Customers who were hit with repeated $35 fees on a single bounced transaction are owed money from Bank of America, but some of those refund checks are arriving in postcard-style mailers that recipients mistake for junk mail and throw away. Federal regulators ordered the bank to return about $80.4 million in improperly charged non-sufficient funds fees, and a separate $60 million civil penalty was assessed for the same practices. The result is a strange gap between regulatory intent and real-world delivery: refunds meant to compensate harmed consumers may never be cashed.
How $80.4 million in ordered refunds risks going unclaimed
The core problem traces back to how Bank of America handled transactions that bounced and were then resubmitted by merchants, a process known as representment. When a check or ACH payment failed and was presented again, the bank charged another $35 fee, sometimes repeatedly, without clearly disclosing that a single purchase could trigger multiple penalties. In an enforcement action, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau required the bank to provide refunds of repeat fees collected since September 2018 that had not already been returned, a total of about $80.4 million.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also concluded that Bank of America’s disclosures did not clearly explain that multiple charges could result from one transaction and imposed a civil money penalty of $60 million for the same conduct. The OCC found that consumers could not reasonably avoid the charges because the fee structure was opaque. When items were re-presented, the bank either levied another $35 non-sufficient funds fee or paid the item and imposed a $35 overdraft fee, creating a cascade of charges from a single attempted payment.
Former customers, many of whom closed their accounts years ago, are supposed to receive their share of the refunds by mail. According to CFPB communications, former Bank of America accountholders are being sent payments through the postal service and are encouraged to review mailed notices carefully and to contact the bank if they have questions. The bureau has issued consumer guidance that specifically instructs people to watch for mailed refunds tied to this enforcement action.
However, the format of those mailings, which consumer reports describe as resembling postcards or check-style mailers rather than standard checks enclosed in envelopes, creates a practical barrier. People who have moved, changed names, or simply sort their mail quickly are more likely to discard a payment that does not look like a traditional check. The more the refund resembles advertising mail, the higher the odds it will end up in the trash instead of at a bank or mobile deposit app.
No public data on how many refund checks go uncashed
Neither the CFPB nor the OCC has published redemption rate data for this enforcement action. There is no public accounting of how many checks have been mailed, how many have been cashed, or how many have expired. That absence of data makes it impossible to measure the gap between the ordered relief and the actual dollars returned to consumers. The postcard-style format raises a testable question: does the physical design of the mailer reduce cashing rates compared with a standard check in an envelope? Without disclosure from Bank of America or its regulators, the answer stays out of reach.
The bank’s disclosures were already found deficient by two federal agencies. The OCC specifically concluded that the fee structure was not transparent enough for consumers to understand or avoid, and the CFPB determined that repeated fees on the same transaction were unfair. That history of inadequate communication is now echoed in the way refunds are being delivered. If people cannot recognize that a piece of mail contains money they are owed, the relief ordered on paper becomes largely symbolic.
There are also unanswered questions about what happens to unclaimed funds. In many contexts, financial institutions must eventually transfer dormant or uncashed payments to state unclaimed property programs, where consumers can search for and reclaim them. But regulators have not publicly detailed how long Bank of America refund checks will remain valid, what steps the bank must take to locate hard-to-reach customers, or when any remaining balances might be escheated to the states. Without that information, consumers have little visibility into their options if a check was lost, discarded, or sent to an old address.
For affected customers, the practical advice is straightforward but not simple: be skeptical of anything that looks like a mass-mailed financial offer, especially if you previously held a Bank of America account that incurred overdraft or NSF fees. Carefully inspect mailers for indications that they are negotiable instruments, and consider contacting the bank if you suspect you were eligible for a refund but never received one. For regulators, the episode underscores a broader lesson. Ordering restitution is only half the job; ensuring that the money actually reaches the people who were harmed requires attention not just to dollar amounts and penalty figures, but to the mundane details of how a check shows up in someone’s mailbox.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
