Weiss et al. v. FCTI: Inside the $10 Million 7-Eleven ATM Fees Settlement

The class action Weiss et al. v. FCTI, Inc. resulted in a $10 million settlement resolving claims that FCTI, the operator of ATMs found inside 7-Eleven stores nationwide, charged consumers two balance-inquiry fees during a single ATM visit. The San Diego County Superior Court granted final approval on December 24, 2024, and the settlement administrator began issuing payments to approved claimants on February 27, 2025. New York class members were eligible to receive $27 each, while nationwide class members could claim up to $15.

The case is one of the most prominent recent examples of how a small, recurring fee — multiplied across millions of ATM transactions — can support a multi-million-dollar consumer class action. Below is a structured breakdown of how the lawsuit unfolded, who qualified, and what the settlement signals for similar fee-based disputes going forward.

What the lawsuit alleged

The plaintiffs alleged that FCTI's ATMs, located inside 7-Eleven convenience stores, were programmed in a way that registered and transmitted two balance-inquiry requests to the customer's bank during a single transaction — even when the customer only intended to check their balance once. Because most consumer banks charge an out-of-network fee for each balance inquiry, the alleged duplicate transmission caused customers to be billed twice for what they understood to be a single inquiry.

According to the complaint, after a user checked their balance, an FCTI machine displayed a follow-up prompt asking whether they wanted to print the balance and continue the transaction. Pressing "Continue" was, the plaintiffs said, the only practical way to proceed to a cash withdrawal — but it allegedly triggered a second balance-inquiry transmission rather than simply advancing the session. The plaintiffs argued this design generated additional interchange fees for FCTI at the consumer's expense.

The legal claims were grounded primarily in California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), codified at California Business and Professions Code § 17200, which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. The plaintiffs also alleged false advertising and unjust enrichment. FCTI denied all wrongdoing and did not admit liability as part of the settlement.

The procedural path: three lawsuits, one settlement

The final settlement consolidated three separate actions filed against FCTI between 2022 and 2024:

1. Polvay v. FCTI, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04315-JSR, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — the original New York-focused action.
2. Durkee v. FCTI, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02537, filed April 4, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — a multi-state action covering FCTI customers outside New York.
3. Weiss v. FCTI, Inc., Case No. 37-2024-00016908-CU-BT-NC, filed in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County — the nationwide action that ultimately served as the vehicle for settlement approval.

Consolidating multiple class actions through a single settlement is a common procedural strategy when the same defendant faces overlapping claims in different courts. It allows the parties to resolve the dispute through one fairness hearing and one notice plan, rather than litigating the same factual record three times. The named plaintiffs — Molly Weiss, Andrea Durkee, and Jerome Polvay — served as class representatives.

Who qualified as a class member

The settlement created two distinct classes, each with its own eligibility criteria and payment structure.

If funds remained in the net settlement fund after initial distributions, they were to be distributed pro rata among class members, increasing individual payments rather than reverting to FCTI.

How the $10 million was allocated

The $10 million settlement fund was not paid out entirely to consumers. Like most class action settlements, the gross amount was reduced by court-approved deductions before per-member payments were calculated. These typically include attorneys' fees and litigation costs (often capped at one-third of the fund), settlement administration costs, and service awards for the class representatives. The remainder — the "net settlement fund" — funded the per-claimant payments and any pro rata redistribution.

This structure is standard in U.S. consumer class actions and is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which requires the court to approve any settlement, fee award, or service payment as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The full text of Rule 23 is available through the U.S. Courts website.

Key deadlines class members had to meet

The settlement followed a standard notice-and-claim timeline. Missing any of these deadlines meant losing the corresponding right.

1. October 22, 2024 — Claim filing deadline for nationwide class members.
2. November 20, 2024 — Deadline to opt out (exclude oneself) or to file a written objection.
3. December 20, 2024 — Final approval hearing.
4. December 24, 2024 — Court granted final approval.
5. February 27, 2025 — Settlement administrator began distributing payments to approved claimants.

Consumers who did nothing during the claim period and were part of the New York class with valid bank-provided contact information generally received their $27 automatically. Nationwide class members had to actively file a claim form to receive payment.

What this case signals about ATM fee litigation

The FCTI case sits within a broader category of class action settlements over fee and disclosure practices that have become increasingly common as plaintiffs' firms scrutinize repeated, low-dollar charges by financial institutions and payment processors. ATM operators, banks, and payment platforms are regular targets because automated systems generate identical transaction patterns across millions of consumers — exactly the conditions class actions are designed to address.

