Case identity and status
The CFPB issued two Bank of America, N.A. in July 2023: 2023-CFPB-0006 concerning repeat non-sufficient-funds fees, and 2023-CFPB-0007 concerning sales practices and card rewards. These are agency enforcement findings embodied in binding consent orders when issued, not new September 2026 allegations. The official records checked for this review did not establish a subsequent termination; this article does not independently certify every provision’s present duration. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Keep these matters separate from the bank’s HMDA and unemployment-benefit cases. Different orders have different populations, conduct and remedies. A single bank name is not a sufficient case identifier.
The account promise has several parts
A checking account or card is sold as a package: a price, a set of benefits and a way to manage money. A customer may compare the advertised reward carefully while paying less attention to how a returned payment will be processed. Failures in either part change the value of the relationship. The separate fee and sales-practices cases should therefore be understood together commercially while retaining their distinct legal findings.
For product teams, the useful question is whether the price and benefit a customer can reasonably understand match the account’s actual operation. Clear disclosure alone cannot fix an incorrectly applied fee or a missing reward. Conversely, an accurately configured system can still deliver an offer different from the one presented by a sales channel.
Three mechanisms, three evidence trails
The fee order found that repeated presentments of the same item could trigger additional NSF charges. It specified approximately $80.4 million in remaining redress for repeat fees in its covered period. The sales/rewards record describes bonuses denied through channel restrictions or employee error and accounts opened without authorization. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Analysis: these problems sit in transaction matching, offer fulfillment and customer consent. An omnibus compliance certification can miss all three. Match the control to the mechanism: identify the original payment, retain the exact offer, and prove that the customer authorized the actual product.
Why channel consistency matters
A reward promise can be displayed in one channel while fulfillment logic applies a narrower rule. Recommended testing starts with the customer-facing representation and follows an eligible application through account opening, qualifying spend and bonus posting. Include telephone and branch journeys, not only the preferred digital path.
For account consent, a successfully opened account or completed identity check is not proof that the consumer wanted it. Preserve product-specific authorization and investigate disputed openings without requiring the consumer to reconstruct the bank’s internal sales process.
Acquisition cost depends on the customer who stays
Consider a hypothetical campaign spending $100,000 to open 1,000 accounts. The apparent acquisition cost is $100 per opening. If only 800 become authorized, funded, continuing relationships under the campaign’s measurement standard, the same spend is $125 per continuing relationship. These assumptions are illustrative; early closure by itself does not prove an account was unauthorized.
Rewards, service calls, corrections and customer retention should be assessed alongside opening volume. A promotion can still be commercially attractive after those costs, but its economics should not depend on benefits going undelivered. The quality of acquisition matters to marketing budgets, branch staffing and the customer’s willingness to bring other financial activity to the institution.
Control-to-remediation map
Analytical operating design:
Scroll horizontally to see all columns.
| Mechanism | Control evidence | Remediation population |
|---|---|---|
| Repeat fee | Original-item and re-presentment linkage | All affected transactions, including closed accounts |
| Promised reward | Offer version, channel and fulfillment result | Eligible consumers denied or short-paid |
| Unauthorized account | Customer authorization tied to the product | Opened accounts, related fees and reporting effects |
| Correction | Payment and downstream validation | Uncashed refunds and unresolved report corrections |
Worked example: one failure across two systems
Hypothetical: a $60 transaction is returned, presented again and assessed another fee. A system keyed only to processing date may treat the second presentment as a new event. Investigators need the underlying item identity and applicable fee policy; simply counting daily charges cannot establish whether the pattern repeats.
For rewards, suppose 10,000 qualified applicants are promised $200 but 600 telephone applicants receive nothing because of a configuration mismatch. The illustrative direct shortfall is $120,000 before other applicable remediation. Fixing the campaign going forward leaves the historical population untreated. This is a control example, not an estimate of this bank’s case.
Channel consistency is a business capability
Customers can move between an online application, a branch conversation and telephone support without viewing them as separate products. Offer identifiers, eligibility terms and evidence of authorization need to remain intelligible across that journey. Otherwise, support employees spend time reconstructing a promise that the customer believed was already settled.
Useful evidence includes reward delivery by offer and channel, repeat contacts after corrections and retention among comparable customer groups. A lower complaint count is inconclusive if customers find it harder to obtain help. A better operating result combines correctly delivered benefits with understandable pricing and a relationship the customer actually chose.
Evidence of completion and wider implications
Recommended closure evidence includes independently reproduced population logic, reconciliation from approved redress to actual customer receipt, treatment of closed accounts and downstream credit-reporting checks. Review a sample excluded from remediation as well as one included; a clean payment file cannot detect a flawed eligibility query.
The case’s broader lesson is that sales incentives, product promises and servicing logic must be tested together. Lower complaint volume can reflect friction in the complaint path rather than improvement. Assess customer outcomes and test production controls after remediation. A future termination document would change the order-status discussion, not erase the historical findings or make these control questions irrelevant.
Sources
- 1. CFPB, Bank of America fees case; July 11, 2023Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
- 2. CFPB consent order 2023-CFPB-0006Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑1↑2
- 3. CFPB, Bank of America sales practices and rewards case; July 2023Official sourceBack to text: ↑1↑2
- 4. CFPB consent order 2023-CFPB-0007Official source · PDFBack to text: ↑1↑2