Marketing Missteps and Ongoing Negotiations
Novak also faulted Capital One’s misleading customer communication, stating that the bank’s emails promoting account conversions “read like a marketing pitch” rather than a genuine opportunity to shift into better-rate accounts. The notice provided as part of the settlement “failed to cure these obvious deficiencies,” he added.
The judge ordered both parties to resume negotiations to create a revised settlement that delivers meaningful compensation.
Wider Implications for Banking Transparency
The case, originally announced in May, has become a flashpoint for consumer banking practices, with regulators and consumer advocates calling it a warning shot to major financial institutions.
The lawsuit alleged Capital One withheld millions in earned interest by keeping customers in outdated, low-interest accounts even as it promoted newer, higher-yield options.
Counsel for the customers includes Matthew B. Kaplan of The Kaplan Law Firm and attorneys from Wolf Popper LLP, while Capital One is represented by lawyers from King & Spalding LLP and McGuireWoods LLP.
Neither Capital One nor the New York attorney general’s office immediately responded to requests for comment Thursday evening.
As Judge Novak’s order makes clear, the “capital one 425m settlement” may be far from settled, and a new chapter of consumer restitution may be on the horizon—one that forces banks to pay not just in dollars, but in accountability.