Three features of the case are worth noting for consumers and practitioners:

First, the alleged conduct involved a system-design choice rather than a fee that was hidden in a disclosure document. Plaintiffs argued the dual-transmission behavior was an architectural decision that produced systematically inflated fees. This kind of allegation is harder for defendants to dismiss on the basis that consumers "agreed" to fees disclosed in fine print.

Second, the per-person recovery was modest — $27 in New York and up to $15 nationwide — but the case still produced an eight-figure aggregate recovery. This reflects the volume mechanics of consumer class actions: small individual harms become significant when multiplied across an entire class period.

Third, the case used California's Unfair Competition Law as its principal vehicle, even for a nationwide class. The UCL is one of the most plaintiff-friendly state consumer protection statutes in the country and is frequently used as a base for nationwide class actions when the defendant is headquartered in California or substantial conduct occurred there.

What to do if you used a 7-Eleven ATM during the class period

The claim period for this specific settlement closed on October 22, 2024, and final approval was entered on December 24, 2024. Consumers who did not file a claim by the deadline are now bound by the settlement's release of claims and cannot file a separate lawsuit against FCTI based on the same alleged conduct.

However, the case offers a practical lesson: review your bank statements for duplicate fees. If you notice a pattern of repeated charges that don't match a single transaction — at an ATM, on a debit card, or through any other automated payment channel — flag the issue with your bank in writing and keep documentation. Depending on the volume and the institution, the conduct may be the basis for an individual claim, a future class action, or a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB also publishes consumer complaint data and can intervene in cases of unfair or deceptive financial practices under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.

For broader context on how to evaluate firms that handle these matters, BestGuide maintains a directory of top-rated class action law firms with practice details and client profiles.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still file a claim in the FCTI 7-Eleven settlement?

No. The claim deadline for the Weiss et al. v. FCTI nationwide class was October 22, 2024, and the New York class did not require a claim form (eligible members received notice automatically). The settlement received final approval on December 24, 2024, and payments began on February 27, 2025.

What was the settlement amount?

FCTI agreed to pay $10,000,000 into a settlement fund, without admitting any wrongdoing. The fund covers per-member payments, attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration, and service awards to the named class representatives.

How much did individual class members receive?

New York class members were eligible for $27 each. Nationwide class members were eligible for up to $15 each, contingent on submitting a valid claim form. Any leftover funds were distributed pro rata after initial payments.

Who are the named plaintiffs in the case?

The three named class representatives are Molly Weiss, Andrea Durkee, and Jerome Polvay, each of whom filed separate actions that were consolidated for settlement purposes.

What law was the lawsuit based on?

The plaintiffs primarily relied on California's Unfair Competition Law, codified at California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., along with claims of false advertising and unjust enrichment. The UCL allows lawsuits over any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice, even without proof of intent.

Did FCTI admit to any wrongdoing?

No. FCTI denied that it acted improperly or that the dual-transmission behavior was unlawful. The company agreed to the settlement to resolve the litigation without proceeding to trial. No court ruled on the merits of the underlying claims.

Why did the case take so long to resolve?

The earliest related lawsuit (Polvay) was filed in 2022. Class actions typically span two to four years from filing to settlement because of motion practice, discovery, class certification proceedings, and the multi-step approval process required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Consolidation of three separate actions added additional procedural steps.

What does this case mean for other ATM users?

The settlement does not create binding precedent for other ATM operators because the parties did not litigate to a verdict. However, it signals continued plaintiffs' interest in fee-related class actions targeting ATM operators, payment processors, and banks. Consumers should review periodic statements for duplicate or unexplained fees and report concerns to their bank and to the CFPB.

If I missed the deadline, can I sue FCTI individually?

Generally, no. Class members who did not opt out by November 20, 2024, released their claims against FCTI based on the conduct alleged in the lawsuit. Only individuals who formally excluded themselves retain the right to bring an individual lawsuit on the same facts. An attorney can confirm whether your specific situation falls within the release.

Where can I see official settlement documents?

The official settlement website was fcticlassaction.com, which hosts the long-form notice, the settlement agreement, and the FAQ. The court file is maintained by the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, North County Division, under Case No. 37-2024-00016908-CU-BT-NC.

Disclaimer

This content is for general informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Joy Coleman is licensed in Georgia and New Jersey and is not licensed to practice law in California or New York. Readers should consult a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.

If you believe you have been affected by deceptive fees, false advertising, or other unfair business practices, you can search for a consumer protection attorney on AttorneyReview.com. Use our Get Matched feature to connect with qualified attorneys in your area for a free, no-obligation consultation.