ATM Signs

The House voted 371-0 to approve ICBA-advocated legislation to eliminate an unnecessary and burdensome ATM fee disclosure requirement. Under H.R. 4367, financial institutions would no longer have to attach a physical placard to ATMs stating that a fee may be charged.

ICBA has repeatedly urged lawmakers to quickly adopt the measure. The association noted that the disclosure requirement is redundant because a similar and more effective fee notice is provided on the ATM video monitor, which offers a choice to either consent to the fee or cancel the transaction. In communications with lawmakers, ICBA also said that the requirement has led to a large and growing number of frivolous lawsuits because it allows plaintiffs to recover the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of the ATM operator.
ICBA has been a consistent, leading supporter of the legislation and will continue advocating its full passage. Similar legislation is pending in the Senate.

There is virtually no opposition to passage of this legislation (with the possible exception of the sorry collection of ambulance-chasing attorneys and opportunists who have been suing banks for non-compliance -- some fraudulently). However, strange things can happen in the houses of Congress, so I suggest that banks continue to check their compliance with the notice requirement until we see enactment with President Obama's signature.

HR 4367 was signed by President Obama on 12/20/12. http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4367enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4367enr.pdf

Thanks.

It's sad something so simple took so long.

BTW, was this effective immediately?

Surely it was effective upon his signature?

That's my thinking and I didn't see anything differently, but wasn't certain.

It should be followed now, IMHO, but the Reg hasn't changed yet. Still, trying to enforce it would be a joke at this point.

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1769972#Post1769972

If a regulation is in conflict with the statute it purports to implement, then the relevant portion of the regulation is void and the language in the statute controls. A recent example would be the change in next day availability under the Expedited Funds Availability Act. It took effect on the day the statute stated. Regulation CC has yet to be amended to conform.

The CFPB has a blog post that shows they've submitted a final rule to the Federal Register office to amend Regulation E regarding the ATM signage issue. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/check-the-screen-for-atm-fees/

Now that the requirement is gone, having the ATM sign still up is just an extra disclosure right?

If we take them off now they will leave an ugly mark.

Right!

Nothing wrong with leaving them in place as long as they don't include outdated information (some ATM operators included the actual fee on the "on or at" notices).

This also includes the notice regarding an overdraft fee right? Everything can be on the screen instead of a sign glued to the outside of the ATM?

The disclosure or alert about an overdraft fee is not something required by regulation. It is a best practice from the regulatory guidance on overdraft payment programs, and there is nothing there that says it must be a notice affixed to the ATM. Putting it on the screen should not be a problem.