13.  On or about October 6, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew funds from an ATM at the People’s  United Bank branch located at One Blachley Road, Stamford, Connecticut (the “Stamford ATM”).   14.  At the time Plaintiff used the Stamford ATM, it was owned and operated by Defendant.   16.  As shown in Exhibit A, the “Fee Notice” is placed in an inconspicuous location, at or  below knee level and out of eyesight of any person accessing the Stamford ATM.   17.  At the time Plaintiff used the Stamford ATM, she was charged a service fee in the  amount of $3.00.  A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s receipt from the Stamford ATM is attached  hereto as Exhibit B.  18.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.   19.  The Class of consumers that Plaintiff seeks to protect is defined as:  All persons who within the one year period preceding the initiation of this  action were charged a transaction fee for use of the Stamford ATM.  B.  Numerosity   20.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has assessed thousands of illegal transaction  fees through the use of the Stamford ATM.   21.  Upon information and belief, since the date of Plaintiff’s transaction at the Stamford  ATM, Defendant has not posted a conspicuous notice disclosing the service fee on the outside of the  Stamford ATM.   22.  The members of the Class are therefore believed to be so numerous that joinder of all  members is impractical.    24.  Plaintiff identifies the following questions of fact and law common to the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members:  a) Whether Defendant was, at all relevant times during the class period, an ATM  operator who imposed a fee on consumers for providing host transfer services;   b) Whether the Stamford ATM provided disclosure in a prominent and  conspicuous location that the ATM transaction was subject to the imposition of  a specified fee; and  c) Whether Defendant imposed fees on consumers without notice.    25.  Defendant’s conduct in failing to post the required fee notice in a prominent and  conspicuous location was intended and had the effect of causing damages to Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class.  D.  Typicality    26.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members since each of the  claims arises from the use of an ATM owned and operated by Defendant in their regular course of  business.  E.  Protecting the Interests of the Class Members    27.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Class members, all of whom are  victims of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.    29.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in bringing class actions and consumer class  claims and who stands ready, willing and able to represent the Class and advance the costs of this  litigation.  F.  Proceeding via Class Action is Superior and Advisable    30.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.    31.  Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating their  claims to be prohibitive, and therefore would have no effective remedy at law.   32.  The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple  individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the court and the litigants  and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication.    33.  Prosecution of separate actions could result in inconsistent or varying adjudications  with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for  Defendant.  Conversely, adjudications with respect to individual Class members would be dispositive  of the interest of all other Class members.    34.  The amount of money at issue is such that proceeding by way of a class action is the  only economical and sensible manner in which to vindicate Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.  36.  15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(A) provides that any ATM operator who imposes a fee on any  consumer for providing host transfer services must provide a notice stating:  (i)  The fact that a fee is imposed by such operator for providing  the service; and  (ii)  The amount of any such fee.   37.  The notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(A)(i) must “be posted in a prominent  and conspicuous location on or at the automated teller machine at which the electronic fund transfer is  initiated by the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(B)(i).    38.  In addition, 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(c) provides:  No fee may be imposed by any automated teller machine operator in  connection with any electronic fund transfer initiated by a consumer for  which a notice is required under subparagraph (A), unless:  (i)  The consumer receives such notice in accordance with  subparagraph (B); and  (ii)  The consumer elects to continue in the manner necessary to effect the  transaction after receiving such notice.   39.  To enable enforcement of the EFTA, 12 C.F.R. 205.16(b) provides:  An automated teller machine operator that imposes a fee on a  consumer for initiating an electronic fund transfer or a balance  inquiry shall:  (1) Provide notice that a fee will be imposed for providing electronic  fund transfer services or a balance inquiry; and  (2) Disclose the amount of the fee.   41.  In addition, 12 C.F.R. 205.16(e) states:  An automated teller machine operator may impose a fee on a  consumer for initiating an electronic fund transfer of a balance  inquiry only if:  (1) The consumer is provided the notices required under paragraph  (c) of this section; and  (2) The consumer elects to continue the transaction or inquiry after  receiving such notices.   42.  Defendant is an automated teller machine operator who provided host transfer services  at all times relevant to this action.   43.  Defendant failed to comply with the EFTA in connection with providing such services  to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class as the notice on the Stamford ATM was in neither a  prominent nor conspicuous location.   44.  Pursuant to the EFTA, Defendant was prohibited from imposing any fee for host  transfer services because Defendant failed to provide conspicuous notice that a fee would be charged.   45.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have suffered damages as a result of  Defendant’s violations of the EFTA in that they were charged a fee that was not properly disclosed.   46.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the other members  of the Class for the amount of actual damages incurred, as well as for statutory damages, reasonable  attorney’s fees and the costs of this action.  A.  The Class   Violation of the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq.,  (On Behalf of All Class Members)  