Ad will state: free persoanl checking with Free bill pay.

checking account is free for the first year, then min balance must be $100 to avoid monthly fee?

Additionally, there is and will not be a fee for bill pay. I believe its ok, just need some reassurance. Haven't done advertising for sometime.

I am very sorry, it is just one of those days..There has never been a fee associated with bill pay..fdic and lending logos ok

Not big on my advertising expertise here, but I would have concerns offering a "free" checking, that will not be free a year from now....kinda like a bait and switch maybe?

I looked at that, but it is disclosed, used the advertising check list...

§ 230.8 Advertising.
(a) Misleading or inaccurate advertisements. An advertisement shall not:
(1) Be misleading or inaccurate or misrepresent a depository institution's deposit contract; or
(2) Refer to or describe an account as "free" or "no cost" (or contain a similar term) if any maintenance or activity fee may be imposed on the account. The word "profit" shall not be used in referring to interest paid on an account.

Again, not an expert on this, even with the disclosure in fine print, I would proceed with caution.

I would also be interested to hear what the experienced advertising BOLer's think on this one.

That is exactly the reference that comes to my mind. If there will be a maintenance fee, it CANNOT be termed "free".

Here is the excat verbiage

" Checking account is free for the first year, then must maintain $100 minimum balance to avoid monthly fee"

Here is the exact verbiage

" Checking account is free for the first year, then must maintain $100 minimum balance to avoid monthly fee"

Is that the actual ad, or the finer print?

What is the exact "catch" line or the bold "eye-catcher"?

FREE Personal Checking Account with FREE Bill Pay*

*Checking account is free for the first year, then must maintain $100 minimum balance to avoid monthly fee"

Risky slope I think. The ad strikes me as misleading since you have every intention to possibly impose a fee on the account.

The Commentary to 230.8(a)(7) states:
Free for limited time. If an account (or a specific account service) is free only for a limited period of time--for example, for one year following the account opening--the account (or service) may be advertised as free if the time period is also stated.

Thats what I thought just could not remember the citation..Thank you very much

Free for a limited time sounds much better.

Good to note!

David, what is your opinion on whether the time limitation is stated. Must it be in the add wording or can it be in the finer print. Which in the one I am reviewing the fine print is pretty noticable. It doesn't seem to be addressedin the reg. or commentary.

Thanks

Sorry. Ssould have previewed my post. I meant to ask "where" the time limitation should be stated not "whether"

You really can't get away with "Free for a limited time." The Commentary specifically calls for the time period to be stated (refer to David's post above). So indicate specifically what that time period will be. "Free for the first year" is acceptable, as would be "Free until 1/1/2008."

There's really nothing in the regulation that specifically requires that this wording be in the body of the ad. It is certainly the type of information that many banks tend to include in the "fine print," usually with a footnote indicator in the ad body. I think the Fed has been really careful not to define what it considers "clear and conspicuous" for Regulation DD.

Unless you have state rules that will require that the time period be within in the ad body, I believe that putting it in the small print is acceptable. As with all fine print, it should be legible to most readers.

The wording willbe "no maintenance or activity fees for 12 months after account opeing

Thanks a bunch.