Company: FITBI
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000035527-25-000212
Chunk: 161

Company: FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 161
---
 order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a settlement that would resolve class claims for injunctive relief. On June 13, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the injunctive relief settlement, and on June 25, 2024, the Court issued an order denying the request for preliminary approval of the settlement. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Refer to Note 13 for further information.Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third BankOn August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. In 2013, four similar putative class action lawsuits were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country. Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In 

102

Table of ContentsFifth Third Bancorp and SubsidiariesNotes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)

re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgement on plaintiffs’ TILA claim, with statutory damages capped at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial and on April 27, 2023 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim. On September 30, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying post-trial motions related to the jury verdict. On October 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a