You can call their bluff, or not. It’s up to you. I’d also look into whether they’re liable for the costs you incurred due to their mistake.

The only reason that I’m staying is that it is the same bank that the company I work for has it’s accounts at. I don’t want to have to wait 3 to 5 days for my per diem checks to reach my account when I make a trip.

You could always cover the gap with a payday loan 🙂

On what do you base the assertion that there is an information difference? All the information is AVAILABLE to the customer, who CHOOSES to disregard it, or not to consider the long term consequences of habitually using the service. Is it an unfair maket anytime one party has a weaker negotiating position? Ultimately, what you’re asking for is government to remove the natural consequences of living hand to mouth, and with them the rewards for budgeting and saving. The first part of that sounds wonderful, until you consider that these loans are high risk, and no one lends money out of the kindness of their hearts. The market dictates that the return on these loans will be exactly as high as it needs to be for sufficient people to accept the risk of making them to meet the demand. The only way to negate that effect is for government to artificially lower the risk or subsidize the return, which forces me, as a fiscally responsible taxpayer, to subsidize other people’s irresponsibility. If the public is accountable to pay for the consequences, then the public rightly is entitled to a say in the decisions leading to the consequences, which means the government telling the likely customers for these loans how much of their paycheck they’re allowed to spend. As stupid as I think it is for someone making minimum wage to spend money on various personal vices when they could be saving it, I’ll defend their right to do so, because I value my own freedom to make my own financial decisions. So you see where your position leads?

The government (or, quite often, attorneys) deciding that it knows better than us which deals consumers want to make ex ante is the first step towards the government regulating the market by dictating what prices and services may be offered. The principle needs to be defended even if one finds the business or customer base less than exquisitely tasteful, or if we think that we are too clever to engage in such services. What’s the difference between stopping a consumer from purchasing a payday loan and stopping a consumer from eating a pint of Ben & Jerry’s?

The payday-loan banks are responding to market demand, a demand that used to be filled by organized crime, which would offer penalties somewhat more punitive than $35 fees.

Mark, numerous banks provide overdraft protection; I once mistakenly set an automatic bill payment to the 30th of every month rather than the last day of every month, and overdrew my account by a thousand bucks a few months ago in a 31-day month. Cost me under a dollar. If your bank won’t waive the fees, switch banks.

The government probably should step in in some manner to help make sure the transaction is really voluntary, fully informed, and fully private. Especially, when there is a significant power or information difference between the parties. Basically, maintaining a fair market.

I just thought of another reason for loans in particular. Who enforces repayment of the loan? The government which in a democracy menas all of us. Since, the government is the representative of the people do we really want our government in the business of enforcing outrageous loan terms on people who may or may not have entered into the agreement fully informed.