10.  Mr. Nelson has a full-time job with a manufacturing company.  When  there is a work stoppage or slow-down associated with his manufacturing job, Mr.  Nelson is entitled to receive temporary unemployment benefits from the Georgia  Department of Labor.     11.  Historically, benefit recipients like Mr. Nelson would receive their  payments from the State of Georgia through a paper checks that were issued by the  appropriate agency.     12.  In 2012, however, the State of Georgia decided to stop issuing paper  checks to benefit recipients and elected to have a private company issue  MasterCard-branded debit cards to benefit recipients like Mr. Nelson.     13.  Mr. Nelson, like any other benefit recipient who was receiving  payments via paper check, was automatically enrolled in the new debit card  program.      14.  Now, when the Georgia Department of Labor issues unemployment  payments, they are posted to Mr. Nelson’s debit card account for his use.    16.  The State of Georgia was not alone in its decision to cease issuing  paper checks for recipients of unemployment benefits, TANF recipients, or child  support beneficiaries and instead retain Conduent and Comerica to issue debit  cards using the EPPICard®, Way2Go Card®, and GO Program® marks.     17.  Over 20 states across the country have switched to debit cards  programs using the EPPICard®, Way2Go Card®, and GO Program® marks to  deliver unemployment and child support benefits.     18.  Conduent and Comerica administer the EPPICard®, Way2Go Card®,  and GO Program® debit card programs for the State of Georgia and at least a dozen  other states, including but not limited to Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi,  New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.      19.  When a benefit recipient like Mr. Nelson receives their debit card,  Conduent and Comerica allegedly provide them with a Comerica Bank Debit  MasterCard Card Terms of Use that ostensibly outlines the terms and conditions  that govern use of the debit card.  A representative copy of the Terms of Use issued  by Conduent and/or Comerica is attached hereto as Exhibit A.     21.  The standardized Terms of Use were presented to Mr. Nelson and  other benefit recipients on a “take it or leave it” basis, and card holders are often  not informed that they have any other option to receive their funds.  The form  contract was drafted and imposed by Conduent and/or Comerica, which is the party  of vastly superior bargaining strength.  The Terms of Use is an agreement of  adhesion.     22.  The Terms of Use contain detailed procedures of what a cardholder is  supposed to do if they believe their debit card has been lost or stolen or that  someone has unlawfully transferred money from their debit card.  See Exhibit A, ¶   23.  For example, the Terms of Use advise card users as follows:  Lost or Stolen Card/PIN.  If you believe your Card or PIN has been  lost or stolen or that someone has transferred or may transfer money  from your available funds without your permission, call us at 1-888- 929-2460, or write to us at Customer Account Services, P.O. Box  245997, San Antonio, Texas 78224-5997 with details.  See Exhibit A, ¶ 8.     25.  The Terms of Use also inform cardholders the following regarding  their liability with respect to fraudulent or unauthorized transactions on their  accounts:  Tell us AT ONCE if you believe your Card or PIN has been lost or  stolen. Telephoning is the best way of keeping your possible losses  down. You could lose all the money associated with your Card.  If  you tell us within two business days, you can lose no more than $50 if  someone used your Card or PIN without your permission.  If you do  NOT tell us within two business days after you learn of the loss or  theft of your Card or PIN, and we can prove that we could have  stopped someone from using your Card or PIN without your  permission if you had told us, you could lose as much as $500.  [Note:  You will not be liable for the $50 or $500 amounts stated above for  transactions where your PIN is not used to verify your identity if you  have not reported two or more incidents of unauthorized use in the  immediately preceding 12 months, your Card is in good standing, and  you have exercised reasonable care in safeguarding your Card from  risk of loss or theft.]  Also, if the written transaction history or other  Card transaction information provided to you shows transfers that you  did not make, tell us at once.  If you do not tell us within 60 days after  the transmittal of such information, you may not get back any money  you lost after the 60 days if we can prove that we could have stopped  someone from taking the money if you had told us in time.  If a good  reason (such as a long trip or a hospital stay) kept you from notifying  us, we will extend the time periods.  We will cancel your Card if it is  reported to us as lost, stolen or destroyed.  Once your Card is  canceled, you will have no liability for further transactions involving  the use of the canceled Card.  See Exhibit A, ¶ 11.     27.  Instead of following the procedures outlined in the Terms of Use,  Defendants engage in a pattern of conduct that includes sham investigations and  improper denial of meritorious claims regarding fraudulent charges and  unauthorized uses.     28.  Further, Defendants ignore the limitations of liability language  contained in the Terms of Use and leave the users of EPPICard®, Way2Go Card®,  and GO Program® debit cards holding the bag on hundreds, thousands, and even  tens of thousands of dollars of fraudulent charges and unauthorized uses.   29.  Mr. Nelson’s experiences with Defendants illustrate this reality.    30.  Mr. Nelson makes it a practice not to use his EPPICard.  Instead, he  allows any benefits that he may receive to simply accumulate on his card.   32.  Mr. Nelson does not receive paper statements from Defendants for his  account, opting instead, to check his balance by calling the EPPICard customer  service number.    