The main PNC class action lawsuit filed in 2022 was Ratulowski v. PNC Bank, N.A., a case brought in Indiana federal court in January 2022 accusing PNC’s auto-lending arm of pocketing unearned GAP fees when borrowers paid off their car loans early. It is one of several class actions surrounding PNC Financial Services Group from that period, some resolved with large settlements, others still working their way through court in 2026.
The 2022 GAP Fee Refund Case
On January 7, 2022, Vincent Ratulowski sued PNC Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (No. 2:22-cv-00004). Guaranteed Automobile Protection covers the gap between an insurance payout and the remaining loan balance if a financed vehicle is totaled or stolen. Because the coverage runs with the loan, a borrower who pays off early has paid for protection they will never use. The complaint alleges PNC’s loan agreements require a refund of the unearned portion but that the bank “knowingly keeps millions of dollars in fees every year” instead.1Clifford Law Offices. Clifford Law Offices Attorneys Represent Plaintiff in PNC Bank GAP Fees Class Action Lawsuit
The case has moved slowly. In May 2023, Judge Philip P. Simon dismissed two counts (money had and received, and declaratory judgment) and struck the class allegations, but let Ratulowski amend. A Second Amended Complaint followed in July 2023, and PNC filed another motion to dismiss that September. As of March 2026, the docket shows the case still active with no settlement or final resolution.2CourtListener. Ratulowski v. PNC Bank, N.A.
Cash Sweep Interest Rate Litigation
The most consequential PNC class action currently in progress concerns the bank’s brokerage cash sweep program. Uninvested cash in PNC Investments brokerage accounts is automatically swept into affiliated PNC Bank deposit accounts. Plaintiffs allege those accounts paid as little as 0.04% to 0.05% while the federal funds rate sat above 5% and competing sweep programs paid far more.3Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. PNC Bank Lawsuit Interest Rates
Vallin v. PNC Investments LLC (No. 2:24-cv-01295) was filed on September 25, 2024, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. It brings claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment, alleging PNC coordinated with its own affiliated bank to “set artificially and unreasonably low interest rates” instead of negotiating at arm’s length as the brokerage agreement promised. The complaint says PNC failed to pass along meaningful rate increases even after the Federal Reserve began raising rates in 2022.4Top Class Actions. PNC Investments Breached Contractual Duties With Cash Sweep Accounts, Class Action Claims
A parallel suit was filed in January 2025 by Michigan resident Marlene Dehner. Judge Marilyn J. Horan consolidated the two cases in February 2025 under the caption In re PNC Cash Sweep Programs Litigation.5CourtListener. Vallin v. PNC Investments, LLC On July 30, 2025, the court appointed Rosemary M. Rivas and Gibbs Mura as interim class counsel.6Class Law Group. PNC Cash Sweep Class Action Lawsuit In late April 2026, a magistrate judge recommended denying PNC’s motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract and fiduciary-duty claims.7Bloomberg Law. PNC Loses Traction Over Cash Sweep Contract Breach Class Claim PNC raised its sweep rates toward the end of 2024, after the litigation began.
The $90 Million Overdraft Fee Settlement
PNC was one of roughly 30 banks pulled into a Miami-based multidistrict litigation over the practice of reordering debit-card transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, which drained accounts faster and triggered more overdraft fees. PNC agreed to a $90 million settlement, reported as pending in 2012 before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King.8Cision / Sokolove Law. Overdraft Fee Lawsuit Settled for $90M Final approval of the broader MDL settlement framework was entered on August 10, 2020.9GovInfo. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036
Wage and Hour Settlements
PNC has resolved several employee class actions with substantial payouts.
