But Bank of America said no such clause exists, and that the plaintiffs simply misunderstood its wording. The bank contended that the allegedly challenged language came from a portion of its Zelle, digital payment service rules forbidding high-risk uses and did not silence customer speech about it.
Dismissals and Appeal
The first dismissal of the case came in March, when Judge Garnett held that the plaintiffs had not effectively shown that an online service agreement fell within California law regarding protected consumer sales contracts. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April, attempting to define more precisely the nature of the contract, but U. S. District Judge Julian v.F.Dominguez still found their claims “conclusory” and insufficient by dismissing them again this week with prejudice.
The court will not provide plaintiffs leave to amend because “plaintiffs were unable correct their allegations in line with this Court’s prior order, and the Court would dismiss an amended case as futile,” Judge Garnett wrote.
