Double-Dipped: How Bank of America Profits Twice From Out-of-Network ATM Use

For residents of rural Appalachian communities where the nearest Bank of America branch is 40 miles away, accessing their own money has become an expensive proposition. When Daniel Harmon, a construction worker in rural West Virginia, uses the convenience store ATM near his job site, he pays the operator's $3.50 surcharge plus Bank of America's $2.50 out-of-network fee — $6.00 to withdraw $60. Over the course of a month, those fees add up to $48 or more, nearly equivalent to an additional monthly bill. "I'm paying a tax just to use my own paycheck," Harmon told OPV.

The Compounding Fee Structure

Bank of America's $2.50 out-of-network ATM fee has been in place since 2019, but the true cost has climbed steadily as independent ATM operators have raised their surcharges. Bankrate's 2025 checking account survey found that the average ATM surcharge hit a record $3.15, meaning a typical out-of-network withdrawal now costs BofA customers $5.65 in combined fees. For customers who make even two to three out-of-network withdrawals per month — a modest figure for those without nearby branch access — the annual cost exceeds $200. That amount can represent a meaningful portion of income for low-wage workers.

The problem is compounded by Bank of America's aggressive branch closure program. The bank has shuttered more than 700 branches since 2020, concentrating its physical presence in affluent urban and suburban markets while withdrawing from lower-income and rural areas. A 2025 analysis by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that BofA branch closures disproportionately affected ZIP codes with median household incomes below $50,000 and majority-minority populations. As branches vanish, the in-network ATM footprint shrinks with them, forcing more customers into fee-generating out-of-network transactions.

How does your site score?

Run a free scan and get actionable improvement prompts in 30 seconds.

A Cash Access Crisis

Consumer advocates argue that ATM double-dipping — charging a fee on top of another institution's surcharge — is fundamentally inequitable because it punishes customers for geographic circumstances beyond their control. Several state legislatures, including those in Connecticut and Illinois, have considered bills to prohibit banks from charging out-of-network ATM fees when the bank has closed the customer's nearest branch. None have passed as of early 2026, but the legislative momentum is growing. In the meantime, customers in ATM deserts face a difficult choice: pay the fees, drive long distances to reach an in-network ATM, or abandon traditional banking altogether — a path that leads to even costlier check-cashing services and prepaid cards.