Notice Plaintiffs' Notice of Request for Status Conference by Consolidated Plaintiffs — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 106)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 106 · 2022-07-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) 
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com 
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice) 
kswope@cpmlegal.com 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) 
akirtley@cpmlegal.com 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Fax: (650) 697-0577 
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618) 
mrubin@altber.com 
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827) 
sleyton@altber.com 
MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461) 
mmurray@altber.com 
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) 
cchan@altber.com 
CHRISTINE SALAZAR (SBN 330468) 
csalazar@altber.com 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
177 Post Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Telephone: (415) 421-7151 
Fax: (415) 362-8064 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class  
(Additional Counsel Listed Below) 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 
REQUEST FOR STATUS 
CONFERENCE 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
Crtm: 
14A – 14th Floor 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.832     Page 1
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set a prompt Status Conference 
to discuss the impacts on this longstanding Multi-District Litigation of the July 14, 
2022 Stipulation and Consent to Issuance of Consent Order and the resulting 
Consent Order entered into between the United States Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (CFPB) and defendant Bank of America in In the Matter of Bank 
of America, N.A, CFPB File No. 2022-CFPB-0004, attached as Exhibit 1 (CFPB 
Consent Order). The Consent Order, which resolves issues and claims that 
substantially overlap with many of the claims and requests for relief before this 
Court in the MDL (while not addressing or resolving additional claims under state 
and federal law, or certain measures of relief sought by the putative class), requires 
the Bank to pay a $100 million civil money penalty to CFPB and to provide 
economic redress to tens of thousands of California unemployment insurance 
claimants, each of whom is a putative class member in the MDL litigation. 
According to the CFPB press release accompanying the public announcement of 
the Consent Order, that redress will amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars” in 
restitution and compensatory damages. See Exhibit 2 (CFPB Press Release).  
In addition to the $100 million fine assessed by the CFPB, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has assessed a $125 million civil money 
penalty against the Bank for violations of law and unsafe or unsound practices 
relating to its administration of the prepaid card program to distribute 
unemployment insurance and other public benefit payments. The OCC also ordered 
the Bank to provide remediation to consumers harmed by the Bank’s practices and 
violations of law. See Exhibit 3 (OCC Press Release). The OCC Order similarly  
substantially overlaps with many of the claims and requests for relief at issue in this 
Multi-District Litigation, while leaving several claims and requests for relief 
unresolved. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.833     Page 2
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
As stated in the CFPB press release: 
Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Bank 
of America $100 million for botching the disbursement of state 
unemployment benefits at the height of the pandemic. Bank of America 
automatically and unlawfully froze people’s accounts with a faulty 
fraud detection program, and then gave them little recourse when there 
was, in fact, no fraud. Today’s order requires Bank of America to 
undertake a process that is estimated to result in hundreds of millions 
of dollars in redress to consumers. In a separate order, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also fining the bank $125 
million. . . . In its investigation, the CFPB found that Bank of America 
engaged in unfair and abusive acts and practices that resulted in 
Californians not getting their unemployment benefits at the height of 
the pandemic, when many people needed the money the most 
See Exhibit 2. 
To ensure the efficient use of judicial resources, and to enable the parties to 
discuss with the Court the impact of the Consent Order and its various 30-day and 
60-day compliance implementation provisions on the issues pending in the MDL 
litigation, plaintiffs request that the Court set a status conference in or around the 
first week of August 2022 to discuss the issues in light of this significant 
development, and to enable the parties time to meet and confer beforehand 
regarding the best way to proceed. 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Dated: July 15, 2022 
 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT  
BRIAN DANITZ  
KARIN B. SWOPE  
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.834     Page 3
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
Dated: July 15, 2022 
 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
 
By:  /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
MICHAEL RUBIN  
STACEY M. LEYTON  
MATTHEW MURRAY  
CONNIE K. CHAN 
CHRISTINE M. SALAZAR 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.835     Page 4
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
DAVID S. CASEY, JR. (SBN 060768) 
dcasey@cglaw.com 
GAYLE M. BLATT (SBN 122048) 
gmb@cglaw.com 
JEREMY ROBINSON (SBN 188325) 
jrobinson@cglaw.com 
P. CAMILLE GUERRA (SBN 326546) 
camille@cglaw.com 
CATHERINE McBAIN (SBN 303911) 
kmcbain@cglaw.com 
CASEY GERRY SCHENK 
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & 
PENFIELD, LLP 
110 Laurel Street 
San Diego, CA 92101 
Telephone: (619) 238-1811 
Fax: (619) 544-9232 
 
Liaison Counsel for Class Plaintiffs  
JOSHUA B. SWIGART (SBN 225557) 
josh@swigartlawgroup.com 
JULIANA G. BLAHA (SBN 331066) 
juliana@swigartlawgroup.com 
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 
2221 Camino Del Rio South. Suite 308 
San Diego, CA 92108 
Telephone: (866) 219-3343 
Fax: (866) 219-8344 
DANIEL G. SHAY (SBN 250548) 
danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com 
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 
San Diego, CA 92108 
Telephone: (619) 222-7429 
Fax: (866) 431-3292 
Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs 
DANIEL L. WARSHAW (SBN 185365) 
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com 
BOBBY POUYA (SBN 245527) 
bpouya@pswlaw.com 
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 
Telephone: (818) 788-8300 
Fax: (818) 788-8104 
RAYMOND P. BOUCHER (SBN 115364) 
ray@boucher.la 
BOUCHER LLP 
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 
Telephone: (818) 340-5400 
Fax: (818) 340-5401 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Smith, 
Alex Yuan, and the Proposed Class 
 
 
FRANCIS A. BOTTINI, JR. (SBN 175783)
fbottini@bottinilaw.com 
ANNE B. BESTE (SBN 326881) 
abeste@bottinilaw.com 
ALBERT Y. CHANG (SBN 296065) 
achang@bottinilaw.com 
YURY A. KOLESNIKOV (SBN 271173) 
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com 
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
Telephone: (858) 914-2001 
Fax: (858) 914-2002 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lindsay McClure 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.836     Page 5
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
THOMAS E. FRAYSSE (SBN 104436) 
tef@knoxricksen.com 
MAISIE C. SOKOLOVE (SBN 239665) 
mcs@knoxricksen.com 
AMANDA M. PLOWMAN (SBN 317462) 
amp@knoxricksen.com 
KNOX RICKSEN LLP 
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340 
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 
Telephone: (925) 433-2500 
Fax: (925) 433-2505 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert L. Wilson  
and the Proposed Class 
MARY E. ALEXANDER (SBN 104173) 
malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com 
BRENDAN D.S. WAY (SBN 261705) 
bway@maryalexanderlaw.com 
ARIN R. SCAPA (SBN 283400) 
ascapa@maryalexanderlaw.com 
CATALINA S. MUÑOZ (SBN 317856) 
cmunoz@maryalexanderlaw.com 
MARY ALEXANDER & 
ASSOCIATES, P.C. 
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Telephone: (415) 433-4440 
Fax: (415) 433-5440 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Clara Cajas  
and the Proposed Class 
 
ADAM MCNEILE (SBN 280296) 
adam@kbklegal.com 
KRISTIN KEMNITZER (SBN 278946) 
kristin@kbklegal.com 
KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 
42 Miller Avenue, 3rd Floor 
Mill Valley, CA 94941 
Telephone: (415) 632-1900 
Fax: (415) 632-1901 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roland 
Oosthuizen, Rosemary Mathews, and the
Proposed Class 
 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER (SBN 197117) 
chamner@hamnerlaw.com 
EVELINA M. SERAFINI (SBN 187137) 
eserafini@hamnerlaw.com 
HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC 
26565 West Agoura Road, Suite 200 
Calabasas, CA 91302 
Telephone: (888) 416-6654 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jory Zoelle, 
Cindy Baker, Ursula Auburn, and the 
Proposed Class 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.837     Page 6
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
6 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
JAMES V. NOLAN (SBN 84239) 
jvnolan@yololaw.com 
ROBERT P. NAKKEN (SBN 77550) 
rnakken@yololaw.com 
DAVID W. JANES (SBN 71334) 
dwjanes@yololaw.com 
GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, 
HUGO & NOLAN LAWYERS 
429 First Street 
Woodland, CA 95695 
Telephone: (530) 662-7367 
Fax: (530) 666-9116 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Wiggins 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
 
