blue-chip bank settlements every season—type the domain from the court notice or bookmark the official oonfeesettlement.com host rather than following unsolicited texts. If your fee history is ambiguous, pull archived statements before self-certifying, and keep PDF copies of anything you upload in case the administrator requests follow-up verification later in the process.
Bottom line
Bank of America committed $2.25 million to resolve Schertzer claims about stacked out-of-network balance inquiry fees at FCTI 7-Eleven ATMs between 2018 and 2021, pending final approval in S.D. Cal. after a 21 August 2026 fairness hearing. Former customers who want cash generally must meet the 29 June 2026 claim pathway described in the long-form notice; current notice recipients may see automatic distributions if the deal clears appeal. The bank’s denial of liability is boilerplate, but the court’s docket and administrator PDFs are the only schedules that actually bind the process.