33.  On July 26, 2017, Mr. Nelson called to check the balance in his  account and verify that the payments from the Georgia Department of Labor had  been credited to his account.   34.  During this telephone call, Mr. Nelson discovered that his account  balance was incorrect.     35.  The level two customer service representative that Mr. Nelson talked  to read off the activity that had been made on his account.  The charges to Mr.  Nelson’s account totaled $12,506.63.   36.  Mr. Nelson explained to the representative that he had not used his  card to make these unauthorized transactions and that his EPPICard was still in his  possession inside his personal safe.     38.  That same day, the EPPICard Fraud Services Department opened an  investigation into Mr. Nelson’s claim and assigned a tracking number of 1- 4068667824 to the investigation.   39.  Mr. Nelson was sent a letter that requested that he complete the  enclosed Questionnaire of Fraud in its entirety and return it using the enclosed  envelope.    40.  The letter also informed Mr. Nelson that the investigation would be  completed within 45 days.   41.  On July 27, 2017, Mr. Nelson contacted the Gwinnett County Police  Department to report the fraud that had been committed against his account.     42.  Mr. Nelson informed Officer Howard that unbeknownst to him,  between February 18, 2017 and June 5, 2017, an unknown individual or  individuals had made $12,506.63 in purchases using his debit card account without  his permission.   44.  On July 27, 2017, Mr. Nelson also reported the fraud on his account to  the MasterCard Assistance Center, since his EPPICard is branded with the  MasterCard logo.   45.  MasterCard informed Mr. Nelson that he should follow up with  Defendants regarding his situation.     46.   After receiving the Questionnaire of Fraud, Mr. Nelson attempted to  complete the form in its entirety.  However, Mr. Nelson was unable to completely  finish the form because it asked him to list all of the unauthorized charges.   47.  Therefore, on August 7, 2017, Mr. Nelson again contacted EPPICard  and spoke with Connie, who indicated that she would mail Mr. Nelson his  statements so he could complete the Questionnaire.     48.  On August, 21, 2017, having not received his account statements, Mr.  Nelson again contacted EPPICard and spoke with Grace.  Grace also indicated that  she would mail Mr. Nelson his statements so he could complete the Questionnaire.   50.  On September 8, 2017, while still awaiting receipt of his account  statements that he had requested on numerous occasions for the past month, Mr.  Nelson received a letter from EPPICard’s Fraud Services Department saying that it  had completed its investigation and that it could not confirm that any fraud  occurred.     53.  Mr. Nelson’s September 18 letter included the list of transactions  contained in Paragraph 51, above, and also enclosed a copy of the completed  Questionnaire of Fraud.     54.  On September 20, 2017, Mr. Nelson then filed an Identity Theft  Report with the Federal Trade Commission.   55.  On the same date, Mr. Nelson also filed reports with the Comptroller  of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding the  fraudulent activity on his account.   56.  On September 21, 2017, Mr. Nelson called EPPICard to follow up  regarding the fraud investigation.  After initially speaking with Olivia, he was  transferred to Robin.  Robin took down Mr. Nelson’s contact information and  transferred him to a supervisor named Jarred.  Jarred advised Mr. Nelson to submit  a written request to EPPICard seeking to have his dispute reopened for secondary  review.    57.  Per Jarred’s instructions, on September 24, 2017, Mr. Nelson sent  EPPICard a letter detailing his experiences and requesting that his dispute be  reopened for secondary review.   59.  EPPICard’s December 11, 2017 letter indicated that Mr. Nelson could  request a copy of the documents that they relied upon in making their  determination.   60.  Mr. Nelson contacted EPPICard to request a copy of these documents,  but just like it did with his account statements, EPPICard failed to provide Mr.  Nelson with the requested information.   61.  As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendants still refuse to refund  Mr. Nelson the $12,506.63 that was fraudulently removed from his account.     62.  Unfortunately, Mr. Nelson’s experiences with Defendants are not  isolated.  The website ConsumerAffairs.com has collected hundreds of online  complaints from people across the country that detail similar experiences with  EPPICard.   65.  Marshayla, from Mesquite, TX, wrote the following on October 11,  2017:  My account was used somehow fraudulently so I filed a claim.  I filled  out paperwork and mailed it in.  The fraud department ruled against  me and never contacted me via email, mail or phone call.  I’m out  $300 and all they recommend is to write a letter.  You are better off  transferring your money to a REAL financial institution where they  treat fraud claims thoroughly and more seriously.    70.  EPPICard user Tiffany, from Houston, TX, shared the following on  October 15, 2015:  On August 28, 2015, I made a fraud report to Eppicard because over a  course of a month, $406 ($103 in July, $303 on August 28th) was  stolen from my card at an ATM in Baltimore, MD.  The problem is I  live in Houston, TX and still had the card in my possession.  I  followed the necessary procedures of calling and reporting the fraud,  completing the documents once received by me in the mail, mailing  them back to Eppicard within the allowable 10 days, and then just  waiting...  I’ve contacted them several times regarding this matter, only to be  told the case is still under investigation.  I last called on Tuesday,  October 13th and was informed the case was “denied, with no further  information.”  I repeatedly tried to get an explanation as to why the  fraud investigation was denied, but was told they “needed more  information”, although I’d fulfilled all obligations required of me and  submitted all documents in a timely fashion.   72.  According to Ms. Mueller, she has been hearing consumer complaints  about EPPICard since 2009.  Id.   73.  According to Ms. Mueller’s investigation, even though the EPPICard  is “supposed to have the same kinds of protections as a traditional debit card,  consumers have compared resolving fake charges after a card is compromised to  running on a hamster wheel.”  Id.     74.  Ms. Mueller has fielded complaints regarding EPPICard from Florida,  Illinois, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, and Texas that chronicle the following  issues: EPPICard losing fraud paperwork multiple times; EPPICard wrongly and  repeatedly telling consumers they need to pursue the phony charges with the  merchant; and EPPICard issuing provisional credits only to reverse the credits and  reinstate the charges even when the charges were made in foreign countries or in  states far from the cardholder.  Id.   75.  Mr. Nelson’s experiences and the others outlined above demonstrate  that Defendants systematically refuse to provide refunds to EPPICard users who  experience fraud on their accounts.     77.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly  situated pursuant to Federal Rule 23.  This action satisfies the numerosity,  commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of  Rule 23.   78.  The proposed class is defined as:   All Conduent and Comerica EPPICard®, Way2Go Card®, and  GO Program® customers in the United States who, within the  applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this  action to the date of class certification, incurred fraudulent  charges on their accounts and were denied a refund of such  charges in violation of Defendants’ Terms of Use (the “Class”).   79.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the  proposed Class before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.  In  addition, subclasses will likely be sought for those victims of Defendants’ practices  who reside in certain states where statutory protections, such as fair business  practices statutes, have been violated by Defendants.   8.     81.  The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is impractical.   The Class consists of thousands of members whose identity is within the  knowledge of Conduent and Comerica and can be ascertained only by reviewing  the records of Conduent and Comerica.   82.  The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of  the Class in that Mr. Nelson, like all Class members, lost funds based on the  improper practices described herein.  The representative Plaintiff, like all Class  members, has been damaged by the misconduct of Conduent and Comerica.   Furthermore, the factual basis of Defendants’ misconduct is common to all Class  members, and represents a common thread of conduct resulting in injury to all  members of the Class.   83.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class  and those common questions predominate over any questions affecting only  individual Class members.   85.  Other questions of law and fact common to the Class include:  a.  The proper method or methods by which to measure damages,  and  b.  The declaratory relief to which the Class is entitled.   86.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Class members, in  that they arise out of the same wrongful policies and practices and the same or  substantially similar unconscionable provisions of Defendants’ contractual  agreements and other related documents.  Plaintiff has suffered the harm alleged  and has no interests antagonistic to the interests of any other Class member.   88.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy.  Since the amount of each individual  Class member’s claim is small relative to the complexity of the litigation, and due  to the financial resources of Conduent and Comerica, no Class member could  afford to seek legal redress individually for the claims alleged herein.  Therefore,  absent a class action, the Class members will continue to suffer losses and  Defendants’ misconduct will proceed without remedy.   90.  Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 through 89 above.   91.  Plaintiff and Defendants have contracted for services, as embodied in  Comerica’s Terms of Use and related documentation.   92.  Defendants violated the contract by failing to adhere to the policies  and procedures contained in the contract with respect to fraudulent and  unauthorized transactions.  Thus, Defendants have materially breached the express  terms of their own form contract.   93.  Plaintiff and the Class have performed all, or substantially all, of the  obligations imposed on them under the contracts, or those obligations have been  waived by Defendants.   94.  Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained damages as a result of  Defendants’ breaches of the contracts.    96.  Subterfuge and evasion violate the obligation of good faith in  performance even when an actor believes his conduct to be justified.  A lack of  good faith may be overt or may consist of inaction, and fair dealing may require  more than honesty.  Defendants have breached the covenant of good faith and fair  dealing through their policies and practices as alleged herein.     97.  Plaintiff and the Class have performed all, or substantially all, of the  obligations imposed on them under the Terms of Use.   98.  Plaintiff and members of the Class have sustained damages as a result  of Defendants’ breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Whether  based on direct breaches of the contract, or violations of the contract as a result of  the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or both, Defendants should be required  to make Plaintiff and the Class whole.  Breach of Contract/Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing   Conversion  