 
THOMAS MARTIN III (SBN 218456) 
tom@mblawapc.com 
NICHOLAS J. BONTRAGER (SBN 252114) 
nick@mblawapc.com 
MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 
4605 Lankershim Blvd., Suite 535 
Toluca Lake, CA 91602 
Telephone: (323) 940-1700 
Fax: (323) 328-8095 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Hart 
BENJAMIN GUBERNICK (SBN 321883) 
ben@gubernicklaw.com 
GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C. 
10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19 
Phoenix, AZ 85037 
Telephone: (734) 678-5169 
 
DAVID N. LAKE (SBN 180775) 
david@lakelawpc.com 
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE 
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 
Encino, CA 91436 
Telephone: (818) 788-5100 
Fax: (818) 479-9990 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Julie Hicks, 
Kuang Ting Chong, Stephanie Moore, 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
ANDRE L. VERDUN (SBN 365436) 
Andre@VerdunLaw.com 
LAW OFFICES OF ANDRE L. VERDUN 
1777 N. Ventura Avenue 
Ventura, CA 93001 
Telephone: (619) 880-0110 
Fax: (866) 786-6993 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rosa Alvarez, 
Elana Martina Rojas de Charolet, and 
Jessie Verdun 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.838     Page 7
of 65

 
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Request For Status Conference;  
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB  
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
1
 
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
 
28
SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION 
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative 
Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, hereby certify that the content of 
this document is acceptable to all the signatories herein and that I have obtained 
counsel’s authorization to affix their electronic signatures to this document. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN DANITZ 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.839     Page 8
of 65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exhibit 1 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.840     Page 9
of 65

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 2022-CFPB-0004
In the Matter of: 
     CONSENT ORDER 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) has reviewed the 
administration of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards by Bank of 
America, N.A. (Respondent, as defined below) and has identified the following 
law violations in connection with Respondent’s treatment of unemployment 
insurance benefit recipients who filed notices of error concerning alleged 
unauthorized electronic fund transfers (EFTs): (1) Respondent engaged in unfair 
acts or practices by determining no error had occurred and freezing cardholder 
accounts based solely on the results of Respondent’s automated Fraud Filter, in 
violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (c), 5536(a)(1)(B); (2) Respondent failed 
to conduct reasonable investigations of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 1 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.841     Page 10
of 65

debit cardholders’ notices of error, in violation of Sections 908 and 909 of the 
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f and 1693g, and Section 
1005.11 of Regulation E; and (3) Respondent engaged in abusive acts or practices 
by retroactively applying its automated Fraud Filter to reverse permanent credits 
for unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders whose notices of 
error Respondent had previously investigated and paid, in violation of Sections 
1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (d)(2)(B), 5536(a)(1)(B). 
The Bureau has also identified that: (4) Respondent engaged in unfair acts or 
practices by impeding unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders’ 
efforts to file notices of error and seek liability protection from unauthorized EFTs, 
in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (c), 
5536(a)(1)(B); and (5) Respondent failed to timely investigate and resolve 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders’ notices of error 
concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs, in violation of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 
1693f(a), (c), and Section 1005.11(c)(2)-(3) of Regulation E. Under Sections 1053 
and 1055 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 
5563, 5565, the Bureau issues this Consent Order (Consent Order).  
I. 
Jurisdiction 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 2 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.842     Page 11
of 65

1. 
The Bureau has jurisdiction over this matter under Sections 1053 and 1055 
of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5563 and 5565, and Section 918(a)(5) of EFTA, 
15 U.S.C. § 1693o(a)(5).  
II. 
Stipulation 
2. 
Respondent has executed a “Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a 
Consent Order,” dated July 13, 2022 (Stipulation), which is incorporated by 
reference and is accepted by the Bureau. By this Stipulation, Respondent has 
consented to the issuance of this Consent Order by the Bureau under 
Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5563, 5565, without 
admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law, except 
that Respondent admits the facts necessary to establish the Bureau’s 
jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter of this action. 
III. 
Definitions 
3. 
The following definitions apply to this Consent Order: 
a. “Affected Consumers” means a consumer who during the Relevant 
Period: (1) qualified for and received government unemployment 
insurance benefit payments electronically through prepaid debit cards 
issued by Respondent; (2) filed a notice of error concerning alleged 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 3 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.843     Page 12
of 65

unauthorized EFTs with Respondent; and (3) for whom Respondent 
incorrectly determined, based solely on the results of Respondent’s Fraud 
Filter, that no error occurred, and, as a result, Respondent (i) denied the 
consumer’s error claim or reversed permanent credits previously granted 
to the consumer and (ii) froze or, after March 17, 2021, blocked the 
consumer’s unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card account. 
b. “Board” means Respondent’s duly-elected and acting Board of Directors 
or a committee thereof. 
c. “Consequential Harm” means the financial harm Affected Consumers 
incurred due to the time their unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
debit card account remained frozen or blocked after Respondent 
incorrectly determined that no error occurred on the consumer’s 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card account, based solely 
on the results of Respondent’s Fraud Filter. 
d. “EDD” means the California Employment Development Department. 
e. “EDD Cardholder” means a consumer who received an EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card. 
f. “EDD Prepaid Debit Cards” means Respondent-issued and Respondent-
administered unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards linked 
to individual EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 4 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.844     Page 13
of 65

g. “EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts” means depository accounts 
maintained by Respondent for the Prepaid Card Unemployment 
Insurance Benefits Program and holding unemployment insurance and 
other public benefits from EDD for consumers. 
h. “Effective Date” means the date on which the Consent Order is entered 
on the administrative docket. 
i. “Electronic Fund Transfer” or “EFT” means “any transfer of funds, other 
than a transaction originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, 
which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, 
or computer or magnetic tape so as to order, instruct, or authorize a 
financial institution to debit or credit an account.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(7).  
j. “Enforcement Director” means the Assistant Director of the Office of 
Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or his or her 
delegate. 
k. “Error Resolution Investigation” means the procedures and duties 
required of financial institutions as described in 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11. 
l. “Fraud Filter” means the automated fraud detection process that 
Respondent used to investigate unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
card notices of error between September 28, 2020 and June 8, 2021. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 5 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.845     Page 14
of 65

m. “OCC Consent Order” means the Consent Order issued by the Office of 
the Comptroller of the Currency against Respondent on July 14, 2022. 
n. “Prepaid Card Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program” means the 
program through which Respondent issued and administered prepaid 
debit cards and associated accounts containing unemployment insurance 
benefits granted to consumers in certain states. 
o. “Regional Director” means the Regional Director for the Southeast 
Region for the Office of Supervision for the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, or his or her delegate. 
p. “Related Consumer Action” means a private action by or on behalf of 
one or more consumers or an enforcement action by another 
governmental agency brought against Respondent based on substantially 
the same facts as described in Section IV of this Consent Order. 
q. “Relevant Period” means March 1, 2020 to June 8, 2021. 
r. “Respondent” means Bank of America, N.A. and its successors and 
assigns. 
IV. 
Bureau Findings and Conclusions 
The Bureau finds the following: 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 6 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.846     Page 15
of 65

4. 
Respondent is a national bank headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina 
with branches and ATMs located in 38 states and the District of Columbia. 
As of December 31, 2021, Respondent had $2.5 trillion in consolidated 
assets, which makes it an insured depository institution with assets greater 
than $10,000,000,000 within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 5515(a). 
5. 
Respondent is a “covered person” under 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6) because it 
“engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service,” 
including by engaging in deposit-taking activities, transmitting or 
exchanging funds, or otherwise acting as a custodian of funds or any 
financial instrument for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes. 12 U.S.C. § 5481(15)(A)(iv). 
6. 
Respondent is a “financial institution” under EFTA and Regulation E 
because it is a national bank holding consumer deposit accounts. 15 U.S.C. § 
1693a(9). 
7. 
During the Relevant Period, Respondent had contracts with 12 states, 
including California, to deliver unemployment insurance and other 
government benefit payments to consumers through prepaid debit cards and 
accounts. 
8. 
For each consumer deemed eligible by the relevant state unemployment 
agency who elected to receive their benefit payments through a prepaid debit 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 7 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.847     Page 16
of 65

card during the Relevant Period, the state notified Respondent, funded a 
prepaid debit card account with Respondent, and Respondent issued a 
prepaid debit card to the consumer. 
9. 
In each of those states, Respondent was responsible for loading 
unemployment and other government benefit payments onto prepaid debit 
cards and for servicing consumers’ prepaid debit card accounts. 
10. 
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 led to a surge in 
consumers seeking unemployment insurance benefits. These programs 
provide a temporary partial wage or income replacement for consumers who, 
through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. Payments are made 
directly to unemployed consumers, so that consumers can continue to pay 
for the necessities of life while they search for work. The national 
unemployment rate in April 2020 was 14.7%, and it remained at 
significantly elevated levels through 2020. Millions of consumers were 
newly unemployed. They sought the benefits to which they were legally 
entitled via Respondent’s prepaid debit cards.   
Respondent’s Strategy for Prepaid Debit Cardholders Filing Notices of Error 
and Seeking Liability Protection 
 
