Should we notify our customers regarding these changes even though the guidance does not apply to us?
Answered above at #1571534, but I've got a rant that feels like a hair ball and I have to get rid of it...
Assuming the changes
relate to establishing a de minimus
amount that would generate an overdraft fee or establishing a daily cap on overdraft fees, you would go through a two step analysis driven by the requirements of Regulation DD. You also need to give a nod to Regulation E along the way.
Changes to the Regulation DD commentary a few years ago required banks to better disclose the circumstances under which a fee may be imposed. It focused on a then new requirement to list the types of transactions that could generate an overdraft fee; e.g. "...check, in person withdrawal, ATM widdrawal..." etc. If there is an implied requirement that caps and de minimus amounts
must be disclosed that's where it would be found. Personally, I don't think it implies that at all; i.e. I don't think regulation DD requires you to disclose de minimus amounts or caps. (Forms vendors may disagree because it allows them to sell new forms.)
Regulation DD does not require redisclosure unless a change is made to an item that was required to be disclosed and
the impact of the change is negative to the customer. As neither trigger is pulled by establishing deminimus amounts or caps, I don't think you are required to disclose changes to these two features under Regulation DD.
If a bank operaes an opt-in program under Regulation E, Model form A-9 requires a disclosure of a cap if it exists. If your insitution has a cap and sends an opt-in notice the cap must be reflected there. The opt-in notice must be accurate at the time the customer receives it. It is not necessary to tell the customer that information provided on an earlier form has changed.
That's an awful lot of foreplay for suggestions from me that 1) banks should set caps and de minimus
amounts, 2) when they do, they should notify customers of the change using the least expensive method available; e.g. statement messages, and 3) disclose them voluntarily on the inital disclosure.
Banks have made a lot of money while fighting a rearguard action against increasingly ridiculous regulatory (FDIC) pronouncements. At some point, it's going to be time for everyone to get in front of this issue. It's not about informing consumers. They do not care. It's about getting your regulator off your --- and keeping them off.