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.
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.
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.
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