11. 
When notified by a consumer of an error such as an unauthorized EFT on 
their account, a financial institution must investigate the alleged error, 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 8 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.848     Page 17
of 65

determine whether an error has occurred, and report the results of its 
investigation and determination to the consumer pursuant to the 
requirements in Sections 908 and 909 of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f and 
1693g, and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. 
12. 
From January 2020 until late-September 2020, upon receiving a notice of 
error from an unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholder 
concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs, Respondent would conduct an 
investigation that could include, among other steps: comparing the location 
of the transaction with the consumer’s residence or habitual transactions; 
accessing ATM camera footage (if the alleged unauthorized activity 
occurred at a Respondent ATM); and contacting the cardholder for further 
information. 
13. 
Following a surge in notices of error filed by unemployment insurance 
benefit prepaid debit cardholders nationwide throughout the summer of 
2020, Respondent changed its practices for investigating unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholder notices of error. 
14. 
Under its new strategy, which Respondent implemented on September 28, 
2020 for all of its state unemployment insurance benefit prepaid programs, 
Respondent only ran cardholders’ notices of error concerning alleged 
unauthorized EFTs through its newly developed automated Fraud Filter, and 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 9 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.849     Page 18
of 65

for notices of error that met any indicator used by the Fraud Filter ceased 
taking the steps described in Paragraph 12, above, as part of its investigation. 
15. 
Beginning on September 28, 2020, for notices of error submitted by 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders concerning 
alleged unauthorized EFTs that met any of the three indicators used by 
Respondent’s new Fraud Filter, Respondent automatically determined that 
no error had occurred. 
16. 
Between September 28, 2020 and June 8, 2021, for notices of error 
submitted by unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders 
concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs that met any of the three indicators 
used by Respondent’s Fraud Filter, along with determining no error had 
occurred, Respondent froze or, after March 17, 2021, blocked the 
consumer’s prepaid debit card account. 
17. 
The only exception was from October 4, 2020 through December 2, 2020, 
when unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card accounts flagged 
by Respondent’s new Fraud Filter were not frozen as Respondent had 
intended. After Respondent discovered the issue, it froze those flagged 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card accounts on or about 
December 17, 2020, excluding accounts where a reconsideration request 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 10 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.850     Page 19
of 65

from a consumer was pending or where Respondent had reversed its initial 
determination that no error had occurred. 
18. 
A consumer whose unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card 
account is frozen cannot access the government benefits in their account. 
19. 
Respondent also will not accept new benefits payments for deposit into a 
frozen unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card account. 
20. 
When Respondent blocks an unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit 
card, no transactions are permitted. But unlike an account freeze, 
Respondent permits cardholders with blocks on their unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit card to verify their identity directly with 
Respondent. Upon verification, Respondent releases the block, and the 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card becomes usable again. 
21. 
Before implementing the Fraud Filter on September 28, 2020, Respondent 
knew, or should have known, that the Fraud Filter would, in certain cases, 
incorrectly determine that no error had occurred. 
22. 
Likewise, before implementing the Fraud Filter, Respondent knew, or 
should have known, that not all unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
accounts meeting its Fraud Filter indicators would be fraudulent and 
therefore should be frozen. Indeed, in an internal September 2020 
presentation, Respondent acknowledged, “Fraudulent determinations would 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 11 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.851     Page 20
of 65

require a detailed review of specific accounts, which given the volume, is 
unmanageable.” 
23. 
For notices of error meeting any of its Fraud Filter indicators, Respondent 
continued with its nationwide strategy of automatically determining no error 
occurred and freezing the cardholder’s unemployment insurance benefit 
prepaid debit card account based solely on the Fraud Filter from September 
28, 2020 to March 17, 2021. 
24. 
Consumers whose unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card 
accounts Respondent froze through its Fraud Filter went weeks, and in some 
cases months, without access to their unemployment insurance benefits.  
25. 
Some consumers whose prepaid debit card accounts Respondent froze 
incurred late fees and interest charges on their other accounts, and also 
missed phone and utility bill payments. Some consumers with frozen prepaid 
debit card accounts also faced other financial impacts, including foreclosure, 
eviction, and car repossession.  
26. 
Beginning on March 18, 2021, for notices of error for which it determined 
no error had occurred based solely on the results of its Fraud Filter, 
Respondent blocked the cardholder’s unemployment insurance benefit 
prepaid debit card, rather than freezing the cardholder’s account. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 12 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.852     Page 21
of 65

27. 
For notices of error submitted by over 100,000 unemployment insurance 
benefit prepaid debit cardholders concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs that 
met one or more of the Fraud Filter indicators, Respondent continued to rely 
solely on the results of its Fraud Filter to determine no error had occurred 
until June 8, 2021.  
Respondent’s Strategy as Applied to EDD Cardholders 
28. 
Eligible California consumers may receive their EDD unemployment 
insurance benefit payments through a check mailed by EDD or through EDD 
Prepaid Debit Cards and EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts. 
29. 
During the Relevant Period, most eligible California consumers received 
their EDD unemployment insurance benefit payments through EDD Prepaid 
Debit Cards and Accounts.  
30. 
From September 28, 2020 to March 17, 2021, for EDD Cardholders whose 
notices of error Respondent determined no error occurred through its Fraud 
Filter, Respondent sent denial notices reflecting Respondent’s determination 
that the EDD Cardholder’s Account or notice of error had been the subject 
of fraudulent or suspicious activity. Respondent’s denial notices failed to 
mention that Respondent had also frozen the consumer’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 13 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.853     Page 22
of 65

31. 
Beginning in December 2020 and continuing to March 17, 2021, 
Respondent sent an additional letter notifying affected EDD Cardholders of 
their account freeze several days after the EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
freeze had gone into effect. In some cases, Respondent failed to notify 
affected EDD Cardholders that their EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts had 
been frozen at all. 
32. 
EDD Cardholders seeking to file a notice of error with Respondent to seek 
liability protection spent hours a day on the phone attempting to notify 
Respondent that their EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had been subject to 
unauthorized EFTs. 
33. 
EDD Cardholders whose EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts Respondent 
froze based solely on its Fraud Filter spent hours a day on the phone with 
Respondent attempting to seek information regarding how to regain access 
to their frozen Account. Along with long hold times, Cardholders with EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Accounts frozen as a result of the Fraud Filter were 
subject to disconnections, transfers, and inaccurate information from 
Respondent and its vendor agents, including that their Accounts had been 
frozen at the direction of EDD rather than by Respondent.   
34. 
From September 28, 2020 to March 17, 2021, Respondent generally required 
EDD Cardholders with frozen EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts to reverify 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 14 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.854     Page 23
of 65

their identity through EDD (rather than with Respondent) to regain access to 
their Account. 
35. 
Respondent knew, or should have known, that EDD would not be able to 
handle the burden of quickly reverifying eligible EDD Cardholders whose 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts Respondent had frozen through its new 
strategy beginning on September 28, 2020. 
36. 
During the summer of 2020, Respondent met with EDD dozens of times, 
often weekly, and was in telephone or email contact even more often. 
37. 
In July 2020, EDD had approximately 1,400 staff to handle an average of 
6.7 million consumer calls per week. In August 2020, EDD was answering 
and resolving only 1% of incoming calls. 
38. 
Respondent did not inform EDD that it would be using a Fraud Filter and 
freezing unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card accounts before 
implementing that strategy on September 28, 2020. 
39. 
Until March 18, 2021, the only exception to Respondent’s requirement that 
EDD Cardholders reverify their identity through EDD to regain access to 
their frozen EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was limited to Cardholders 
who filed a complaint asserting a particular hardship with Respondent 
through a state or congressional representative, a legal aid group or private 
attorney, or the media that reached the attention of Respondent’s executives.   
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 15 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.855     Page 24
of 65

Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent’s Strategy in California (Unfair 
Practice) 
 
