"Approximately 85,000 of the accounts opened incurred fees, totaling $2 million. Customers' credit scores were also likely hurt by the fake accounts.[43] The bank was able to prevent customers from pursuing legal action as the opening of an account mandated customers enter into private arbitration with the bank."
"The bank paid $110 million to consumers who had accounts opened in their names without permission in March 2017." The money repaid fraudulent fees and paid damages to those affected."[1]
That's 85,000 of what you call "non-existent" fees totaling 2 million dollars. And whether or not those were secondary effects of the fraud is completely immaterial.
It's a rather bizarre position to want to defend a bank that not only defrauded its customers but has also admitted to doing so. But you are entitled to that. What you aren't entitled to however is your own alternative facts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scan...
> "The bank was able to prevent customers from pursuing legal action as the opening of an account mandated customers enter into private arbitration with the bank."
That's really not going to work if the customer didn't intend to open the account. The fact that (by your numbers) average damages among those who were damaged at all were up to $23.50 may have had more to do with lack of legal action by customers.