Editing Fifth Third Bank (section)

==Lawsuits==
In September 2015, the US Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced an $18 million settlement to resolve allegations that Fifth Third Bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African{{En dash}}American and Hispanic borrowers in its indirect auto lending business.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-reach-settlement-resolve |title=Justice Department and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Reach Settlement to Resolve Allegations of Auto Lending Discrimination by Fifth Third Bank | work=[[United States Department of Justice]] | date=September 28, 2015}}</ref>

In December 2016, small business owners sued Fifth Third, along with Vantiv and National Processing Company, for violating telemarketing laws. On August 4, 2022, a $50 million settlement was finalized.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/630039661-judge-finalizes-50m-settlement-with-fifth-third-vantiv-over-recorded-telemarketing-calls| title=Judge finalizes $50M settlement with Fifth Third, Vantiv over recorded telemarketing calls | first=Scott | last=Holland | work=Cook County Record | date=August 10, 2022}}</ref>

On March 9, 2020, the [[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]] (CFPB) charged Fifth Third with illegal cross-selling; the suit was resolved in 2024 with the bank paying $20 million and taking remedial actions.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-fifth-third-for-wrongfully-triggering-auto-repossessions-and-opening-fake-bank-accounts/ |title=CFPB Takes Action Against Fifth Third for Wrongfully Triggering Auto Repossessions and Opening Fake Bank Accounts |website=[[Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]] | date=July 9, 2024}}</ref> A class action suit was filed on behalf of former MB Financial shareholders, alleging that the cross-selling strategy artificially inflated Fifth Third's stock price and thus MB Financial's shareholders were not honestly compensated when the purchase occurred. The case was settled on September 14, 2023, with Fifth Third paying former MB Financial shareholders $5.5 million.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.labaton.com/fox-v-fifth-third-bancorp |access-date=March 1, 2024 |title=Fox v. Fifth Third Bancorp}}</ref>

On April 27, 2023, a jury sided with Fifth Third in a lawsuit filed by customers of its Early Access loan program. The program charged a 10% flat fee. While Fifth Third listed an APR estimate of 120%, the actual APR would be higher if the loan was paid off early due to the fee structure. While the jury agreed Fifth Third breached its loan agreement, it also agreed that customers were fully aware of the fee and thus were not awarded any damages.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/federal-jury-awards-zero-damages-in-fifth-third-loan-case |title=Federal jury awards zero damages in Fifth Third loan case | first=Dan | last=Monk | work=WCPO | date=April 28, 2023 }}</ref>

On March 8, 2024, the Minnesota Attorney General filed suit against Fifth Third subsidiary Dividend Finance and three other lending companies ([[GoodLeap]], Sunlight Financial, and [[Mosaic Inc.|Solar Mosaic]]), following an investigation that uncovered they charged Minnesotans $35 million in hidden fees on nearly 5,000 loans to finance sales of residential solar panels. The lawsuit alleges the lenders violated Minnesota state laws against deceptive trade practices, deceptive lending, and illegally high rates of interest.<ref>{{cite press release |title=Attorney General Ellison sues solar lenders over $35M in deceptive hidden fees |publisher=Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota |date=March 8, 2024 |url=https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/03/08_SolarLending.asp |access-date=May 27, 2024 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240520083259/www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/03/08_SolarLending.asp |archive-date=20 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/docs/SolarLending_Complaint.pdf |title=Minnesota v. GoodLeap LLC, Sunlight Financial LLC, Solar Mosaic LLC, and Dividend Solar Finance LLC |author=Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota |date=5 April 2024 |access-date=27 May 2024 |publisher=US District Court for the District of Minnesota |url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240527081147/https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2024/docs/SolarLending_Complaint.pdf| archive-date=27 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Weaver| first=John Fitzgerald |url=https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/04/26/minnesota-sues-goodleap-sunlight-mosaic-and-dividend-over-dealer-fees/ |title=Minnesota sues GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic and Dividend over dealer fees |publisher=PV Magazine |date=26 April 2024 |access-date=27 May 2024 |url-status=live| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240430093355/https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/04/26/minnesota-sues-goodleap-sunlight-mosaic-and-dividend-over-dealer-fees/ |archive-date=30 April 2024}}</ref>