IOWA – banned ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of October 23, 1997.

Although a District Court upheld Iowa’s EFTA regulation on July 24, 1998, that decision was overturned by the 8th Circuit on September 2, 1999. The ruling was silent on the EFTA’s surcharge provisions, and only discussed other provisions. On appeal, the Iowa Bankers Association, the Iowa Community Bankers Association, and the Iowa Credit Union League filed friend of the court briefs on the side of the state.

On February 2, 2000, the Iowa Attorney General filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking review of its case. The court denied the petition, however, the ATM surcharge ban remains in place, since the litigation concerned only other parts of the law.

CONNECTICUT – Banned ATM surcharges by Banking Commissioner order of November 9, 1998.

The State Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that the Banking Commissioner did not have authority to ban surcharges. Since no preemption determination was made, the matter is proceeding in the legislature, not the federal courts.

Proposed House bill 5014 in the legislature would impose a surcharge ban by law. See below. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly but died in the Senate.

Santa Monica (Ordinance proposed by Council members McKeown and Feinstein)

On October 5, 1999 the City Council voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction blocking implementation was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99.

On December 10, 1999 , the cities filed notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, supported by friend of the court briefs filed by 9 state Attorneys General (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia and also by CALPIRG and other consumer groups. The Ninth Circuit denied the appeal. The lower court, on 3 July 2000, then upheld its injunction at trial. The cities have appealed the district court ruling. Briefis are due in early November 2000.

San Francisco

On November 2, 1999 city voters, by referendum (66%-34%), voted to ban surcharges. A temporary injunction blocking implementation was granted by US District Court judge Vaughn Walker on 15 Nov 99.

Woodbridge, and Newark NJ

Enacted in Woodbridge, NJ on February 15, 2000 by 9-0 City Council vote, temporary injunction blocking implementation granted on February 17, 2000. Newark -- Bill introduced by Council member Carrino February 17, 2000. Enacted ban on 10 May 2000, also blocked and in court.

City of Woodbridge is drafting appeal. Status of Newark not known.

Proposed Rule, FR 11 Aug 1999 (Volume 64, Number 154)

Page 43855-43858

Would ban ATM surcharges on military bases.

Following comment period, is under consideration by Pentagon. Pentagon dropped proposal in September, under pressure from banks.

New York City (Intro 680, Vallone)

City Council Speaker Peter Vallone has drafted bill, has more than half of council as co-sponsors, and has released a detailed staff report, “Guilty As Surcharged” <http://www.council.nyc.ny.us/loi/atm.pdf>

Hearings held,   spring 2000.

Chicago

Introduced by Alderman Joe Moore, February 2000.

Hearing held 13 Mar 00

Los Angeles

Voted unanimously in October 1999 to instruct City Attorney to examine City's authority to ban fees. Motion made by Council members Alex Padilla and Mike Hernandez. Heard in committee on February 16, 2000

At City Attorney's advice, waiting until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided before taking action.

San Diego County

San Diego County - Chairwoman Pam Slater first proposed the ban October 19, 1999.

No action expected until the Santa Monica/San Francisco court case is decided

San Diego

San Diego City - Deputy Mayor Byron Wear proposed an ordinance October 18, 1999.

Mayor refuses to docket issue for vote.

West Hollywood

To ban surcharges

Voted December 20, 1999 to file an amicus brief on behalf of Santa Monica Sponsor was Council member Paul Koretz

Eugene (OR)

To ban surcharges

Campaign underway, bill may be drafted soon.

Salem, (OR)

To ban surcharges

Council voted 5-4 not to draft bill at this time.

Portland (OR)

To ban surcharges

Campaign underway, bill may be drafted soon.

Connecticut (HB 5014-Landino)

Would ban ATM surcharges. The State Supreme Court ruled in December 1999 that the banking commissioner’s administrative ban had overstated his authority. Since no preemption determination was made, the matter can be resolved in the legislature.

Hearings held February 17, 2000. Bill passed by Joint House-Senate Committee by vote of 11-6 on March 7, 2000 despite opposition of State Senator McDermott, Co-chair of Banking Committee (Similar to bill that passed House in 1999 by 125-20 but Senate floor action blocked by McDermott) . Bill failed in Senate in 2000.

Illinois

To ban surcharges.

Committee defeated proposed ban 4-3 in February 2000.

Massachusetts (SB 19) Senator Andrea Nuciforo

(Senate Chair of Banking Committee) and Representative Carol Donovan.

To ban surcharges

Did not pass.

Minnesota HF 1849 (Entenza)

To ban surcharges.

March 11,2000, First Reading, referred to Commerce

W. Virginia (SB 188) (Majority Leader Chafin and Senator Bowman) Introduced January 25, 2000.

Would limit total cost to consumer of combined foreign fee and surcharge to a “total of fifty cents for any single ATM transaction”

Pending in Banking and Insurance Committee

Wisconsin (SB 325) Sen. Robson/Rep. Lehman.

To ban surcharges

Passed Senate Financial Institutions Comm. 3-2, killed on Senate floor 16-17 on February 8, 2000.

CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSALS

Introduced November 14 1999, would ban ATM surcharges.

No action by committee.

H.R. 3494 (Sanders-I-VT)

Introduced November 18, 1999, would clarify that no federal law supercedes Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) provision clearly granting states and localities authority to ban ATM surcharges.

No action by committee

H.R. 3503 (Waters-D-CA)

Introduced November 18, 1999, would ban ATM surcharges, would enact low-cost lifeline banking requirements and would reinstate Federal Reserve Board Annual Report to Congress on bank fees that was allowed to sunset in 1999.

No action by committee