SunTrust 240 Million Settlement Over Georgia ATM Debit Overdraft Fees Allegations

SunTrust Bank (now Truist after its 2019 merger with BB&T) agreed to a proposed $240 million settlement in a long-running Georgia class action over overdraft fees charged on ATM and debit card transactions from 2006 to 2014. The lawsuit, *Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank* in Fulton County State Court, centers on a familiar banking practice: when a customer’s debit purchase or ATM withdrawal exceeds the account balance, the bank may still cover the transaction and then charge a flat overdraft/NSF fee—often $32–$36—especially impactful when the overdraft amount is small. The case was filed in 2010 alleging those flat fees functioned like “interest” on a short-term, small-dollar loan that the bank effectively extended by fronting the money, and that the resulting “rate” could far exceed Georgia’s usury cap (generally limiting interest to 10% on loans of $3,000 or less by licensed lenders). SunTrust disputed that characterization, arguing overdraft fees are service charges rather than interest, but the dispute mattered because if the fees were treated as interest, they could potentially violate state lending limits and consumer-protection principles. After years of litigation and multiple appeals, the settlement—pending final approval—would compensate eligible Georgia citizens who paid certain unrefunded overdraft-related fees, with payments based on each account’s fees plus calculated interest, underscoring how costly “small” transaction fees can become at scale. More broadly, the settlement sits at the intersection of state usury law and modern bank fee practices, and it echoes a wider wave of overdraft litigation and regulatory scrutiny across the industry. Georgia lawmakers amended state law in 2014 to clarify that overdraft fees are not “interest” going forward, but the court found that change didn’t retroactively wipe out earlier claims—an important reminder that legislatures can shape future rules without necessarily erasing past disputes. At the same time, banking regulators and consumer advocates have increasingly focused on overdraft and “junk fee” practices, pushing banks to reduce or restructure these charges, and this case adds to the pressure by showing how a single fee model can raise legal risk when applied repeatedly to low-dollar transactions over many years.