Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Some Strings Attached: Action Against M&T for Marketing of “Free” Checking Accounts

By Joshua J. Kaufman on October 17, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Last week the CFPB announced a consent order with M&T Bank alleging that M&T deceptively advertised checking accounts as “free” or “no strings attached” without disclosing in its ads a requirement that accountholders would be automatically switched to accounts that carried a fee if they failed to maintain minimum account activity. According to the consent order, from 2009 to 2012, M&T assessed approximately $2.9 million in monthly maintenance fees and collected approximately $2 million of these fees from about 59,000 consumers. M&T will refund the fees collected, reduce charged-off balances reflecting the remaining fees assessed, and pay a relatively low civil monetary penalty of $200,000.

The M&T order targets the way the bank advertised its free checking accounts. M&T did disclose its minimum activity requirement and automatic conversion feature to customers at the account opening, but its ads described the accounts as free of monthly service charges or balance requirements without mentioning these features. The bank was also faulted for allegedly failing to adequately notify customers that their free checking accounts had been converted because the only indication of the switch was that the new account name, “M&T First,” would appear on the customer’s account documents. The Bureau found that M&T engaged in deceptive acts or practices under sections 1031(a) and 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA and violated Regulation DD, 12 C.F.R. § 1030.8(a)(1)-(2), which prohibit misleading advertising in connection with deposit accounts and, specifically, advertising an account as “free” or “no cost” if a maintenance or activity fee may be imposed.

As MoFo partner and former CFPB official Leonard Chanin told the Wall Street Journal last week, the order “clearly indicates that the Bureau is willing to apply strict standards in its review of deposit products.” It is worth noting, however, that this consent order does not challenge dormant account fees themselves or the conversion to a higher-cost account due to inactivity, or M&T’s account opening documents. This time, at least, the issue was not that there were strings attached to these accounts, but that customers were not sufficiently alerted to them.

Joshua J. Kaufman

Joshua Kaufman is head of Venable’s Copyright and Licensing Group and co-chair of Venable’s Art Law Group. He counsels and litigates in copyright, e-commerce, licensing, art, intellectual property, software, on-line issues, trademark, anti-counterfeiting, Rights of Publicity, entertainment, media, and literary law. He advises…

Joshua Kaufman is head of Venable’s Copyright and Licensing Group and co-chair of Venable’s Art Law Group. He counsels and litigates in copyright, e-commerce, licensing, art, intellectual property, software, on-line issues, trademark, anti-counterfeiting, Rights of Publicity, entertainment, media, and literary law. He advises his clients in structuring and negotiating transactions in which they exploit and protect their intellectual property rights or in acquiring them from others. A former computer consultant and writer, he was one of the nation’s first computer and cyber attorneys.

Read more about Joshua J. KaufmanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    MoFo ReEnforcement: The Enforcement Blog
  • Organization:
    Morrison & Foerster LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo