Capital One is one of the biggest banks in the United States with millions of customers. If you’re experiencing issues with Capital One, you’re not alone and may be able to receive compensation. There are several current lawsuits and claims filed against Capital One already.
If you’re looking to resolve your grievance against Capital One, keep reading.
It’s likely your Capital One Bank contract says you can’t sue Capital One in any court except Small Claims Court, thanks to an arbitration clause.
Because suing through Small Claims Court can be time-consuming and complicated, we suggest consumer arbitration as a better solution.
Class action lawsuits are designed to bring together a group of individuals with the same complaint.
If your Capital One contract does not have an arbitration clause, then you are eligible to join a class action lawsuit.
However, if you see an arbitration clause in your contract, you may not be able to file or join an existing class action lawsuit.
One option you have is to sue Capital One in Small Claims Court. If your claim qualifies for Small Claims Court, you will be asked to attend a court hearing and pay legal fees to make your case.
Or, you can do everything from your home. Consumer Arbitration is the process laid out by Capital One contracts in place of a lawsuit. It lets you argue your case before an independent arbitrator (like a judge) who can force them to fix the problem and to compensate you. We at Radvocate help make this process easy and convenient.
Capital One Litigation Over Data Breach
As you may have seen in our previous Capital One article covering recent cases, Capital One faced a data breach earlier in 2019 that has affected over 100 million people in the US. While it will take some time before you see any Capital One class action settlement claim forms in this lawsuit, you should keep an eye open for a class to be certified by the court. The good news is that a few lawsuits relating to the data breach have already been filed. This story from Digital Trends outlines one of those lawsuits:
The Miami-based law firm Colson Hicks Eidson filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday against Capital One Financial Corporation “for negligence in failing to safeguard consumers’ personal information” in the recent data breach that impacted 100 million consumers. It’s not clear what will come with the lawsuit down the line, but a massive settlement could be seen as a significant deterrent against companies that don’t do enough to safeguard personal data. And it could net you a couple of bucks — if you were affected.
“Capital One was reckless and completely disregarded the rights of consumers by failing to implement and maintain adequate data security measures and therefore exposed information to criminals for misuse,” said Lewis S. Mike Eidson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “Through this lawsuit, we hope to prevent a re-occurrence of a similar data breach, which has caused tremendous grief and compromised the financial standing and credit scores for so many.”
If you missed the story of the breach, the short version is that thanks to a faulty firewall, a hacker was able to gain access to the bank’s cloud repository in March of 2019. That hacker collected the personal information from roughly 100 million Capital One customers’ credit card applications, authorities said. The hacker then allegedly posted information about the breach their GitHub account in the middle of April, making it potentially available to others who could use it in nefarious ways.
Capital One Class Action Lawsuit by Consumers After Debt Discharged in Bankruptcy
In a now closed settlement, Capital One has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit with consumers that violated the terms of their debt discharged after bankruptcy. This story from Top Class Actions outlines the case:
Capital One has agreed to pay $10.5 million to resolve claims that they violated the terms of bankruptcy discharges in relation to consumer credit card accounts.
The settlement benefits consumers who had a Capital One credit card account, whose debt related to that account was charged off and sold to a debt buyer after Jan. 1, 2008, and who (after the debt sale) had their debt discharged as part of their bankruptcy through March 22, 2016.
Plaintiff Orrin Anderson filed a lawsuit against Capital One in bankruptcy court in July 2015, claiming that the lender failed to comply with the term of his bankruptcy discharge.
Anderson alleged that Capital One failed to update relevant credit information on sold accounts and provide that information to credit reporting agencies after the accounts were discharged in bankruptcy.
OCC Enforcement Action Against Capital One for Anti-Money Laundering Procedures
According to Reuters, in 2018 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Capital One for violating a 2015 consent order by failing to enforce controls against money laundering:
Capital One failed to satisfy a 2015 consent order that demanded the bank improve its anti-money laundering policies, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said in a statement.
“The Bank failed to timely achieve compliance with the 2015 Consent Order,” the OCC said in a new consent order that outlined the fine.
“The consent order emanates primarily from prior banking relationships with certain check cashing service providers – a business we made the decision to exit in 2014,” the bank said in a statement.
“Since that time, we have worked diligently with our bank regulators to strengthen our processes and internal controls to ensure we address any concerns regarding our … compliance processes.”
CFPB Enforcement Action Against Capital One for Deceptive Sales Tactics
In 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined Capital One for deceptive sales and marketing practices. Their call centers would sell add-on products that consumers believed worked differently. This New York Times story outlines the enforcement action:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Wednesday hit Capital One with findings that a vendor working for the bank had pressured and deceived card holders into buying products presented as a way to protect them from identity theft and hardships like unemployment or disability.
Under the deal with regulators, Capital One must temporarily halt the marketing of certain add-on products and submit to an independent audit. The bank said it thought the refunds, which victims are to begin receiving later this year, would average less than $100 a person.
In a 30-page order, the consumer bureau outlined how call centers for the bank marketed and sold the products to ineligible unemployed consumers and forced the products without the consumer’s consent. In other cases, according to the bureau, the bank employed “high pressure tactics,” including misleading customers into thinking the product was free, mandatory and would bolster credit scores.
See our other Capital One article discussing other Capital One Lawsuits here.
Even if you aren’t able to cash in on these listed lawsuits, your complaint may fit arbitration with Capital One. We may be able to help you file a claim and get compensated – learn more here.
Best of the Best. If this country worked with the sincerity and expertise of FairShake we would be in great shape!Allie, Real FairShake customer
They got more done in a few weeks than I did in over two years.John, Real FairShake customer
I can’t say enough good about this company! They are really a light for us in a very hard time.Mark, Real FairShake customer
Thank you FairShake for representing the little people screwed over by corporations.Amanda, Real FairShake customer
I was having problems with the company for months. That you could make my problem resolved in a few days is wonderful.Marisol, Real FairShake customer
It's not right what Big Business can get away with if we let them. People need to know someone is out there to help!Virgil, Real FairShake customer