Capital One cheated customers out of millions from ‘high interest’ savings accounts: NY lawsuit

New York Post - May 14th, 2025

New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a lawsuit against Capital One, accusing the bank of misleading customers with its 'high interest' 360 Savings accounts. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, claims that Capital One promised competitive interest rates but kept many depositors locked at a low rate of 0.30%, while newer accounts offered rates as high as 4.35%. The complaint alleges that Capital One failed to inform existing customers about the opportunity to switch to higher interest accounts and instructed employees to remain silent unless asked. The lawsuit seeks civil fines and restitution for affected customers, accusing Capital One of violating New York's consumer protection laws. Capital One has not yet responded to the allegations.

The lawsuit's context highlights a broader concern over consumer rights and corporate transparency. Notably, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had pursued a similar case against the bank but withdrew it after a change in leadership. This legal action comes amid Capital One's impending $35.3 billion acquisition of Discover Financial Services, adding another layer of complexity to the bank's operations and public perception. The case underscores the importance of accountability in the financial sector, particularly in how financial institutions communicate with and serve their customers. The outcome could set a precedent for future consumer protection litigation in the banking industry.

Interest Rates Lawsuit Letitia James Capital One Financial Services Consumer Protection

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively reports on a significant legal action against Capital One, highlighting allegations of unfair financial practices that could impact millions of consumers. It scores highly in timeliness and public interest, given the relevance of the lawsuit and its potential implications for consumer rights and corporate accountability. The article is clear and generally accurate, though it would benefit from additional perspectives, particularly from Capital One and independent analysts, to provide a more balanced view. Transparency regarding the methodology behind the allegations and the article's sourcing could be improved to enhance credibility. Overall, the story is engaging and has the potential to influence public opinion and spark discussions about financial ethics and consumer protection.

Accuracy

The story is largely accurate in its portrayal of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James against Capital One. The main claims, such as the freezing of interest rates at 0.30% for 360 Savings account holders and the introduction of the higher-yielding 360 Performance Savings accounts, are consistent with the lawsuit details. However, the article mentions a previously filed lawsuit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was dropped, and this detail aligns with the reported legal events. The mention of Capital One's planned acquisition of Discover Financial Services also requires verification for accuracy, as it is a significant financial development. The story could improve by providing more specific data or statements from Capital One to verify claims about their practices.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the New York Attorney General's office, detailing the allegations against Capital One. While it highlights the accusations and the legal basis for the lawsuit, it lacks a response or comment from Capital One, which would provide a more balanced perspective. The absence of Capital One's side, whether due to their unavailability for comment or omission, results in a slightly one-sided narrative. Including Capital One's defense or explanation would enhance the article's balance by presenting both sides of the legal dispute.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and straightforward in its presentation of the facts and allegations. It provides a logical flow of information, starting with the lawsuit's filing and then detailing the specific claims against Capital One. The language is neutral and accessible, making the article easy to understand for readers without specialized knowledge of financial or legal matters. However, the inclusion of more context about the broader implications of the lawsuit could improve comprehension.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the statements and actions of the New York Attorney General, a credible source given her authoritative position. However, the lack of direct quotes from Capital One or independent financial analysts limits the diversity of sources. The article would benefit from additional viewpoints, such as comments from affected customers, experts in financial consumer protection, or legal analysts, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of the lawsuit.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the source of its primary information, namely the lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General. However, it does not disclose the methodology behind the allegations, such as how the interest rate discrepancies were calculated or the number of affected customers. Additionally, the article could clarify whether it attempted to contact Capital One for comment and whether any conflicts of interest might affect the reporting. Greater transparency in these areas would enhance the article's credibility.