In Re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that since September 18, 2019, Capital One offered two similarly branded products: an original 360 Savings account and a newly introduced 360 Performance Savings account. Plaintiffs purported that while both accounts were marketed as high-interest options, Capital One quietly replaced promotion of the original with the latter—offering significantly higher rates (peaking at approximately 4.35% APY)—and did not inform existing 360 Savings holders of the better alternative. Instead, legacy account holders allegedly remained stuck at much lower rates (as low as 0.30%) despite rising market rates. This discrepancy, plaintiffs claimed, violated state consumer protection laws and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

The suit, assigned to Judge David J. Novak in the Eastern District of Virginia under the MDL case No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN, consolidated claims from multiple states. Plaintiffs contended that Capital One misled accountholders by concealing the existence of the higher-yield account and freezing interest on older accounts, effectively denying customers money they were entitled to. Capital One responded by denying wrongdoing and moved to dismiss certain claims; Judge Novak partially granted the motion, dismissing some state-based claims (e.g., under Ohio law) as well as unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims.

On May 16, 2025, the parties agreed to a $425 million settlement, pending court approval. 

The Bureau was retained by Wolf Popper, counsel for the plaintiffs to opine on whether a reasonable consumer from the class would readily appreciate the difference between the two savings accounts, and specifically understanding that the two interest rates were distinct and different. Members of The Bureau evaluated the quality of Capital One’s disclosures by conducting salience analysis and performing empirical studies of Capital One customers to address this question.