40. 
Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA prohibit a “covered person” from 
engaging in any “unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice” in connection 
with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or 
service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. 12 U.S.C. 
§§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B). 
41. 
An act or practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury 
to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and such 
substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers 
or to competition. 12 U.S.C. § 5531(c). 
42. 
From September 28, 2020 to March 17, 2021, Respondent automatically 
determined, without any further investigation, that no error had occurred for 
any EDD Cardholder notice of error concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs 
that met any of the three indicators in Respondent’s Fraud Filter. During 
most of this period, when Respondent determined no error had occurred 
through its Fraud Filter, Respondent also froze the cardholder’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account. 
43. 
This caused substantial injury to consumers. Not only did Respondent, 
through its Fraud Filter, incorrectly and automatically determine no error 
had occurred for tens of thousands of EDD Cardholders who had filed 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 16 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.856     Page 25
of 65

notices of error, but Respondent also froze those cardholders’ EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Accounts (except as stated in Paragraph 17), meaning those EDD 
Cardholders could not receive or access the unemployment insurance benefit 
funds in their Accounts. 
44. 
This substantial injury was not reasonably avoidable by EDD Cardholders. 
During this period, Respondent generally required EDD Cardholders whose 
Accounts were frozen through its strategy to reverify their identity through 
EDD to regain access to their Accounts. 
45. 
EDD Cardholders received conflicting and delayed information from 
Respondent regarding the reasons for their EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account freeze, and the steps they needed to take to unfreeze their Account. 
46. 
This substantial injury was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to 
consumers or to competition. 
47. 
As a result, Respondent engaged in unfair acts or practices, in violation of 
Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (c), 
5536(a)(1)(B). 
Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent’s Retroactive Application of Its 
Fraud Filter (Abusive Practice) 
 
48. 
An act or practice is abusive if it, among other things, takes unreasonable 
advantage of the inability of a consumer to protect their interests in selecting 
or using a consumer financial product or service. 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(B). 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 17 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.857     Page 26
of 65

49. 
In late September 2020 or early October 2020, Respondent also applied its 
Fraud Filter to more than 11,000 notices of error concerning alleged 
unauthorized EFTs submitted by EDD Cardholders between April 1, 2020 
and September 27, 2020 for which Respondent had previously provided the 
EDD Cardholder a permanent credit. 
50. 
For those more than 11,000 notices of error, Respondent retroactively 
determined that no error had occurred based on the results of its Fraud Filter, 
and reversed those EDD Cardholders’ permanent credits. 
51. 
Affected EDD Cardholders were unable to protect their interests because 
they could not control how and when Respondent would investigate and 
resolve their notices of error. 
52. 
Until at least December 2021, Respondent did not correct its reversals of 
these more than 11,000 previously-investigated-and-paid notices of error 
without an EDD Cardholder’s request for reconsideration. 
53. 
By reversing the permanent credits for EDD Cardholders who had already 
received notice from Respondent that their error claim had been investigated 
and paid, Respondent took unreasonable advantage of EDD Cardholders’ 
inability to protect their interests. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 18 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.858     Page 27
of 65

54. 
As a result, Respondent engaged in abusive acts or practices, in violation of 
Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (d)(2)(B), 
5536(a)(1)(B). 
Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent’s Failure to Conduct Reasonable 
Error Resolution Investigations (EFTA and Regulation E) 
 
55. 
Under EFTA, upon receiving notices of error, financial institutions may not 
determine no error had occurred without conducting a “good faith 
investigation of the alleged error” and without “a reasonable basis for 
believing that the consumer’s account was not in error.” 15 U.S.C. § 
1693f(e). 
56. 
Further, under Regulation E, when conducting an Error Resolution 
Investigation, a financial institution must conduct, at minimum, a “review of 
its own records regarding [the] alleged error.” 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(c)(4), 
and the Error Resolution Investigation “must be reasonable,” 71 Fed. Reg. 
1638, 1654 (Jan. 10, 2006). 
57. 
From September 28, 2020 to June 8, 2021, Respondent used its Fraud Filter 
to determine no error had occurred for approximately 188,000 notices of 
error submitted by Affected Consumers nationwide concerning alleged 
unauthorized EFTs, without any further investigation or considering any 
other information relevant to Affected Consumers’ notices. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 19 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.859     Page 28
of 65

58. 
As a result, Respondent violated the requirement to conduct a reasonable 
Error Resolution Investigation under Sections 908 and 909 of EFTA, 15 
U.S.C. §§ 1693f and 1693g, and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. 
Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent Impeding EDD Cardholders from 
Filing Notices of Error and Seeking Liability Protection from Unauthorized 
EFTs (Unfair Practices) 
 
59. 
Throughout the Relevant Period, Respondent and EDD both directed EDD 
Cardholders to contact Respondent to file a telephonic notice of error. 
60. 
Throughout the Relevant Period, EDD Cardholders could not file notices of 
error with Respondent online, through Respondent’s other (non-prepaid) 
customer service divisions, or in person at Respondent’s branches.  
61. 
EDD Cardholders who called for assistance after their EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was subject to unauthorized EFTs were required to navigate 
Respondent’s prepaid call center divisions staffed by vendor agents. 
62. 
Throughout the Relevant Period, Respondent represented on its EDD Debit 
Card FAQ webpage that it would provide EDD Cardholders with “dedicated 
customer service representatives” who are “available 24 hours a day, 7 days 
a week” to help EDD Cardholders “investigate transactions.” 
63. 
Respondent further advised consumers in its EDD Cardholder Agreement, 
which Respondent mailed to all new EDD Cardholders, that “Telephoning is 
the best way of keeping your possible losses down.” 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 20 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.860     Page 29
of 65

64. 
Under Respondent’s “Zero Liability” guarantee, which Respondent also 
includes in its EDD Cardholder Agreement, Respondent represents that 
EDD Cardholders will incur no liability for unauthorized use of their EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card up to the amount of the unauthorized transactions, 
provided they notify Respondent within a reasonable amount of time. 
65. 
For much of 2020, EDD Cardholders faced long hold times when attempting 
to file a notice of error with Respondent over the phone and take advantage 
of Respondent’s “Zero Liability” guarantee for unauthorized use of 
cardholders’ EDD Prepaid Debit Cards. 
66. 
Throughout the Relevant Period, EDD Cardholders were required to first 
speak with an agent in Respondent’s main prepaid call center before being 
transferred to Respondent’s prepaid claims initiation division, which was the 
only division authorized to accept EDD Cardholders’ notices of error over 
the phone. 
67. 
From May 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020, prepaid debit cardholders nationwide had 
to wait on average nearly two hours to speak with an agent in Respondent’s 
prepaid claims initiation division. 
68. 
From September 1 to December 1, 2020, prepaid debit cardholders 
nationwide had to wait on average over an hour to speak with an agent in 
Respondent’s prepaid claims initiation division. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 21 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.861     Page 30
of 65

69. 
Unlike Respondent’s main prepaid call center, throughout the Relevant 
Period Respondent’s prepaid claims initiation division was not available 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, but instead kept the following business hours: 
Monday to Friday, 5am PT to 7pm PT; Saturday, 6:30am PT to 5pm PT; and 
closed on Sundays. 
70. 
Through September 2020, Respondent’s prepaid claims initiation division 
was still staffed by fewer than 300 vendor agents to assist unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders nationwide with filing their 
notices of error. 
71. 
Throughout 2020, certain EDD Cardholders remained on hold with 
Respondent’s prepaid call center divisions for hours daily, over the course of 
weeks, in attempts to file notices of error. 
72. 
EDD Cardholders were also subject to transfers, dropped calls, and 
misinformation from Respondent’s prepaid call center agents, all of which 
further impeded their ability to successfully file notices of error with 
Respondent.  
73. 
EDD Cardholders could not reasonably avoid the harm caused by extensive 
hold times, dropped calls, and misinformation from Respondent’s prepaid 
call center agents because, among other reasons, Respondent directed EDD 
Cardholders to file notices of error by contacting Respondent by phone. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 22 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.862     Page 31
of 65

74. 
This substantial injury to EDD Cardholders was not outweighed by any 
countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. 
75. 
As a result, Respondent engaged in unfair acts or practices, in violation of 
Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a) and (c), 
5536(a)(1)(B). 
Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent’s Failure to Timely Investigate 
EDD Cardholders’ Notices of Error Concerning Alleged Unauthorized EFTs 
(EFTA and Regulation E) 
 
