All About Chase Bank Lawsuits:

Learn what these legal actions could mean for you.

J.P. Morgan is in so many businesses it can be hard to keep track.

The financial conglomerate is an investment bank, but its Chase unit is also one of the country’s largest retail banks. And one of the most popular credit card issuers.

Like most big banks, J.P. Morgan Chase has been the target of its share of legal actions. And as a customer, some of them might be relevant to your own issues.

If you have a complaint against Chase, here are some things to know about Chase and lawsuits:

1

ARE LAWSUITS ALLOWED AGAINST J.P. MORGAN CHASE?

It’s likely your Chase Bank contract says you can’t sue Chase 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.

2

WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? CAN I FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CHASE?

Class action lawsuits are designed to bring together a group of individuals with the same complaint.

However, if you see an arbitration clause in your contract, you may not be able to file or join an existing class action lawsuit.

Sometimes you’ll see lawsuits against banks that are brought by government agencies or other financial institutions, which unfortunately may have more options than the average consumer.

3

AS A CHASE CUSTOMER, WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS FOR A LAWSUIT?

One option you have is to sue Chase 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 Chase 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 FairShake help make this process easy and convenient.

4

TOP 5 CHASE BANK LAWSUITS:

JP Morgan Chase Accused of not Processing Paycheck Protection Program Loans on a First-Come Basis

In April 2020, JP Morgan Chase bank was accused of choosing to process larger loan applications for the US government’s Paycheck Protection Program before loans for smaller dollar amounts.

The lawsuit alleges that Chase deprioritized the smaller loans instead of reviewing them on a first-come, first-served basis, according to USA Today:

“Two companies in California filed a class-action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase bank alleging unfair business practices toward some small businesses that applied for coronavirus-related loans under the government’s Paycheck Protection Program.”

JP Morgan Chase Lawsuit on Selling Customer Info

JP Morgan Chase and rival Bank of America were sued in a class action lawsuit last year per Consumer Affairs, after illegally selling the information of their customers who signed up for credit cards:

Hand-wringing is the exercise du jour at Bank of America (BOA) and JPMorgan Chase thanks to a group of bank customers filing a class action lawsuit which claims the two banking giants sold the personal information customers gave as a part of acquiring a credit card.

And, as most consumers know, when you jump through the hoops of a credit card application, there’s virtually no personal data that’s kept out of the loop. Names, addresses, Social Security numbers, addresses, credit history, and bank accounts all come into play.

The capper on the banks’ personal data practice in this situation is that the credit card holders have to continue to provide this information to the financial institutions as long as they use their credit cards, according to the lawsuit.

[…]

And, in an ironic twist of misuse of consumer data, JPMorgan Chase was fined $4.6 million in 2017 for not guaranteeing accuracy of consumer information. 

JP Morgan Chase Lawsuit based on Overcharging Military

Problems with JP Morgan Chase have been around for a while, as seen in this 2011 article by the Federal Title & Escrow Company. The bank was held responsible for purposefully and wrongly overcharging military members on their mortgages:

Earlier this year, JPMorgan Chase admitted to improperly overcharging thousands of military service members on their mortgages and foreclosing on their homes. As the result of a class-action lawsuit filed in a federal court in Beaufort, South Carolina, JPMorgan has agreed to pay $56 million to settle those claims.

 The pending settlement includes the following terms:

A total of $27 million will be paid to approximately 6,000 active-duty service members who were overcharged on their mortgages, and will also be used to lower interest rates on their mortgages and to return homes that were improperly foreclosed on.

Approximately $6 million in payments have already been made to service members who were overcharged on their mortgages.

Approximately $6.4 million will be paid to service members who may have undergone ‘wrongful foreclosure practices.

[…]

JP Morgan Chase Lawsuit Due to Racial Discrimination

The Chicago Tribune details this recent story of a JP Morgan Chase settlement on a lawsuit from black financial advisors, who said they were discriminated against by the company:

As racial diversity tumbles on Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase has reached a settlement with financial advisers who say they were treated poorly because they’re black.

Six current and former employees at the largest U.S. bank filed what they asked to be a class action, alleging discrimination that’s “uniform and national in scope.” Instead of fighting it in court, the bank agreed to pay $19.5 million to the members of the class, according to Friday filings. It will also put $4.5 million into a fund that will back recruitment, bias training, a review of branch assignments and a coaching program for black advisers.

[…]

The lawsuit accuses JPMorgan of sending white advisers to wealthier places while assigning black colleagues to less lucrative branches and denying them opportunities. They had few licensed bankers to support them, were mostly kept out of a program for richer clients and got paid less, the suit says.

JP Morgan Chase Lawsuit over Parental Leave Dispute

From The Washington Post, here is another class-action settlement from JP Morgan Chase, after the company refused to provide the same amount of parental leave to fathers earlier this year:

Before the birth of his second son, Derek Rotondo decided he wanted to spend more time at home — to bond with the newborn and to more evenly split up the caregiving with his wife.

 The Ohio father asked his employer, JPMorgan Chase, for the paid parental leave the company offered to primary caregivers. But he was told that in most cases, only mothers would be eligible for the full 16 weeks, Rotondo said. Unless he could prove that his wife had returned to work or was medically incapable of caring for the baby, Rotondo would be eligible for only two weeks of paid leave.

 In response, Rotondo filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission two years ago, claiming the company’s paid-leave policy discriminated against men.

On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase said it agreed to pay $5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Rotondo and other male employees who contend they were denied access to the same paid parental leave as mothers between 2011 and 2017.

JP Morgan Chase Lawsuit on Cryptocurrency Overcharging

This proposed class action against JP Morgan Chase was filed last year, as per CoinDesk. It details the bank’s wrongdoing in overcharging their customers’ accounts when those customers purchased cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin):

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase, alleging that the bank overcharged its credit card customers when they used funds to purchase cryptocurrencies.

Brady Tucker, the plaintiff named in the April 10 complaint, said that Chase Bank incorrectly charged him $143.30 in fees and $20.61 in interest stemming from purchases made using his Chase card in January and February.

[…]

According to the complaint, prior to pulling the plug on all purchases, the bank began treating such expenditures as “cash advances” in January, but did so “unbeknownst to Chase’s cardholders.” Attorneys for the plaintiff alleged that Chase Bank violated the Truth in Lending Act by not disclosing the policy shift.





Best of the Best. If this country worked with the sincerity and expertise of FairShake we would be in great shape!

Stocksy_txpd2fb379aCMc200_Medium_1013152 Allie, real FairShake customer

They got more done in a few weeks than I did in over two years.

jonas-kakaroto-KIPqvvTOC1s-unsplash 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 Mark, real FairShake customer

Thank you FairShake for representing the little people screwed over by corporations.

Stocksy_txpd2fb379aCMc200_Medium_1016567 Amanda, real FairShake customer

I was having problems with the company for months. That you could make it resolved in a few days is wonderful.

eye-for-ebony-nOHn3pIyPaw-unsplash 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!

Stocksy_txpd2fb379aCMc200_Medium_670432 Virgil, real FairShake customer

FairShake helps put the power and money back in your hands

Take Action