“Defendant violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by enrolling consumers into its automatic payment program without disclosing that Defendant would cancel their enrollment unless the consumers also opened and maintained active Bank of America credit card, checking, or savings accounts.”

💡 This establishes the fundamental deceptive practice: requiring additional accounts without disclosure at enrollment.

“Defendant’s bait-and-switch causes immediate harm in the form of late fees, damaged credit scores, and charge-offs, and long-term harm in the form of reduced access to credit facilities, like a new mortgage or refinancing.”

💡 This shows the practice created both immediate financial penalties and lasting damage to consumers’ financial futures.

“At no time during the enrollment process did Defendant disclose, in hidden hyperlinked terms or otherwise, that Plaintiff’s enrollment was subject to eligibility requirements, including maintaining a Bank of America credit card, checking, or savings account.”

💡 This confirms Bank of America provided no disclosure through any method, even buried terms, contradicting any possible defense that information was available.

“Unnoticed by Plaintiff at the time, but discovered while investigating his claims, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on June 9, 2022 and June 11, 2022, both times after 10:00 PM, notifying Plaintiff that Defendant had cancelled Plaintiff’s enrollment in Bill Pay because of changes in the status of [Plaintiff’s] account. Defendant did not explain what changes caused Plaintiff’s cancellation.”

💡 The late-night timing and vague language suggest the bank deliberately made the cancellation notice easy to miss and impossible to understand.

“Defendant concealed Plaintiff’s cancellation by providing Plaintiff with monthly statements which misrepresented that Defendant debited $646.64 from Plaintiff’s Fidelity account, that Plaintiff had an amount past due of $0.00, and that Plaintiff was making progress paying off his loan.”

💡 This shows Bank of America actively misled Swift with false account statements rather than simply failing to notify him.

“Starting in December 2022, Defendant also misrepresented Plaintiff was currently enrolled in recurring payment for this account. Automatic payments from account 0164 in the amount of $646.64 will be drafted on [DATE].”

💡 The bank didn’t just fail to mention cancellation but made explicit false promises that automatic payments would continue.

“Plaintiff’s Fidelity records confirm that Defendant never initiated any debits to satisfy his monthly car payments from July 2022 through March 2024.”

💡 External financial records prove Bank of America’s explanations blaming Fidelity for payment reversals were false.

“On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff learned from a third-party credit reporting app that Plaintiff’s credit score dropped almost 100 points after Defendant charged off Plaintiff’s car loan because several payments were severely past-due.”

💡 A 100-point credit drop represents severe financial damage that will affect Swift for years.

“Plaintiff has since learned in a letter from Defendant’s counsel, dated December 17, 2024, that Defendant cancelled his enrollment in Bill Pay because Plaintiff closed his Bank of America checking account in June 2022.”

💡 The bank only disclosed the true reason two and a half years after cancellation, demonstrating deliberate concealment.

“On December 4, 2024, Defendant’s Resolution Specialist for Regulatory Complaints, Valerie Hernandez, called Plaintiff and explained that Fidelity contacted Defendant in September 2024 and requested that Defendant reverse 12 payments of $646.64 because Plaintiff had reported those payments to Fidelity as fraudulent. Plaintiff never reported the payments as fraudulent.”

💡 The bank blamed Swift for fraudulent payment reports he never made, deflecting responsibility for its own failures.

“Defendant’s counsel explained that, as of September 2024, Fidelity no longer honored 15 payments (not 12) that Plaintiff had made to Defendant on his car loan. Defendant’s counsel explained these 15 payments were therefore reversed.”

💡 The bank changed its story from 12 fraudulent payments to 15 dishonored payments, revealing inconsistent explanations.

“Plaintiff’s Fidelity records confirm that Defendant never transferred an amount equal to 12 or 15 payments back to Plaintiff’s Fidelity account in September 2024. Plaintiff’s Fidelity records confirm Defendant never debited the 12 or 15 payments in the first place.”

💡 Financial records prove both of Bank of America’s explanations were fabrications to avoid accountability.

“Plaintiff has suffered significant short- and long-term injuries because of Defendant having cancelled his enrollment in Bill Pay. For example, Plaintiff has: paid unwarranted late fees to Defendant; had his loan charged-off; been harassed by debt-collectors; suffered a significantly lower credit score; been notified that Defendant reduced his credit limit from $20,000 to $1,500; been notified that another bank closed his credit card because of his deteriorated credit score.”

💡 This itemizes the cascade of financial consequences from a single undisclosed policy, showing systemic harm beyond the initial deception.

“Plaintiff has been blocked from transferring the vehicle’s registration because Defendant holds the vehicle’s title as a lienholder.”

💡 The bank’s actions now prevent Swift from selling or transferring his own property despite making loan payments.

“Hernandez explained this was not the first time Defendant had honored a chargeback request from a third-party bank.”

💡 The bank’s representative admitted this was a recurring practice, suggesting systematic problems rather than an isolated incident.