Chase Credit Card Customers 'Duped' by Fees for Crypto Purchases, Suit Says
According to the complaint, Chase credit card customers began having their cryptocurrency purchases treated as cash advances beginning in late January.
April 11, 2018 at 04:22 PM
3 minute read
Chase Bank credit card holders have unfairly been hit with high interest rates and fees on cryptocurrency purchases out of nowhere beginning in January, a class action suit filed in Manhattan federal court alleges.
Previously, purchases by Chase cardholders on the cryptocurrency exchange websites were treated as simple purchases. But then, according to the suit filed on behalf of Idaho resident Brady Tucker, one day in January “Chase decided to do something very different.” Tucker's Jan. 27 purchase of $588 worth of cryptocurrency from the site was treated as a cash advance and hit immediately with a 26 percent interest rate, according to the complaint.
Tucker says he ended up paying $143.30 in cash advance fees and nearly $21 in interest charges on five purchases from Coinbase.com between Jan. 27 and the end of his billing cycle on Feb. 20.
Cardholders purchase cryptocurrencies with credit cards to be able to avoid the delay that occurs using a bank account, the complaint notes. Tucker and others in the potential class believed they could pay off these purchases before they incurred finance charges.
“But Plaintiff and the Class were duped. Chase silently smacked them with instant cash advance fees, plus much higher interest rates than normal, and left them without any recourse,” the complaint states.
Other credit card companies started treating cryptocurrency purchases in a similar way at around the same time, according to the complaint. Customers who called their banks to complain about the lack of prior notice got the fees removed, but not with Chase.
The complaint points out that the CEO of Chase's parent company, JPMorgan Chase, has had little nice to say about cryptocurrencies in the past. In September, Jamie Dimon called the cryptocurrency bitcoin “a fraud,” and said he would fire an employee “in a second” if he found out he or she had purchased “stupid” bitcoins.
“It appears that in addition to firing its 'stupid' employees, Chase elected to start
fining its 'stupid' customers: unilaterally,” the complaint states.
Finkelstein & Krinsk associate David Harris Jr., Tucker's counsel, said in an email that, in addition to being unlawful, the bank's move “was also just fundamentally unfair to Chase's customers.
“If banks can change crypto purchases into cash advances without notice, what's to stop them from doing that with other types of credit card purchases in the future,” he asked.
A request for comment from a Chase representative did not get a response.
The complaint alleges the bank violated the Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiffs are seeking to recoup the charges associated with the cash advance, as well as statutory damages of $1 million.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInvestors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute readTopping Big Law, Litigation Firm the Latest to Dole Out Above-Market Bonuses
3 minute readSoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250