76. 
For timely-submitted consumer notices of error, EFTA requires financial 
institutions to “investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error has 
occurred, and report or mail the results of such investigation and 
determination to the consumer within ten business days.” 15 U.S.C. § 
1693f(a). 
77. 
A financial institution may extend that 10-business-day investigation 
deadline to 45 calendar days if it provisionally credits the consumer’s 
account in the amount of the alleged error within 10 business days of 
receiving the error notice. 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(c); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(c)(2). 
78. 
This 45-day investigation deadline may be extended to 90 calendar days if a 
notice of error involves an EFT that was not initiated within a state; resulted 
from a point-of-sale debit card transaction; or occurred within 30 days of the 
first deposit to the account. 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(c)(3)(ii). 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 23 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.863     Page 32
of 65

79. 
This extended 90-day investigation deadline does not apply to transactions at 
an ATM, including ATMs located at merchant locations. Official 
Interpretation Comment 11(c)(3)-1, 12 C.F.R. Pt. 1005, Supp. I. 
80. 
In certain instances, for notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized 
EFTs submitted by EDD Cardholders during the Relevant Period, 
Respondent failed to complete its investigation within 10 business days and 
Respondent did not issue a provisional credit (or issued a provisional credit 
after 10 business days). 
81. 
In certain instances, for notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized 
EFTs relating to ATM transactions submitted by EDD Cardholders during 
the Relevant Period, Respondent failed to complete its investigation within 
45 calendar days. 
82. 
In certain instances, for notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized 
EFTs submitted by EDD Cardholders during the Relevant Period, 
Respondent failed to complete its investigation within 90 calendar days. 
83. 
As a result, Respondent violated EFTA and Regulation E by failing to timely 
investigate EDD Cardholders’ notices of error concerning alleged 
unauthorized EFTs. 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(a), (c); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(c)(2)-(3). 
CONDUCT PROVISIONS 
V. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 24 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.864     Page 33
of 65

 
 
IT IS ORDERED, under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, that: 
84. 
Respondent and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys 
who have actual notice of this Consent Order, whether acting directly or 
indirectly, may not violate Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 
U.S.C. §§ 5531 and 5536, Sections 908 and 909 of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 
1693f and 1693g, and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E, in connection with 
administering unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards and 
accounts, including in connection with receiving, investigating, and 
resolving notices of error submitted by unemployment insurance benefit 
prepaid debit cardholders concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs. 
85. 
Respondent and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys 
who have actual notice of this Consent Order, whether acting directly or 
indirectly, in connection with administering unemployment insurance 
benefit prepaid debit cards and accounts, must take the following 
affirmative actions: 
a. Respondent must not determine no error occurred solely based on the 
results of an automated fraud filter for notices of error submitted by 
unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholders; 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 25 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.865     Page 34
of 65

b. Respondent must not freeze an unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
debit card account solely based on the results of an automated fraud 
filter; 
c. Respondent must, during the course of an Error Resolution Investigation, 
reasonably consider all information relevant to the unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit cardholder’s notice of error, including, 
but not limited to, information within Respondent’s own records; 
d. Respondent must not condition access to an open EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for an existing EDD Cardholder on reverifying their 
identity through EDD, and must allow EDD Cardholders to attempt to 
verify their identity directly with Respondent, except in the cases where 
(i) EDD disqualified the EDD Cardholder or requested that the EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account be frozen, or (ii) reverification through EDD 
is requested by EDD or is required by law; 
e. Respondent must allow EDD Cardholders to attempt to reverify their 
identity in order to unblock their EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
person at Respondent’s financial center branches. Respondent’s financial 
center branches must have processes and procedures in place to facilitate 
telephonic submission of notices of error by EDD Cardholders; and 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 26 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.866     Page 35
of 65

f. Respondent must conduct a risk assessment of its Prepaid Card 
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program, including an assessment of 
risks associated with increased volumes of unemployment insurance 
benefit prepaid debit cardholders in the future. This requirement may be 
performed as part of the Program Risk Assessment required of 
Respondent by Article V of the OCC Consent Order.  
86. 
Respondent must provide the appropriate staffing and resources necessary 
to comply with Paragraphs 87–89. 
VI. 
Compliance Plan 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
87. 
Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must submit to the 
Regional Director for review and determination of non-objection a 
comprehensive compliance plan designed to ensure that Respondent’s 
administration of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards and 
accounts complies with all applicable laws that the Bureau enforces, 
including Federal consumer financial laws, and the terms of this Consent 
Order (Compliance Plan). The Compliance Plan must include, at a 
minimum: 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 27 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.867     Page 36
of 65

a. detailed steps for addressing each action required by this Consent 
Order as set forth in Paragraphs 84–85; and 
b. specific timeframes and deadlines for implementation of the steps 
described above. 
88. 
The Regional Director will have the discretion to make a determination of 
non-objection to the Compliance Plan or direct Respondent to revise it. If 
the Regional Director directs Respondent to revise the Compliance Plan, 
Respondent must revise and resubmit the Compliance Plan to the Regional 
Director within 30 days. 
89. 
After receiving notification that the Regional Director has made a 
determination of non-objection to the Compliance Plan, Respondent must 
implement and adhere to the steps, recommendations, deadlines, and 
timeframes outlined in the Compliance Plan. 
VII. 
Role of the Board 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
90. 
The Board, or a committee thereof, must review all submissions (including 
plans, reports, programs, policies, and procedures) required by this 
Consent Order prior to submission to the Bureau.  
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 28 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.868     Page 37
of 65

91. 
Although this Consent Order requires Respondent to submit certain 
documents for review or non-objection by the Regional Director or 
Enforcement Director, the Board, or a committee thereof, will have the 
ultimate responsibility for proper and sound management of Respondent 
and for ensuring that Respondent complies with the laws that the Bureau 
enforces, including Federal consumer financial laws and this Consent 
Order. 
92. 
In each instance that this Consent Order requires the Board to ensure 
adherence to, or perform certain obligations of Respondent, the Board, or a 
committee thereof, must: 
a. Authorize whatever actions are necessary for Respondent to fully comply 
with the Consent Order; 
b. Require timely reporting by management to the Board on the status of 
compliance obligations; and 
c. Require timely and appropriate corrective action to remedy any material 
non-compliance with Board directives related to this Section. 
MONETARY PROVISIONS 
VIII. 
Order to Pay Redress 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 29 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.869     Page 38
of 65

93. 
Respondent shall provide redress to Affected Consumers, which shall 
include (i) compensation for the value of unauthorized EFTs alleged by 
Affected Consumers in notices of error that Respondent incorrectly denied 
through its Fraud Filter; (ii) compensation to Affected Consumers for 
related Consequential Harm, as required by this Section; and (iii) 
compensation to Affected Consumers through an individualized review 
process, as required by this Section. Respondent will not be required to 
pay redress to consumers meeting the definition of Affected Consumers as 
of the Effective Date for whom (i) the state benefit granting agency has 
determined or later determines should have been initially disqualified for 
unemployment insurance benefit payments, or (ii) whose unemployment 
insurance benefit prepaid debit card account is or becomes frozen, 
blocked, or closed by Respondent at the request of the state benefit 
granting agency, or due to suspected fraud, anti-money laundering, or 
financial crimes inquiries or determinations made in conjunction with law 
enforcement, or due to an independent legal requirement such as receipt of 
legal process or orders. 
94. 
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must submit to the 
Enforcement Director for review and non-objection a comprehensive 
written plan for providing redress consistent with this Consent Order 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 30 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.870     Page 39
of 65

