The Capital One class action lawsuit is ongoing in 2025, with more claimants filing claims.
In 2025, Capital One, one of the largest banks in the United States, found itself embroiled in multiple high-profile legal disputes that have drawn intense scrutiny from regulators, customers, and state authorities. The most prominent among these has been a major class action lawsuit tied to the bank’s 360 Savings accounts, which has highlighted concerns about deceptive marketing and alleged losses suffered by millions of account holders.
The 360 Savings Account Controversy
The core of the most significant litigation against Capital One this year stems from how the bank marketed and managed its 360 Savings accounts. Plaintiffs in the case allege that Capital One misled consumers by promoting the 360 Savings account as a high-interest savings product, while in reality allowing its interest rates to remain far below competing products and inconsistent with customer expectations.
The central contention has been that when Capital One introduced the 360 Performance Savings account — a product with materially higher interest rates — it failed to notify or adequately inform existing holders of the legacy 360 Savings accounts about the superior rates available elsewhere. Account holders say this lack of transparency meant that they continued to earn minimal yields at a time when wider market conditions meant stronger rates were available.
• Alleged deceptive marketing practices by Capital One
• Wide gap between interest rates on older and newer savings products
• Millions of consumers affected nationwide
This class action has arguably become the defining litigation issue for the company in 2025, and its outcome may have ripple effects on how banks communicate products and interest policy to customers in the future.
Proposed $425 Million Settlement and Legal Pushback
Responding to the class action, Capital One agreed to a proposed $425 million settlement earlier in the year. That figure was intended to cover restitution to affected account holders, including a combination of cash payments and higher interest compensations for those who retain their accounts under new terms.
Under the terms proponents put forward, the settlement would see:
• A cash fund for compensation tied to historical account balances
• An additional pool to provide higher interest rates moving forward
• Automatic eligibility for many 360 Savings account holders
However, the deal quickly ran into resistance and legal hurdles. In the autumn of 2025, a federal judge rejected the settlement, finding that it was inadequate to truly compensate consumers for potential losses. The judge ruled that the payout would amount to only a fraction of what consumers might have earned had they been properly informed about higher-yield options. The court also criticised how the bank’s notices about account options were presented, likening them to marketing communications rather than clear disclosures about consumer choice.
• Judge ruled proposed settlement too small
• Criticism of notice communications to consumers
• Settlement talks ordered to resume
Because the proposed resolution was struck down, the class action will likely continue toward trial unless a more robust settlement is agreed upon before mid-2026.
States Weigh In: Opposition from Attorneys General
Adding to the complexity of the dispute, a coalition of attorneys general from 18 states filed briefs urging the court to reject the settlement as insufficient. State officials argued that the proposed payout did not adequately address what they described as billions of dollars in lost interest earnings and that the deal would allow the bank to escape full accountability.
This level of multi-state opposition is unusual in consumer class actions and underscores the degree of concern about how millions of ordinary savers may have been treated. State attorneys general have demanded a settlement that not only provides better restitution but also delivers stronger assurances about future disclosures and transparency.
• Bipartisan state opposition to settlement
• Calls for greater compensation for consumers
• Potential implications for future bank practices
Their involvement has helped frame the legal battle as not just a dispute between individuals and a large corporation, but a broader issue of consumer rights and financial fairness.
New Lawsuits and Broader Litigation Landscape
The 360 Savings class action is not the only legal challenge facing Capital One in 2025. Other lawsuits have also emerged, including cases tied to service outages earlier in the year. In one significant class action, plaintiffs allege that a widespread three-day technical outage in January left thousands of customers without access to their funds, disrupting payments, deposits, and account access. This lawsuit claims breach of contract and seeks damages on behalf of affected account holders.
Separately, Capital One has been accused in another legal filing of improperly sharing website visitors’ private data with third-party advertisers, raising concerns about digital privacy, transparency, and consent. These allegations, if proven, could expose the bank to further liability under both state and federal privacy laws.
• Service outage class action alleges breach of contract
• Data sharing lawsuit highlights privacy concerns
In addition to defending against lawsuits, Capital One has also taken its own legal action, including a suit filed against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) over special assessment fees the bank says were miscalculated. These countersuits show that 2025 has been a year of legal complexity from multiple directions, not just consumer-side claims.
Customer Impact and What Lies Ahead
For millions of Capital One customers, the ongoing litigation has direct consequences. Many hold 360 Savings accounts or were once account holders. As the legal battle unfolds, those eligible may eventually receive compensation, but the timing and amount depend on whether future settlements are negotiated or the case goes to trial.
Some key issues on the table include:
• How much customers may be owed in lost interest earnings
• Whether broader reforms in disclosure practices will be mandated
• The timeline for a potential trial or renegotiated settlement
Uncertainty remains high as both the bank and legal representatives prepare for what could be extended litigation into 2026. The case serves as a reminder of the potential consequences for financial institutions when product marketing and customer outcomes diverge.
• Settlement negotiations ordered to resume
• Possible trial scheduled for 2026
• Consumer restitution remains unresolved
