Capital One Can't Get Quick Win In Suit Over ATM Fees

Law360 (October 8, 2019, 9:47 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge ruled Tuesday that the terms of Capital One's customer contracts are too ambiguous for him to grant the banking giant a quick win on a suit that claims it charges surprise fees for ATM interactions.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller said that the bank's customer contracts contain language about its non-Capital One ATM fees and on-screen warnings about fee-causing events that could possibly confuse reasonable customers — at least, enough so that the judge declined to give Capital One NA a summary judgment win on the breach of contract claim it is facing.

"Because the court...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Attached Documents

Related Sections

Case Information

Case Title

Subscribers Only

Case Number

Subscribers Only

Court

Subscribers Only

Nature of Suit

Subscribers Only

Judge

Subscribers Only

Date Filed

Subscribers Only

Law Firms

Government Agencies

Judge Analytics