Product: Checking or savings account

My company XXXX signed an agreement with XXXX, an agent of First Data to be our payment processor. We were told that our non PCI compliance fees would be {$99.00} annually but have seen over a XXXX increase in these charges with no notification or agreement to pay these exorbant fees. 


The only way I was informed of the PCI compliance fees was through statements on the XXXX portal. XXXX is a subsidiary of First data. The XXXX XXXX 's default settings are set to not send paper or email notifications about fees We had a 3 year period of inactivity on the portal and additionally, the few emails I did receive regarding PCI compliance went directly to our spam and never mentioned anything about fees. 

As a result of First Data 's failure to provide proper notification, I was unaware of the increased PCI compliance fees until our accountant brought up an increase in costs regarding our payment processing systems. By then, I had already been charged over {$15000.00} in fees and the agent accumulated more than {$9300.00} in commission on those fees. 

Moreover, I recently discovered that an agent of First Data, XXXX, made over {$9000.00} in commission on these improperly charged fees. This raises serious concerns about the ethical conduct of both First Data and XXXX. 

In light of these circumstances, I believe that First Data and XXXX have engaged in the following illegal and unfair practices, which violate several civil and consumer protection acts, violations of civil and consumer protection acts include but are not limited to : Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) : EFTA prohibits businesses from charging unauthorized fees to consumers ' electronic fund transfer ( EFT ) accounts. First Data charged PCI compliance fees without providing proper notification to consumers, which is a violation of EFTA.

Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) : TILA requires businesses to disclose all fees and charges to consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner. First Data failed to disclose the PCI compliance fees in a clear, understandable, and easily noticeable manner, and they did not provide advance notice of the fees or any increases in the fee amount.

Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) : FCBA gives consumers the right to dispute errors on their credit card statements. First Data 's failure to provide proper notification of the PCI compliance fees makes it difficult for consumers to dispute these charges. 
Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) : CFPA prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. First Data 's failure to provide proper notification of PCI compliance fees, its business practices that allow agents to profit from improperly charged fees, and its failure to seek the consumer 's consent before charging the fees are all considered unfair and deceptive practices.

Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) : The UCC governs commercial tr
ansactions in the United States, including contracts for payment processing services. First Data 's failure to honor its contractual agreement to charge only {$99.00} annually for PCI compliance fees violates the UCC.

Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) : The FTC Act prohibits businesses from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. First Data 's failure to provide proper notification of PCI compliance fees, its business practices that allow agents to profit from improperly charged fees, and its failure to seek the consumer 's consent before charging the fees are all considered unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act.

With specific violations in terms of proper disclosure practices : Clarity and Conspicuousness : First Data failed to disclose the PCI compliance fees in a clear, understandable, and easily noticeable manner. The fees were hidden in the XXXX portal statements, making them difficult to find and understand. 
Timing : First Data did not provide advance notice of the PCI compliance fees or any increases in the fee amount. Instead, the fees were charged without any prior notification, giving me no time to understand or react to these changes.

Completeness : First Data did not disclose all relevant information about the PCI compliance fees. The disclosures did not explain how the fees were calculated, when they were charged, or under what circumstances.

Accessibility : First Data made the disclosures available only through the XXXX XXXX, which is not readily accessible to all consumers. The disclosures should have been made available in multiple formats, including email and paper statements, to ensure that all consumers could access them. 
Consent : First Data did not seek my consent before charging the PCI compliance fees. This is a violation of proper disclosure practices, as consumers should be given the opportunity to agree to new fees or changes in existing fees before they are implemented.

Regular Updates : First Data did not communicate any changes to the PCI compliance fees or the terms and conditions of the payment processing services. Consumers should be informed of any changes promptly and in a clear and conspicuous manner. 
Language and Presentation : The disclosures were not presented in a language and format that could be easily understood by the average consumer. The language was complex and technical, and the disclosures were not organized in a way that made them easy to follow.