Fifth Third Bank lawsuits over the past two decades have cost the Cincinnati-based regional bank more than $265 million in penalties, restitution, and class settlements. The claims span opening customer accounts without consent, force-placing auto insurance and repossessing cars, discriminating against Black and Hispanic auto borrowers, mishandling FHA mortgages, reordering debit transactions to trigger overdraft fees, secretly recording sales calls, misstating loan APRs, misleading investors, and financing troubled residential solar installers. Some cases are closed. Others are still moving.
Fake Accounts and the 2024 CFPB Settlement
In March 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Fifth Third in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that employees had opened accounts and charged fees without customer consent going back to at least 2008. The CFPB brought eight counts under federal consumer protection laws, including the Dodd-Frank Act, and traced the conduct to an aggressive cross-sell strategy that pressured staff to increase the number of products per customer.1The Hill. Consumer Bureau Alleges Fifth Third Bank Opened Unauthorized Accounts
Fifth Third disputed the scale. Its chief legal officer said an internal review found fewer than 1,100 unauthorized accounts out of more than 10 million opened between 2010 and 2016, involving less than $30,000 in improper charges that had already been waived or reimbursed. The bank said 96 employees were terminated or resigned during that period for opening suspicious accounts, and by 2018 it had removed account openings as a factor in employee compensation.2Fifth Third Bank. Fifth Third Fact Sheet
The case closed in July 2024. Fifth Third agreed to pay $15 million in civil penalties tied to the sales practices and to work with the CFPB on remediation for customers who had not yet been compensated.3Fifth Third Bank. Press Release
Force-Placed Auto Insurance and Wrongful Repossessions
The same July 2024 settlement resolved a second CFPB investigation, this one into Fifth Third’s auto-finance servicing. Between 2011 and 2020, the bank placed, charged, and maintained over 37,000 unnecessary or duplicative force-placed insurance policies on borrowers’ auto loans. About 47% of those policies went to borrowers who already had their own coverage, and another 8% went to borrowers who obtained coverage within 30 days of any lapse.4CFPB. Fifth Third Bank Consent Order
The illegal charges totaled more than $12.7 million in fees. Because many borrowers could not absorb the added cost, the bank repossessed roughly 1,000 vehicles as a direct result of delinquencies caused by those charges.5Wall Street Journal. CFPB Orders Fifth Third Fined for Illegal Auto Insurance, Sales Practices The CFPB also found that the bank misrepresented how long it would take to cancel force-placed policies, sent right-to-cure letters with incorrect payment amounts, and continued charging premiums on policies that had already terminated.6CFPB. Fifth Third Bank, N.A. Enforcement Action
Fifth Third paid a $5 million civil penalty on the auto-insurance side and agreed to provide restitution to approximately 35,000 affected customers. Refunds must go directly to consumers rather than being applied to outstanding loan balances unless the borrower specifically agrees otherwise. If the bank ever restarts its force-placed program, it must submit a compliance plan to the CFPB for review at least 90 days in advance.4CFPB. Fifth Third Bank Consent Order Combined with the fake-accounts penalty, the July 2024 total came to $20 million.3Fifth Third Bank. Press Release
Auto Lending Discrimination
In September 2015, the Department of Justice and the CFPB jointly sued Fifth Third in the Southern District of Ohio, alleging its indirect auto lending program discriminated against African American and Hispanic borrowers under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Dealers were allowed to mark up interest rates by as much as 2.5 percentage points above the bank’s risk-based pricing, and that discretion produced higher costs for minority borrowers of similar creditworthiness. On average, affected borrowers paid over $200 more on their loans.7CFPB. CFPB Takes Action Against Fifth Third Bank for Auto Lending Discrimination and Illegal Credit Card Practices
The October 2015 consent order required $18 million in restitution to minority borrowers who financed auto loans through Fifth Third between January 2010 and September 2015. That figure included roughly $12 million in a settlement fund plus credit for $5 million to $6 million in remediation the bank had already provided. Fifth Third also had to cap dealer markups at 1.25 percentage points for loans of five years or less and 1 percentage point for longer terms.8DOJ. United States v. Fifth Third Bank The consent order has since been listed as expired or terminated.9CFPB. Fifth Third Enforcement Action
The $85 Million FHA Mortgage Settlement
On October 5, 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that Fifth Third Bancorp had agreed to pay approximately $85 million to resolve civil fraud claims involving Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages. Between 2003 and 2013, Fifth Third identified 1,439 materially defective FHA loans through its quality control process but failed to report them to the Department of Housing and Urban Development as required.10DOJ. Manhattan US Attorney Announces $85 Million Settlement With Fifth Third Bancorp
The bank paid $84.9 million to resolve False Claims Act and FIRREA liabilities on the 519 loans that had already defaulted, plus a $2 million administrative payment to HUD. It also agreed to indemnify HUD for future losses on the remaining 914 loans. Fifth Third admitted it had failed to timely self-report the defective loans and said it had reformed its quality control program and terminated the personnel responsible.10DOJ. Manhattan US Attorney Announces $85 Million Settlement With Fifth Third Bancorp
Overdraft Fee Class Action