(Redress Plan). The Enforcement Director will have the discretion to make 
a determination of non-objection to the Redress Plan or direct Respondent 
to revise it. If the Enforcement Director directs Respondent to revise the 
Redress Plan, Respondent must revise and resubmit the Redress Plan to the 
Enforcement Director within 30 days. After receiving notification that the 
Enforcement Director has made a determination of non-objection to the 
Redress Plan, Respondent must implement and adhere to the steps, 
recommendations, deadlines, and timeframes outlined in the Redress Plan. 
95. 
The Redress Plan must include: 
a. A description of the methodology Respondent will use to identify 
Affected Consumers, including Affected Consumers who no longer have 
active unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card accounts with 
Respondent; 
b. A description of the procedures and process Respondent will use to 
remediate each Affected Consumer, which shall include: (i) calculating 
the value of unauthorized EFTs alleged by Affected Consumers in 
notices of error that Respondent incorrectly denied through its Fraud 
Filter; (ii) calculating the lump sum Consequential Harm payment; and 
(iii) an individualized review process administrated by an independent 
third-party payment administrator that allows Affected Consumers to 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 31 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.871     Page 40
of 65

seek additional redress compensation by submitting evidence of financial 
harm exceeding Consequential Harm-related payments; 
c. A description of the methodology Respondent will use to calculate the 
amount of remediation to be paid as Consequential Harm for each 
Affected Consumer;  
d. A description of the methodology Respondent will use to identify 
compensable financial impacts to Affected Consumers for the purpose of 
additional redress compensation exceeding Consequential Harm-related 
payments in connection with the individualized review process; 
e. A description of the type of supporting documentation that will be 
required for Affected Consumers seeking additional financial redress 
compensation exceeding Consequential Harm-related payments in 
connection with the individualized review process; 
f. A description of the procedures for issuing and tracking redress payments 
to Affected Consumers; 
g. A description of the plan for developing communications that will be sent 
to notify Affected Consumers of their redress under the Redress Plan 
(Redress Notification). The Redress Notification must include a 
statement that the redress is being paid in accordance with terms of this 
Consent Order; 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 32 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.872     Page 41
of 65

h. A description of the processes for handling any redress funds for 
Affected Consumers that remain unclaimed; and 
i. The procedures, deadlines, and timeframes for completing each step of 
the Redress Plan, consistent with the terms of this Consent Order. 
96. 
Following the implementation of the Redress Plan, Respondent must 
submit a report that: 
a. Identifies each Affected Consumer evaluated as part of the Redress Plan; 
b. States the amount of redress Respondent provided to each Affected 
Consumer for (i) notices of error that Respondent incorrectly denied; (ii) 
Consequential Harm; and (iii) pursuant to the individualized review 
process (if applicable);  
97. 
Respondent must make reasonable attempts to obtain a current physical 
address for any Affected Consumer (i) before sending any redress payment 
required under this Section VIII and (ii) for a period of 360 days from the 
date the redress was initially sent to the Affected Consumer upon receipt 
of returned mail or failure to negotiate a check that is issued to the 
consumer.  
98. 
Respondent may not condition the payment of any redress to any Affected 
Consumer under this Consent Order on that Affected Consumer waiving 
any right. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 33 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.873     Page 42
of 65

IX. 
Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
99. 
Under § 1055(c) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c), by reason of the 
violations of law described in Section IV of this Consent Order, 
Respondent must pay a civil money penalty of $100 million to the Bureau. 
100. Within 10 business days of the Effective Date, Respondent must pay the 
civil money penalty by wire transfer to the Bureau or to the Bureau’s agent 
in compliance with the Bureau’s wiring instructions.  
101. The civil money penalty paid under this Consent Order will be deposited 
in the Civil Penalty Fund of the Bureau as required by § 1017(d) of the 
CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5497(d). 
102. Respondent, for all purposes, must treat the civil money penalty paid under 
this Consent Order as a penalty paid to the government. Regardless of how 
the Bureau ultimately uses those funds, Respondent may not: 
a. Claim, assert, or apply for a tax deduction, tax credit, or any other tax 
benefit for any civil money penalty paid under this Consent Order; or 
b. Seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification 
from any source, including but not limited to payment made under any 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 34 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.874     Page 43
of 65

insurance policy, with regard to any civil money penalty paid under this 
Consent Order. 
103. To preserve the deterrent effect of the civil money penalty in any Related 
Consumer Action, Respondent may not argue that Respondent is entitled 
to, nor may Respondent benefit by, any offset or reduction of any 
compensatory monetary remedies imposed in the Related Consumer 
Action because of the civil money penalty paid in this action or because of 
any payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund. If the 
court in any Related Consumer Action offsets or otherwise reduces the 
amount of compensatory monetary remedies imposed against Respondent 
based on the civil money penalty paid in this action or based on any 
payment that the Bureau makes from the Civil Penalty Fund, Respondent 
must, within 30 days after entry of a final order granting such offset or 
reduction, notify the Bureau, and pay the amount of the offset or reduction 
to the U.S. Treasury. Such a payment will not be considered an additional 
civil money penalty and will not change the amount of the civil money 
penalty imposed in this action. 
X. 
Additional Monetary Provisions 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 35 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.875     Page 44
of 65

104. In the event of any default on Respondent’s obligations to make payment 
under this Consent Order, interest—computed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, as 
amended—will accrue on any outstanding amounts not paid from the date 
of default to the date of payment, and will immediately become due and 
payable. 
105. Respondent must relinquish all dominion, control, and title to the funds 
paid to the fullest extent permitted by law and no part of the funds may be 
returned to Respondent. 
106. Under 31 U.S.C. § 7701, Respondent, unless it already has done so, must 
furnish to the Bureau its taxpayer-identification numbers, which may be 
used for purposes of collecting and reporting on any delinquent amount 
arising out of this Consent Order.  
107. Within 30 days of the entry of a final judgment, consent order, or 
settlement in a Related Consumer Action, Respondent must notify the 
Enforcement Director of the final judgment, consent order, or settlement in 
writing. That notification must indicate the amount of redress, if any, that 
Respondent paid or is required to pay to consumers and describe the 
consumers or classes of consumers to whom that redress has been or will 
be paid. 
COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 36 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.876     Page 45
of 65

XI. 
Reporting Requirements 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:  
108. Respondent must notify the Bureau of any development that may affect 
compliance obligations arising under this Consent Order, including but not 
limited to a dissolution, assignment, sale, merger, or other action that 
would result in the emergence of a successor company; the creation or 
dissolution of a subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or 
practices subject to this Consent Order; the filing of any bankruptcy or 
insolvency proceeding by or against Respondent; or a change in 
Respondent’s name or address. Respondent must provide this notice, if 
practicable, at least 30 days before the development, but in any case no 
later than 14 days after the development.   
109. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must designate at least 
one telephone number and email, physical, and postal addresses as points 
of contact that the Bureau may use to communicate with Respondent. 
110. Respondent must report any change in the information required to be 
submitted under Paragraph 109 at least 30 days before the change or as 
soon as practicable after the learning about the change, whichever is 
sooner. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 37 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.877     Page 46
of 65

111. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, and again one year after the 
Effective Date, Respondent must submit to the Regional Director an 
accurate written compliance progress report (Compliance Report) that has 
been approved by the Board or a committee thereof, sworn to under 
penalty of perjury, which, at a minimum: 
a. Lists each applicable paragraph and subparagraph of the Order and 
describes in detail the manner and form in which Respondent has 
complied with each such paragraph and subparagraph of the Consent 
Order;  
b. Describes in detail the manner and form in which Respondent has 
complied with the Redress Plan and Compliance Plan; and 
c. Attaches a copy of each Order Acknowledgment obtained under Section 
XII, unless previously submitted to the Bureau. 
XII. 
Order Distribution and Acknowledgment 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:  
112. Within 7 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must submit to the 
Enforcement Director an acknowledgment of receipt of this Consent 
Order, sworn under penalty of perjury.  
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 38 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.878     Page 47
of 65

113. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must deliver a copy of 
this Consent Order to each of its Board members and executive officers, as 
well as to any managers, employees, service providers, or other agents and 
representatives who have responsibilities related to the subject matter of 
the Consent Order. 
114. For 5 years from the Effective Date, Respondent must deliver a copy of 
this Consent Order to any business entity resulting from any change in 
structure referred to in Section XI, any future Board members and 
executive officers, as well as to any managers, employees, service 
providers, or other agents and representatives who will have 
responsibilities related to the subject matter of the Consent Order before 
they assume their responsibilities.  
115. Respondent must secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging 
receipt of a copy of this Consent Order, ensuring that any electronic 
signatures comply with the requirements of the E-Sign Act, 15 U.S.C. § 
7001 et seq., within 30 days of delivery, from all persons receiving a copy 
of this Consent Order under this Section.  
116. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Respondent must provide the Bureau 
with a list of all persons and their titles to whom this Consent Order was 
delivered through that date under Paragraphs 112–114 and a copy of all 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 39 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.879     Page 48
of 65

