In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Litigation
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
1 F. Supp. 3d 34 (2014)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
HSBC Bank, USA (HSBC) (defendant) was a bank that issued debit cards to its checking account customers. The cards allowed customers to pay for purchases or withdraw money from the account from automated teller machines. HSBC had an overdraft-protection program under which HSBC would honor a transaction made by customers even if the customer’s account did not have sufficient funds to cover the transaction—an overdraft transaction—rather than declining the transaction. In such instances, HSBC would charge the customer a $35 overdraft fee. Although HSBC could determine at the time of the transaction whether the customer had sufficient funds to cover the transaction, HSBC did not notify customers when a transaction would cause an overdraft. Further, HSBC was alleged to have posted debit transactions nonchronologically, listing the debits from largest to smallest amounts. Listing debit transactions nonchronologically resulted in customers incurring more overdraft transactions, and more overdraft fees, than if the debits were listed in chronological order or smallest to largest order. HSBC was sued in a class action for violating state law in several states for operating its overdraft program in an unlawful manner. HSBC contended that claims against it were preempted by federal law and federal regulations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spatt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.