In 2009, customers filed Schulte et al. v. Fifth Third Bank (Case No. 1:09-CV-06655), alleging the bank re-sequenced debit card and ATM transactions to process the largest amounts first and maximize overdraft fees. The settlement class covered anyone with a Fifth Third account who incurred at least one debit-card overdraft fee between October 2004 and July 2010. Fifth Third agreed to a $9.5 million fund, under which class members could recover up to three times the overdraft fees they paid in any continuous 45-day period.11PR Newswire. Court to Notify Current and Former Fifth Third Bank Customers About a Class Action Settlement Involving Overdraft Fees
Recorded Sales Calls Privacy Settlement
In 2016, a group of small business owners in California sued Fifth Third Bank, Vantiv Inc., and National Processing Co. (now WorldPay Inc.) in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that telemarketers hired by the companies secretly recorded calls while pitching credit and debit card processing services. The case, Wang et al. v. Fifth Third Bank et al. (Case No. 1:16-cv-11223), settled for $50 million with final approval in August 2022. More than 313,000 potential class members were eligible for individual payouts of about $160 each.12Bloomberg Law. Fifth Third Bank, Others to Pay $50 Million Over Recorded Calls
Early Access Cash Advance APR Case
Fifth Third’s Early Access program offered short-term cash advances to checking account customers. In Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank (Case No. 1:12-cv-00851, Southern District of Ohio), borrowers alleged the bank misrepresented the APR. Fifth Third disclosed 120%, but plaintiffs argued the actual effective rate could reach 3,650% depending on how long a loan was held, because the disclosed formula was static and unrelated to the actual borrowing period.13U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In re Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
The case ended in a total award of $2,231,290, including interest, for class members who took advances between August 2011 and April 2013. On February 3, 2026, the court signed a distribution order, and payments began going out by direct deposit or through the claims administrator Epiq.14TILA Class Distribution. Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank Class Distribution
Securities Class Action Over the MB Financial Deal
In 2020, investors filed Fox v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. (No. 2020-CH-05219) in Cook County, Illinois, alleging that the registration statement Fifth Third issued for its March 2019 acquisition of MB Financial Inc. contained materially inaccurate information in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint said the filing failed to disclose the aggressive cross-sell strategy, the pending CFPB sales-practices investigation, and internal control failures.15Labaton Keller Sucharow. Fox v. Fifth Third Bancorp The case resolved for $5.5 million, with a settlement hearing in September 2023 and a claims deadline of September 9, 2023.16Fox v. Fifth Third Bancorp Stipulation of Settlement. Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
The Ongoing Solar Loan Litigation
Fifth Third’s May 2022 acquisition of Dividend Solar Finance, LLC opened a new front. The bank inherited Dividend’s relationships with solar installers, most notably Power Home Solar, LLC, which operated as Pink Energy before filing for bankruptcy. Beginning in late 2023, at least 17 state attorneys general issued civil investigative demands to Fifth Third over lending practices tied to Dividend and Power Home Solar.17Banking Dive. Fifth Third Bank Charged Opening Fake Accounts
In October 2024, a federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 24-3128) was established in the District of Minnesota, consolidating class actions, individual suits, and a Minnesota Attorney General enforcement action. The consolidated complaints allege that Dividend and its installer partners hid finance fees in loan amounts, misrepresented expected energy and financial savings, and sold underperforming systems.18U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Dividend Solar Finance LLC and Fifth Third Bank Sales and Lending Practices Litigation
In February 2026, the Commonwealth of Virginia joined the MDL with its own complaint. It alleges that Fifth Third and Power Home Solar deceived more than 500 Virginia consumers into taking out over $30 million in 25-year solar loans, that the bank charged hidden loan fees of 15 to 16 percent, that it encouraged unnecessary battery add-ons to inflate loan amounts, and that it removed standard industry pricing safeguards to win Power Home’s business. Virginia is seeking rescission of the loans, restitution, disgorgement, and civil penalties.19Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia. Commonwealth v. Fifth Third Complaint The MDL is still in its pretrial phase, and no settlements have been reported.
Employee Overtime Suits
Fifth Third’s own employees have sued too. A 2008 collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleged the bank deliberately misclassified a position to avoid overtime pay.20Law360. Fifth Third Bank Hit With FLSA Suit In 2011, loan officers filed a class action in the Southern District of Ohio alleging they had been improperly classified as exempt while being paid on a draw-plus-commissions basis; the complaint noted the bank had recently reclassified those officers and started paying overtime but argued back pay was still owed.21NKA. Fifth Third Bank Loan Officers Bring Lawsuit Wage-and-hour settlements include $4 million in 2014 and $3.25 million in 2015.22Violation Tracker. Fifth Third Bancorp
What Fifth Third Says It Has Changed
Since 2017, about 80% of branch account openings require an electronic consent step in which a unique PIN is sent to the customer’s mobile phone. The bank sends automatic email notifications for all new account openings and runs a conduct risk dashboard and ethics hotline to flag misconduct.2Fifth Third Bank. Fifth Third Fact Sheet In June 2026, the company also established a Risk and Compliance Joint Committee of the Boards of Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Bank, tasked with overseeing supervisory issues and enforcement actions and given authority to retain independent advisors and meet with regulators without senior management present.23Fifth Third Bank. Risk and Compliance Joint Committee Charter