Of course, we can't know the details of Andrew's original conversation with BofA, and related paperwork they may or may not have sent him when he apparently opted out of overdraft protection, but I think backing away and immediately ending the relationship with the bank over the fees was the WRONG thing to do.

I would've fought until I could make my objection stick, climbing as high as necessary. Andrew said he opted out of overdraft protection, "turned off overdraft protection,..." that sounds very clear to me. No overdraft protection. Period. Reject transactions if I'm outta funds. But they granted overdrafted protection anyway on the coffee and lunch, and a MORE EXPENSIVE protection service. $105 for not complying with his wishes? That sounds fraudulent to me. I think if he'd argued long enough, with the right managers, he'd have gotten his money back. I've been down this road before (Wells Fargo and Washington Mutual were notorious for this kind of shiftiness, and BofA is no innocent either), and often you can get fees reversed if the situation is reasonable and you get the ear of the right bank official.

I hope he did get his $105 back, Andrew didn't mention. But in future when BofA does this, customers should balk, squawk, and chalk up the bank reps' time until they roll over and do the proper thing. Don't let banks get away with improper billing!

mr. farrell,

you might want to check out mr. menn's book, or you might be interested in reading mr. menn's book, or listen to larry mantle's interview, before you transfer everything into your on-line bank.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2010/02/23/cyber-safety-in-america/...