Filed by card user Gerald McGhee, the suit asserts that while promotional materials for the service state that users are only charged a percentage of each transaction, McGhee found he was also charged monthly fees for using its card reader.
According to the suit, North American Bancard began deducting fees from McGhee’s bank account in December 2015, despite the fact that he had not used the reader. The defendant allegedly continued to charge him for several months and refused to refund the money, as he had requested.
“North American Bancard engaged in negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation,” the complaint states. “They also breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every agreement.”
McGhee states that he initially obtained a PayAnywhere card reader in November 2014, after being contacted by a salesperson who, McGhee states, assured him there would be no fees. However, McGhee alleges that a monthly fee was deducted from his bank account every month between December 2015 and April 2016 despite promises he would be responsible only for a chunk of each transaction.
The suit asserts claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, restitution/unjust enrichment and violations of California law.
McGhee seeks to represent all North American Bancard customers charged fees in the US. McGhee and the class are seeking the recovery of all funds that customers were allegedly charged in violation of the “no fee” promise, as well as statutory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, and an injunction requiring North American Bancard to cease its allegedly misleading business practices and to notify customers who might be entitled to refunds.
Gerald McGhee is represented by Craig M. Nicholas, Alex Tomasevic and Shaun Markley of Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP, and Eric A. LaGuardia of LaGuardia Law.
The case is Gerald McGhee et al. v. North American Bancard LLC, case number 3:17-cv-00586, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.