South Central Bank Overdraft Fee Settlement Paying About $2.8M for APSN Retry Fees

South Central Bank faced a class action over overdraft and non-sufficient-funds (NSF) fees that consumers were charged after their debit card transactions were authorized while an account had enough money, but later “settled” when the balance dropped negative. The lawsuit focused on two fee types: APSN (“Authorized Positive, Settled Negative”) fees assessed when a transaction went from approved to overdrawn during processing, and “Retry” fees—additional overdraft/NSF fees charged when the same payment was re-presented a second or third time. According to the settlement terms, customers who were charged at least one APSN fee between October 4, 2009 and October 8, 2018, or at least one Retry fee between October 4, 2009 and December 31, 2025, are included, with eligibility determined using the bank’s own records rather than requiring people to submit proof. The case was filed to challenge the legality of these “processing-time” and re-presentment fee practices and to compensate affected customers. Its significance is that the bank agreed to a $2.8 million settlement fund, with payments distributed automatically as credits (or checks if accounts are closed) based on a pro rata formula tied to how much each class member paid in the challenged fees. This matters because similar bank fee practices have been scrutinized in broader overdraft litigation and enforcement actions—for example, federal regulators have raised concerns that some fee structures can function like “surprise” charges that consumers did not reasonably anticipate when authorizations occurred, and the CFPB has pursued actions related to misleading overdraft fee practices and the re-presentment cycle. More broadly, the settlement reflects an industry-wide pattern in which overdraft fee timing and payment re-presentment rules can create repeat charges even though the original transaction was authorized in the moment. In the U.S., banks generally rely on Regulation E and overdraft program disclosures, but disputes often arise over whether fee behavior aligns with those disclosures and whether consumers are effectively misled by how authorizations and later settlements are processed. In this settlement, people who do not opt out are bound by the court-approved release, meaning the case’s outcome helps define accountability for how these fees were assessed and gives affected customers a payout without the need to file a claim, with funds scheduled to post or mail after final court approval