Court filing
Exhibit 28 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 566-4, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)
Filed October 17, 2025 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-10-17 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 566-4 · 2025-10-17 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
HX 28
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33504
Page 1 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33505
Page 2 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33506
Page 3 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33507
Page 4 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33508
Page 5 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33509
Page 6 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33510
Page 7 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33511
Page 8 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33512
Page 9 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33513
Page 10 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33514
Page 11 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33515
Page 12 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33516
Page 13 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33517
Page 14 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33518
Page 15 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33519
Page 16 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33520
Page 17 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33521
Page 18 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33522
Page 19 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33523
Page 20 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33524
Page 21 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33525
Page 22 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33526
Page 23 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33527
Page 24 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33528
Page 25 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33529
Page 26 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33530
Page 27 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33531
Page 28 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33532
Page 29 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33533
Page 30 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33534
Page 31 of 49
(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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33535
Page 32 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33536
Page 33 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33537
Page 34 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33538
Page 35 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33539
Page 36 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33540
Page 37 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33541
Page 38 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33542
Page 39 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33543
Page 40 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33544
Page 41 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33545
Page 42 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33546
Page 43 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33547
Page 44 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33548
Page 45 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33549
Page 46 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33550
Page 47 of 49
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 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33551
Page 48 of 49
____________________________
Rohit Chopra
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2022.
2022-CFPB-0004 Document 1 Filed 07/14/2022 Page 48 of 48
t f
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 566-4 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.33552
Page 49 of 49File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.566.4.pdf
- Size
- 1,376,747 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7b26221a023914824870ac8c1b3ef56719e7da1fa553a010fd05cd7e092d7fbe
- Original
- PACER (login required)