JPMorgan to Shell Out $2.5 Million to Resolve Crypto Fees Class Action

JPMorgan is gonna pay $2.5 million to resolve a lawsuit about overcharging on crypto fees. Here’s the news link: https://news.bitcoin.com/jpmorgan-pay-2-5-million-settle-lawsuit-overcharging-crypto-fees/ And you can check out the legal case here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Chase-Bank.pdf Looks like things are falling apart. Just recently, Goldman & Sachs was out there saying Bitcoin isn’t really a solid choice, calling it more of an asset class than a currency. For JPMorgan, this amount isn’t that big of a deal, but it does set a precedent. What do you all think about this situation?

My insight into this topic is, JP Morgan has really a hidden agenda for making those "Bitcoin purchases" into "cash advances" for they will create their own JPM Coin and, no wonder they are now saying that Bitcoin is a fraud because it will be hard for them to defeat it in competition and it will be their strategy to censure or discredit Bitcoin into public instead to divert people attention to their own JPM Coins. Though it might not be a huge amount for the plaintiffs it is still good news to everyone that Bitcoin could still gain justice against huge banking companies like JP Morgan. With regards to Goldman & Sachs surely whatever they said about Bitcoin it is only because of their prejudice that is only favorable to the business sector of the society. IMO

I don't see anything spectacular here, JPM just decided to settle because it is obviously cheaper for them, and also because in this way they will return only 95% of the allegedly overpaid fees. Also they do not admit that they are wrongdoing, and their current attitude towards cryptocurrency is diametrically opposed to what it was 2 years ago. I don't think this news has anything to do with Goldman&Sachs, Bitcoin has never been nor will depend on them. It is true that Jamie Dimon (JMP CEO) back in 2017 he called Bitcoin "a fraud", but as early as the following year he changed his mind and expressed regret over the statement. Recently, JPM began providing banking services to Coinbase and Gemini, so we can say that this is a complete turnaround when it comes to their attitude towards cryptocurrencies.

Right, as I have said it is just a small amount, but still this is a victory for crypto in my opinion. They may have their own agenda behind, but in the eyes of the law, they obviously losses this battle. And this is the reason why we should trust them in the first place, because we really don't know their stance. Some see they provided support and has made a U-turn, but still we should be take their words for it, at least in my case.

The way I understand this case is JP Morgan definitely has the win in this case and has successfully made cryptocurrency purchases in a credit card be classified as "cash advances" which results to the users having a higher fee, the only point that the complainants have was that JP Morgan failed to notify them earlier about the type of purchase a Bitcoin purchase be that's why JP Morgan settled for that amount. Generally I think the court was wrong to side with JP Morgan in this case. By labelling crypto as some kind of "currency-like" asset it generally goes in the opposite direction on the US classifying cryptocurrencies purely as an asset only. Now the judicial court as well as the government have a different view on what cryptocurrencies are.

the fact that the case was settled and JPM admitted no wrongdoing leaves the legal question wide open. chase is not the only bank who charges coinbase deposits via credit card as cash advances. BOA, citi, and others do it too. i wonder if we'll see another class action lawsuit against another bank. from what i can gather, the plaintiffs would only win on a technicality, not the substance of the issue. credit card issuers have the right to specify at their discretion (in the cardmember terms) what transactions constitute cash advances. the problem here was the JPM may not have properly notified customers of changes to their terms. it seems like common sense to me. banks letting cardholders buy currencies or speculative assets on credit is risky business. they ought to be hedging that risk with cash advance fees and higher interest fees.