Bank of America Forces Customers Out of Courts and Into Private Arbitrations

May 14, 2026 — Press Release

Customers Should Opt-Out or Switch Banks Unless BoA Restores Access to Courts

WASHINGTON – Today, 25 consumer advocacy and other public interest organizations condemned Bank of America’s decision to insert a forced arbitration clause in the fine print of its Online Banking Service Agreement. Forced arbitration blocks customers’ access to the court system and eliminates their right to a jury trial when they are harmed, instead forcing them into biased, closed-door proceedings where consumers rarely win. It also prevents people from joining together in class action lawsuits to fight back against systemic harms.

“Bank of America should immediately remove the arbitration clause from any of its contracts with consumers,” said Patrick Crotty, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Customers should act swiftly to opt-out of the arbitration clause, and if the bank fails to walk back this decision, customers should consider transferring to a bank that doesn’t use fine print to take away their rights to a judge and jury.”

Bank of America’s agreement gives customers just 60 days to opt-out after they receive notice. For many Bank of America customers this clock has already started ticking, but they do not know because the opt-out provision is buried deep within arcane contract language. 

Advocates produced this resource to help consumers through the opt-out process.

In 2009, Bank of America, along with Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, Discover, and HSBC were defendants in an antitrust lawsuit in which credit card borrowers alleged that these banks, and other large banks, colluded to implement arbitration provisions in their credit card agreements to prevent their customers from enforcing their rights under state and federal law in individual and class action cases. As a result, Bank of America stopped using its consumer contracts to force customers into binding arbitration. And for almost 17 years, Bank of America customers retained the ability to hold the bank accountable in the public court system. 

But the new forced arbitration clause also prohibits customers from joining their claims together in class actions to seek justice when systemic, widespread harm occurs. This is particularly harmful to consumers with small-dollar claims, which they couldn’t afford to pursue on their own. 

Unlike individuals, large and powerful companies like Bank of America can become repeat customers of arbitration companies, incentivizing arbitrators to decide disputes against consumers and in the corporations’ favor. Because arbitration proceedings are generally private, and decisions often remain hidden, this imbalance goes unchecked. Forced arbitration hides corporate wrongdoing from public view and shields corporations from large-scale public accountability.

“The forced consumer arbitration system is rigged,” said Crotty. “Bank of America must remove the forced arbitration clauses from all customer agreements to ensure fairness and legal rights for its tens of millions of customers, just as it had for nearly two decades.”

Legislation introduced by Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, would take the decision out of Bank of America’s hands by codifying consumers’, workers’, and small business owners’ right to access the courts when their bank or other large corporation violates the law.

Related Resources

• Take Action: Stop Bank of America from Blocking Access to the Court System
• Press release: Sen. Blumenthal, Rep. Johnson Reintroduce Legislation to Restore Access to Justice, Sept. 16, 2025
• Press release: 99% of Consumers Unaware they are Subject to Forced Arbitration, July 27, 2023