In a suit challenging excessive fees charged on debit cards issued to those released from Washington’s Pierce County Jail, former detainee Plaintiffs secured nationwide class certification on February 13, 2025. But first they had to defeat a motion by Defendant Central Bank of Kansas City (CBKC) to compel arbitration.

This is one of several cases being pursued by PLN’s publisher, the nonprofit Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), against issuers of debit release cards with abusive “take-it-or-leave-it” agreements that rob “fees” from released prisoners precisely when their money is most needed. As PLN reported, another Washington class action resulted in an $11.6 million settlement in December 2023 with card issuer Rapid Investments; a case in Oregon with another bank issuing NUMI-branded cards was settled for $4 million in September 2024, as reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, Apr. 2024, p.42; and Apr. 2025, p.43.]

In this case, lead Plaintiff Samuel C. Rutherford III, a former PLN staff writer, was held at the jail in Tacoma. He had $300 on him when he was detained, plus he received money from friends, family and his jail job while detained. That pushed his trust account balance to $500.49. Upon release in April 2023, he was told by jail officials that he could receive his money only on a pre-loaded and pre-activated NUMI-branded debit card. He signed a form acknowledging this and was handed the card; attached was a cardholder agreement with CBKC, but the signature block was already signed with his name by a jail official.

After that, Rutherford found he was unable to withdraw all his money because a good chunk was consumed with fees. He was even charged merely for checking the balance. Detainees were also charged weekly fees for maintaining a balance on the card, beginning as early as three days from release. With the aid of attorneys from Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger in Seattle, Rutherford filed a putative class action suit in federal court for the Western District of Washington in April 2024 on behalf of himself and all other Jail detainees released with their funds on a card, accusing CBKC of violating the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3 § 226 et seq. 15 U.S.C. ch. 41 § 1601 et seq. 15 U.S.C. ch. 41 § 1693 et seq, as well as making state-law claims.

Defendant attempted to dismiss the suit and compel Plaintiffs to arbitration, arguing that a clause in the cardholder agreement waived their rights to file suit. However, the district court found that the agreement could be binding only if a recipient chose to activate the card, not when one was delivered pre-activated. Since the card was forced upon Plaintiffs, who took no action to assent to the contract, there was no such binding agreement.

CBKC argued that Plaintiffs could have refused to accept the debit card and exercised their right to receive their funds via check, delivered in the mail at some unspecified future date. But the district court pointed out that the card was already activated so that opt-out provision was no longer available.

Arbitration benefits corporations in most cases. The potential reward for a single consumer is often too small to make pursuing a claim worthwhile. Even if he goes to arbitration, the consumer will usually find himself disadvantaged by the corporation’s superior legal resources. Corporations who use the process frequently also have established relationships with arbitrators, who are bound to provisions of the consumer’s agreement, not consumer protection laws or legal precedent. There is also a very limited right to appeal. Fortunately, in a ruling on August 29, 2024, the district court found the arbitration clause in the agreement that Rutherford received was unenforceable. See: Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kan. City, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155786 (W.D. Wash.).

Class Certification

Not quite six months later, the district court certified the case as a class action, finding all the necessary elements—beginning with numerosity, though over the objection of Defendant, who argued that there weren’t enough released prisoners not already covered by the Brown settlement. The district court rejected that contention because the two cases had little overlap. Each was filed against a different issuing bank. While those who filed a claim for part of the earlier settlement should be precluded from filing again for reimbursement of fees taken from another NUMI-branded card, the district court said that others should not—even if they didn’t opt out of the Brown payout.

The other necessary elements were also found for class certification: A common injury suffered by all potential class members for whom Rutherford was sufficiently typical to serve as class representative, as well as the adequacy of representation for the class that could be provided by his counsel. However, the district court included a big caveat to Rutherford’s class representation: He could represent only those who received a debit card with an agreement like the one he got.

That was because CBKC had subsequently amended its cardholder agreement in September 2024. No longer did it declare that “activation of the card is acceptance”; rather, the district court noted, it provided a 30-day “grace period” to exercise an “opportunity to opt out of the arbitration agreement by not using the card and accessing their funds in other ways.” It was only then that “the deduction of fees would begin.”

This made the agreement similar to one attached to a card issued by J-Pay, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found acceptable when it reversed a ruling by a federal court in California and granted J-Pay’s motion to compel arbitration in December 2023, as PLN also reported. [See: PLN, Apr. 2024, p.42.]

Therefore, the district court certified two classes, both limited to those receiving a card before the new agreement began to be issued on September 30, 2024. The first class included those nationwide who received a CBKC debit release card between April 17, 2023, and September 29, 2024, and also then lost money on it but did not file a claim for part of the Brown settlement; they will pursue federal law claims against Defendant. The second class was similarly defined but limited to those held in a jail in Washington who received a card between April 17, 2020, and September 29, 2024; they will pursue state-law claims. See: Rutherford v. Cent. Bank of Kan. City, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26377 (W.D. Wash.).

According to Chris Youtz, one of the attorneys providing class counsel, the classes are estimated to include some 980,000 people, even when restricted to those who received a debit release card with a copy of the old cardholder agreement attached. It is frankly unconscionable to take money from recently released detainees and prisoners trying to re-establish their lives and even more unconscionable for jails and prisons to reward private firms with what amounts to a license to help themselves to fees from this marginalized class. The case remains active, and PLN will share updates on developments as they unfold.   

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case