Mortgage Loan Officer Overtime — $16 Million
In Bland v. PNC Bank, N.A. (No. 15-01042, W.D. Pa.), 21 named mortgage loan officers alleged PNC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws by failing to pay overtime. A $16 million settlement fund received preliminary approval on January 5, 2017. PNC admitted no liability, and plaintiffs’ counsel was slated to receive more than $5 million.10Bloomberg Law. PNC Loan Officers Would Get $16M in Pay Claims Settlement
Customer Service Unpaid Time — $2.75 Million
Two related suits in Michigan and Pennsylvania accused PNC of making customer service representatives boot up computers, read emails, and log into mandatory software before and after shifts without pay, adding up to as much as three unpaid overtime hours per week.11HR Dive. PNC Pays $2.75M to Settle Unpaid Time Suit PNC settled both for a combined $2.75 million, with more than $900,000 going to attorneys’ fees. The settlement was approved in late January 2020.12HR Laws. PNC Bank Pays $2.75M to Settle Two Class Action Suits for Unpaid Time
California Rest Break Case — $11.9 Million
In Scheid v. PNC Bank, California mortgage loan officers alleged PNC failed to separately pay them for rest breaks. Even though workers stayed clocked in during breaks, plaintiffs argued PNC’s commission structure meant they earned nothing for that time because commissions were paid only after base pay was “recaptured” through deductions.13National Mortgage Professional. PNC Bank Pays Near $12M to Settle MLO Rest Break Lawsuit The court partially certified the class and ruled PNC’s compensation plan failed to properly pay for rest breaks between June 2014 and June 2019. In May 2024, the parties sought preliminary approval of an $11.9 million settlement covering 210 class members, averaging roughly $36,400 per person.14Bloomberg Law. PNC Loan Officers Seek Nod for $11.9 Million Deal in Wage Suit
ERISA Excessive Fee Case (Dismissed)
In October 2020, two participants in the PNC Incentive Savings Plan filed Johnson v. PNC Financial Services Group (No. 2:20-cv-01493, W.D. Pa.), alleging the company breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by allowing “grossly excessive” recordkeeping fees. The plan held about $5.7 billion in assets and 66,000 participants, and the complaint pegged per-participant recordkeeping costs at $50 to $57 per year when a prudently managed plan that size should have paid $14 to $21.15ClassAction.org. Johnson et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
The original complaint was dismissed without prejudice in August 2021. An amended version added plaintiff John McCauley, and the case was terminated in August 2023.16CourtListener. John McCauley v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. In June 2024, Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand formally dismissed the remaining claims after excluding the plaintiffs’ expert witness, Ty Minnich, finding his methodology for calculating excessive fees unreliable.17PlanAdviser. Judge Dismisses 401(k) Excessive Fee Lawsuit Against PNC Financial
Other Class Actions Filed Since 2022
Vehicle Title and Lien Release (2023)
In July 2023, an Illinois borrower filed Bradley v. PNC Bank N.A. (No. 3:23-cv-02355), alleging PNC failed to deliver a lien release and vehicle title within the 21-day contractual deadline after a car loan was paid off. The complaint also accused PNC of directing borrowers to a third-party website that charged fees for documents the bank was required to provide free, in alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.18ClassAction.org. Class Action Says PNC Bank Failed to Timely Provide Lien Release, Vehicle Title to Plaintiff
Prime Rate Price-Fixing Suit (2025)
PNC is one of seven major banks named in Normandin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (No. 3:25-cv-01749, D. Conn.), filed in October 2025. The complaint alleges JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, U.S. Bank, PNC, and Truist have coordinated their prime lending rates for more than 30 years, holding them at exactly 300 basis points above the Federal Funds Target Rate. Plaintiffs contend this coordination inflated interest costs on variable-rate consumer products, particularly home equity lines of credit and credit cards.19Scott+Scott. Scott+Scott Files Lawsuit Against Major Banks Over Prime Rate Price-Fixing The case is in its earliest stages.
Data Breach Suit (Dismissed 2025)
In September 2025, plaintiff Madonna Blunt filed a proposed class action after a dark-web group calling itself “Market Exchange” claimed to have exfiltrated 740,000 PNC customer records, including names, Social Security numbers, and contact information.20Bloomberg Law. PNC Hit With Class Suit Over Breach of 740,000 Customer Records PNC’s investigation concluded the post did not reflect an actual breach of its systems, and the suit was voluntarily dismissed on September 28, 2025.21Top Class Actions. PNC Bank Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach Exposing 740,000 Records
Regulatory Backdrop
PNC’s class action history sits alongside older regulatory action. In 2002, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order after finding PNC improperly transferred $762 million in troubled loans and venture capital assets to special purpose entities in 2001, overstating earnings per share by more than 20% in one quarter and by 52% for the full year. PNC consented without admitting or denying the findings; no monetary penalties were assessed.22SEC. SEC Press Release 2002-109 In December 2013, the CFPB and Department of Justice filed a joint complaint alleging that National City Bank, a PNC subsidiary acquired during the 2008 financial crisis, charged higher prices on mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic borrowers. That action has since been terminated.23CFPB. CFPB and DOJ v. National City Bank