ATM Surcharge Bans - Massachusetts

Credit unions, community banks, and consumer groups have worked to enact ATM surcharge bans in several states and cities. Until the late-1990s, two states, Iowa and Connecticut, prohibited surcharges based on long-standing administrative orders. But no state has yet barred surcharges through legislation. Proponents came closest in Massachusetts -- where FleetBoston owns nearly two-thirds of the ATMs.

A statewide surcharge ban was passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate in July 1996 and again in September 1997. By the spring of 1998, the surcharge ban enjoyed the support of the attorney general, the governor, and a majority of House members. House Speaker Thomas Finneran, however, refused to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. Finneran received substantial campaign contributions from the banking industry.

With the support of the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, courts have ruled that federal regulation preempts state and local authority over banks. To learn more about the legal issues involved and the OCC's long history of aggressive attacks on state and local banking laws, see Preemption of State Banking Laws under the Governance sector.

An act relative to charges for electronic fund transfers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 8 of Chapter 167B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1996 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out clause (4) and inserting in place thereof the following clause:

(4)(a) the total amount of charges it will assess on the depositor for electronic fund transfers or for the right to make such transfers at an electronic branch operated by it or any other electronic branch which may be accessed through the use of said account, and

(b) whether a charge might also be assessed for the use of an electronic branch by a person, other than the financial institution holding the depositor's account, who is the owner thereof, and which may be accessed through the use of such account, and

(c) charges for account maintenance; provided, however, that except in the instance of an electronic funds transfer initiated at an electronic branch not subject to the provisions of this chapter, no charge shall be assessed against any such account by any person other than the financial institution which holds the account of said depositor for the right to make any such transfer at any electronic branch to which said depositor has access through the agreement establishing said account and which utilizes a central routing unit, a national or regional network or system, or an organization to effect such transfer.

SECTION 2. Said chapter 167B of the general Laws is hereby further amended by inserting after section 8, as so appearing, the following section:

Section 8A. Upon the initiation by a consumer of an electronic funds transfer at any electronic branch, there shall, in addition to any other disclosures required by this chapter, be displayed on the screen thereof or if such electronic branch does not have a screen, on a printed form issued from such branch, a notice informing said consumer that a charge may be incurred by accessing such electronic branch or any system or network available through the use of such electronic branch, and that the consumer, subsequent to the receipt of such notice, shall have the right to cancel the transaction without the imposition of any charge.

Such notice shall be provided immediately following the initiation of the electronic funds transfer and before the consumer is permitted to continue in order to effect such transfer.

Any such charge shall be itemized on a per transaction basis in the periodic statement for each account of a consumer that may be accessed by means of an electronic funds transfer.

More Information:

• Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group