Re:1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service
by thaumasiotes on Sunday April 01, 2018 @05:02PM
(#16730410)
I'm pretty confident that when 85,000 out of "more than a million" accounts earn fees, it's fair to say that fees are "usually nonexistent". You're talking about accounts that Wells Fargo didn't want and fees that it assessed by mistake. By a normal analysis, that wouldn't be a scandal of any kind, and it would call for no more than returning the accidental fees, without a 55x punitive damages award.
> "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.
Re:1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service
by function_seven on Sunday April 01, 2018 @06:02PM
(#16730748)
The arbitration clause is an overarching thing. The customer agrees to it when they legitimately open an account. It covers the entire banking relationship between that customer and the bank. Which is why Wells was able to use it to prevent litigation from their existing customer over the fraudulent accounts.
"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...