signed and dated statements acknowledging receipt of this Consent Order 
under Paragraph 115. 
XIII. 
Recordkeeping 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:  
117. Respondent must create and retain the following business records: 
a. All documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with 
each provision of this Consent Order, including all submissions to the 
Bureau; 
b. All documents and records pertaining to the Redress Plan, described in 
Section VIII above; 
c. All documents and records pertaining to the Compliance Plan, described 
in Section VI above; 
d. For each individual Affected Consumer:  
i. the consumer’s name, address, and, if available to Respondent, 
phone number, and email address; 
ii. the date(s) the consumer submitted a notice of error concerning 
alleged unauthorized EFTs that Respondent wrongly 
determined no error occurred based solely on the results of 
Respondent’s Fraud Filter;  
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 40 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.880     Page 49
of 65

iii. the value of alleged unauthorized EFTs in the consumer’s 
notice(s) of error that Respondent wrongly determined no error 
occurred based solely on the results of Respondent’s Fraud 
Filter; and 
iv. the length of time that Respondent froze or blocked the 
consumer’s unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit card 
account due to Respondent’s determination that no error 
occurred based solely on the results of Respondent’s Fraud 
Filter. 
e. All consumer complaints and refund requests (whether received directly 
or indirectly, such as through a third party) regarding Respondent’s 
administration of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid debit cards 
and accounts relating to government benefit payments, and any responses 
to those complaints or requests. 
f. Records showing, for each Respondent employee or agent providing 
material services related to Respondent’s unemployment insurance 
benefit prepaid debit card programs, that person’s name, telephone 
number, email, physical, and postal address, job title or position, dates of 
service, and, if applicable, the reason for termination. 
g. Records showing, for each service provider providing services related to 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 41 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.881     Page 50
of 65

Respondent’s administration of unemployment insurance benefit prepaid 
debit cards and accounts, the name of a point of contact, and that 
person’s telephone number, email, physical, and postal address, job title 
or position, dates of service, and, if applicable, the reason for termination. 
118. Respondent must make the documents identified in Paragraph 117
available to the Bureau upon the Bureau’s request.
XIV. 
Notices 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
119. Unless otherwise directed in writing by the Bureau, Respondent must
provide all submissions, requests, communications, or other documents 
relating to this Consent Order in writing, with the subject line, “In re Bank 
of America, N.A., File No. 2022-CFPB-0004,” and send them by 
overnight courier or first-class mail to the below addresses and 
contemporaneously by email to Enforcement_Compliance@cfpb.gov and
Southeastregion@cfpb.gov:
Regional Director, Bureau Southeast Region 
Peachtree Summit Building 
401 W. Peachtree Street 
Atlanta, GA 30308 
Assistant Director for Enforcement 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
ATTENTION: Office of Enforcement  
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 42 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.882     Page 51
of 65

1700 G Street, N.W. 
Washington D.C. 20552 
 
 
XV. 
Cooperation with the Bureau 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:  
120. Respondent must cooperate fully to help the Bureau determine the identity 
and location of, and the amount of injury sustained by, each Affected 
Consumer. Respondent must provide such information in its or its agents’ 
possession or control within 14 days of receiving a written request from 
the Bureau. 
XVI. 
 
Compliance Monitoring 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
121. Within 14 days of receipt of a written request from the Bureau, 
Respondent must submit additional Compliance Reports or other requested 
information, which must be made under penalty of perjury; provide sworn 
testimony; or produce documents.  
122. Respondent must permit Bureau representatives to interview any employee 
or other person affiliated with Respondent who has agreed to such an 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 43 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.883     Page 52
of 65

interview regarding: (a) this matter; (b) anything related to or associated 
with the conduct described in Section IV; or (c) compliance with the 
Consent Order. The person interviewed may have counsel present. 
123. Nothing in this Consent Order will limit the Bureau’s lawful use of civil 
investigative demands under 12 C.F.R. § 1080.6 or other compulsory 
process. 
XVII. 
Modifications to Non-Material Requirements 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
124. Respondent may seek a modification to non-material requirements of this 
Consent Order (e.g., reasonable extensions of time and changes to 
reporting requirements) by submitting a written request to the Enforcement 
Director. 
125. The Enforcement Director may, in his or her discretion, modify any non-
material requirements of this Consent Order (e.g., reasonable extensions of 
time and changes to reporting requirements) if he or she determines good 
cause justifies the modification. Any such modification by the 
Enforcement Director must be in writing.  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 
XVIII. 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 44 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.884     Page 53
of 65

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 
126. The provisions of this Consent Order do not bar, estop, or otherwise 
prevent the Bureau from taking any other action against Respondent, 
except as described in Paragraph 127 below. Further, for the avoidance of 
doubt, the provisions of this Consent Order do not bar, estop, or otherwise 
prevent any other person or governmental agency from taking any action 
against Respondent. 
127. The Bureau releases and discharges Respondent from all potential liability 
for law violations that the Bureau has or might have asserted based on the 
practices described in Section IV of this Consent Order, to the extent such 
practices occurred before the Effective Date and the Bureau knows about 
them as of the Effective Date. The Bureau may use the practices described 
in this Consent Order in future enforcement actions against Respondent 
and its affiliates, including, without limitation, to establish a pattern or 
practice of violations or the continuation of a pattern or practice of 
violations or to calculate the amount of any penalty. This release does not 
preclude or affect any right of the Bureau to determine and ensure 
compliance with the Consent Order, or to seek penalties for any violations 
of the Consent Order.  
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 45 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.885     Page 54
of 65

128. This Consent Order is intended to be, and will be construed as, a final 
Consent Order issued under § 1053 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5563, and 
expressly does not form, and may not be construed to form, a contract 
binding the Bureau or the United States. 
129. This Consent Order will terminate on the later of 5 years from the 
Effective Date or 5 years from the most recent date that the Bureau 
initiates an action alleging any violation of the Consent Order by 
Respondent, if such action is initiated within 5 years of the Effective Date. 
If such action is dismissed or the relevant adjudicative body rules that 
Respondent did not violate any provision of the Consent Order, and the 
dismissal or ruling is either not appealed or upheld on appeal, then the 
Consent Order will terminate as though the action had never been filed. 
The Consent Order will remain effective and enforceable until such time, 
except to the extent that any provisions of this Consent Order have been 
amended, suspended, waived, or terminated in writing by the Bureau or its 
designated agent. 
130. Calculation of time limitations will run from the Effective Date and be 
based on calendar days, unless otherwise noted.  
131. Should Respondent seek to transfer or assign all or part of its operations 
that are subject to this Consent Order, Respondent must, as a condition of 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 46 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.886     Page 55
of 65

sale, obtain the written agreement of the transferee or assignee to comply 
with all applicable provisions of this Consent Order. 
132. The provisions of this Consent Order will be enforceable by the Bureau.
For any violation of this Consent Order, the Bureau may impose the
maximum amount of civil money penalties allowed under Section 1055(c)
of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. § 5565(c). In connection with any attempt by the
Bureau to enforce this Consent Order in federal district court, the Bureau
may serve Respondent wherever Respondent may be found and
Respondent may not contest that court’s personal jurisdiction over
Respondent.
133. This Consent Order and the accompanying Stipulation contain the
complete agreement between the parties. The parties have made no
promises, representations, or warranties other than what is contained in
this Consent Order and the accompanying Stipulation. This Consent Order
and the accompanying Stipulation supersede any prior oral or written
communications, discussions, or understandings.
134. Nothing in this Consent Order or the accompanying Stipulation may be
construed as allowing Respondent, its Board, officers, or employees to
violate any law, rule, or regulation.
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 47 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.887     Page 56
of 65

____________________________ 
Rohit Chopra 
Director 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2022. 
t f 
2022-CFPB-0004     Document 1     Filed 07/14/2022     Page 48 of 48
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.888     Page 57
of 65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exhibit 2 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.889     Page 58
of 65

7/15/22, 2:24 PM
Federal Regulators Fine Bank of America $225 Million Over Botched Disbursement of State Unemployment Benefits at Height of …
1/4
Federal Regulators Fine Bank of America $225 Million Over
Botched Disbursement of State Unemployment Benefits at
Height of Pandemic
Bank Left Struggling Americans in the Lurch by Wrongfully Freezing Accounts
JUL 14, 2022
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
fined Bank of America $100 million for botching the disbursement of state
unemployment benefits at the height of the pandemic. Bank of America
automatically and unlawfully froze people’s accounts with a faulty fraud
detection program, and then gave them little recourse when there was, in fact,
no fraud. Today’s order requires Bank of America to undertake a process that is
estimated to result in hundreds of millions of dollars in redress to consumers.
In a separate order, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also
fining the bank $125 million.
“Taxpayers relied on banks to distribute needed funds to families and small
businesses to rescue the economy from collapse when the pandemic hit,” said
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Bank of America failed to live up to its legal
obligations. And when it got overwhelmed, instead of stepping up, it stepped
back.”
Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) is a national bank headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina, with approximately 4,100 branches. It has been designated as
a global systemically important bank by the Financial Stability Board, and as of
December 31, 2021, the company had $2.5 trillion in consolidated assets,
which makes it the second largest bank in the United States. The bank has
previously been sanctioned by the CFPB. In 2014, the CFPB ordered (https://w
ww.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-bank-of-america-to
-pay-727-million-in-consumer-relief-for-illegal-credit-card-practices/) Bank of
America to pay $727 million in redress to its victims for illegal credit card
practices. And in May of this year, the CFPB ordered (https://www.consumerfin
ance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-bank-of-america-to-pay-10-million-
penalty-for-illegal-garnishments/) Bank of America to pay a $10 million civil
penalty over unlawful garnishments.

