Wells Fargo (WFC) was ordered to pay California customers $203 million in restitution for claims that it had manipulated transactions to boost the overdraft fees it could levy.
United States District Judge William Alsup said that Wells Fargo processed the transactions in order of size, largest to smallest, rather than in the order they were received, The New York Times said.
"The bank's dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as possible" out of overdrawn customers, the judge wrote.
Alsup's ruling follows a two-week trial in the spring.
Wells Fargo collected almost $1.8 billion in overdraft fees in California alone between 2005 and 2007. The bank said it would appeal the decision.
"We don't believe the ruling is in line with the facts of the case," Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said.
Introduction to Preferred Shares
Learn the difference between preferred and common shares.View Course »