The plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging that banks inflate ATM fees have filed a motion to obtain ATM data, claiming that the defendants -- including Fidelity Integrated Financial Solutions, the world’s largest provider of ATM processing services -- have failed to respond to requests and subpoenas.
The plaintiffs filed the motion on July 20, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, in a case involving Fidelity National Information Services Inc. (FIS), Fidelity Integrated Financial Solutions, which provides data solutions, and the Armed Forces Financial Network (AFFN), offering banking services to the military community.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are not acting in good faith by failing to turn over information on ATM fees and processing, according to court documents.
The plaintiffs include Andrew Mackmin, Mary Stoumbos and the National ATM Council. They allege that "restraints adopted by the banks" that participate in the Visa and Mastercard networks artificially inflate ATM fees for consumers and independent ATM operators.
“The ATM data maintained by defendants is limited,” the plaintiffs stated in court documents. “Accordingly, both plaintiffs and defendants Visa and Mastercard have directed subpoenas to the primary third-party ATM processors," who are the defendants in the lawsuit.
According to the motion, ATM processors like FIS route ATM transactions to a cardholder’s bank over ATM networks, causing funds to be transferred from the cardholder’s bank account, and authorizing ATMs to dispense cash to the cardholder.
In addition to certain categories of documents related to the operations of processors, the plaintiffs said they have requested monthly reports showing the cash withdrawals processed by FIS along with access fees, interchange fees, switch fees and network fees assessed on those transactions.
FIS and its subsidiary, Fidelity Integrated Financial Services (“FIFS”), maintain that they have none of the requested documents in their possession, custody or control, according to the motion.
“This position is not credible,” the plaintiffs said. “It is contradicted by FIS and FIFS’s own public statements, including FIS’s website, annual reports, and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
The plaintiffs said FIS states on its website that it offers “ATM Driving, Processing, and Monitoring” services.
“Despite plaintiffs’ best efforts, FIS and FIFS have refused to explain the discrepancy between their public statements and their subpoena responses,” the plaintiffs said. “In fact, it is inconceivable that a publicly traded company worth billions of dollars does not have possession, custody or control over the transaction data that constitute the core of its business.”
FIS also argues that plaintiffs have not subpoenaed the correct corporate entity within the Fidelity family, according to the motion.
“This argument is also meritless,” the plaintiffs said. “If another company within the FIS family formally has control of these subpoenaed documents, it is FIS’s obligation to make that known to plaintiffs and produce those documents.”
AFFN, which is represented by the same counsel as FIS and FIFS, has also refused to provide subpoenaed ATM information on the basis of alleged trade secret and confidentiality concerns, the motion states.
“AFFN’s position is unsupportable,” the plaintiffs said. “Plaintiffs are seeking data that are entirely historical and already covered by an existing protective order that limits disclosure of confidential information.”