(cfpb.gov/)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.890     Page 59
of 65

7/15/22, 2:24 PM
Federal Regulators Fine Bank of America $225 Million Over Botched Disbursement of State Unemployment Benefits at Height of …
2/4
Bank of America has contracts with various state agencies to deliver
unemployment and other benefit payments to consumers electronically
through prepaid debit cards and accounts. For example, since 2011, Bank of
America has had an exclusive contract with the State of California to deliver
unemployment and other benefit payments to California consumers
electronically through prepaid debit cards and accounts. Under the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, consumers are protected when they use electronic methods
to transfer money; this includes prepaid cards. Protections include that after a
consumer contacts the financial institution that there has been an error, the
financial institution must conduct a prompt, reasonable, and timely
investigation.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in early 2020, the unemployment rate
surged. Millions of consumers sought unemployment insurance benefits. The
surge included a great deal of fraud. There was a significant amount of identity
theft that affected eligible cardholders with legitimate prepaid debit card
accounts but there were also a significant number of criminals who applied for
and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits who filed false error
claims to access additional funds.
In its investigation, the CFPB found that Bank of America engaged in unfair and
abusive acts and practices that resulted in Californians not getting their
unemployment benefits at the height of the pandemic, when many people
needed the money the most. Specific findings include that the bank:
Replaced reasonable investigations with a faulty fraud filter: In the fall of 2020,
and continuing through mid-2021, Bank of America changed its practices for
investigating prepaid debit card fraud on the unemployment insurance benefit
accounts. Instead of conducting reasonable investigations, it implemented a
fraud filter with a simple set of flags that automatically triggered an account
freeze. This set a low bar to freeze the unemployment insurance benefits of
many people, harming thousands of legitimate cardholders needing the
money. The bank also retroactively applied its fraud filter to deny some notices
of error submitted by prepaid debit cardholders that the bank had previously
investigated and paid.
Left distressed consumers in the lurch: Bank of America made it very difficult
for people to unfreeze their prepaid debit cards or for people to report
fraudulent use of their cards. People with unemployment insurance benefit
prepaid debit cards could not make reports online, or in person at bank
branches. People were on hold for hours every day for weeks trying to talk to
someone at the bank. Furthermore, the bank told customers they had agents
available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when, in fact, it operated a more
limited schedule for its claim call center. Because Bank of America was the
strongly preferred provider for California unemployment benefits, consumers
were caught without any choice to switch providers.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.891     Page 60
of 65

7/15/22, 2:24 PM
Federal Regulators Fine Bank of America $225 Million Over Botched Disbursement of State Unemployment Benefits at Height of …
3/4
Passed the buck to an overwhelmed state agency: When consumers sought
assistance, the bank often sent them back to the California state
unemployment department for verification in order to regain access to their
benefits. But the bank knew the department was stretched and unable to
provide services; the bank met with the department dozens of times in the
summer of 2020 and should have known it was essentially redirecting people
into a black hole.
Enforcement Action
Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to
take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including
engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Bank of America will
be required to:
Provide redress to consumers: Bank of America must pay back the money that
they wrongly denied to consumers across the country because of the faulty
fraud filter. The bank must also provide each affected consumer with a lump
sum consequential harm payment, to be determined through a methodology
of financial harm consumers suffered due to the time their accounts remained
frozen or blocked. Finally, affected consumers will have the opportunity to
receive additional redress through an individualized review process.
Pay a $100 million fine: Bank of America must pay a $100 million dollar penalty
to the CFPB, which will be deposited into the victims relief fund. The penalty
reflects the severity and scope of the consumer harm caused by the bank’s
practices. The OCC is separately fining the bank $125 million to be remitted to
the Treasury.
Read today’s order (cfpb.gov/enforcement/actions/bank-of-america-na-2/).
Consumers can submit complaints about financial products or services by
visiting the CFPB’s website (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/) or
by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372).
###
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that
implements and enforces Federal consumer financial law and ensures that
markets for consumer financial products are fair, transparent, and competitive.
For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov (cfpb.gov/).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.892     Page 61
of 65

7/15/22, 2:24 PM
Federal Regulators Fine Bank of America $225 Million Over Botched Disbursement of State Unemployment Benefits at Height of …
4/4
PRESS INFORMATION
If you want to republish the article
or have questions about the content,
please contact the press office.
An official website of the
United States government
Go to press resources page
(cfpb.gov/about-us/newsroom/press-resources/)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.893     Page 62
of 65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exhibit 3 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.894     Page 63
of 65

7/15/22, 2:25 PM
OCC Assesses $125 Million Civil Money Penalty Against Bank of America, Orders Restitution for Unfair and Deceptive Practices |…
about:blank
1/2
WASHINGTON—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today assessed a
$125 million civil money penalty against Bank of America, N.A., for violations of law and
unsafe or unsound practices relating to the bank’s administration of a prepaid card
program to distribute unemployment insurance and other public benefit payments. The
OCC also ordered the bank to provide remediation to consumers harmed by the bank’s
practices and violations of law.
The bank administered the Unemployment Benefits Prepaid Card Program on behalf of 12
states: Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, and South Carolina. The OCC found that the bank’s
practices violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, in connection with the bank’s failure to adequately investigate
and resolve consumer claims of unauthorized transactions. The OCC also found other
deficiencies in the bank’s administration of the program, including in operational
processes, risk management, and internal controls. Beginning in 2020, these deficiencies
resulted in violations of law and harm to consumers.
The order requires the bank to provide remediation to harmed consumers whose access to
unemployment benefits was denied or delayed. Remediation includes compensation for
the financial harm suffered due to a loss of access to unemployment funds caused by,
among other things, failing to timely reimburse consumers for unauthorized transactions
and wrongfully freezing or blocking prepaid card accounts. The order also requires the
bank to take comprehensive corrective action to improve its risk management and
oversight over the program as well as its contract review and approval process, and
enterprise-wide complaints risk management.
“Today’s action demonstrates the OCC’s commitment to holding our regulated institutions
accountable for treating consumers fairly,” said Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael
J. Hsu. “The bank failed these prepaid cardholders by denying them access to their
mandated unemployment funds during the height of the pandemic, and leaving these
vulnerable consumers without an effective way to remedy the situation. Banks must pay
attention to the financial health of their customers and conduct their activities in
accordance with all consumer protection laws. When they don’t, we will act accordingly.”
The OCC’s civil money penalty and remediation requirement is separate from, but
coordinated with, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which issued an
enforcement order today against the bank. The CFPB ordered the bank to pay a $100
million civil money penalty and redress harmed consumers. Remediation payments made
Media Contact
Stephanie Collins
(202) 649-6870
News Release 2022-84 | July 14, 2022
OCC Assesses $125 Million Civil Money Penalty Against Bank of
America, Orders Restitution for Unfair and Deceptive Practices
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.895     Page 64
of 65

7/15/22, 2:25 PM
OCC Assesses $125 Million Civil Money Penalty Against Bank of America, Orders Restitution for Unfair and Deceptive Practices |…
about:blank
2/2
by the bank to these consumers pursuant to the OCC’s order will also satisfy similar
obligations required by the CFPB action.
The OCC penalty will be paid to the U.S. Treasury.
Related Links
Consent Order (PDF)
Consent Order for Civil Money Penalty (PDF)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 106     Filed 07/15/22     PageID.896     Page 65
of 65

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.106.0.pdf

Size

1,620,791 bytes

SHA-256

87055135dfe151e67b683cb153e93f36296766f3115e5a7d32a83150e939c002

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.106.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)