Bank of America has been sued repeatedly over its handling of Paycheck Protection Program loans, and the Bank of America PPP lawsuit landscape now includes cases about who was allowed to apply, how applications were prioritized, whether independent-contractor payments were properly explained, whether agents got paid, and how forgiveness was handled. Most of those cases have ended in dismissal, arbitration, or settlement. The one still moving is March et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., a proposed class settlement in Kansas federal court that received preliminary approval in August 2025.
The March Class Action Settlement in Kansas
The most consequential active matter is March et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. 2:23-cv-02360-EFM-TJJ) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.1PPP Settlement. March et al. v. Bank of America PPP Settlement On August 21, 2025, Chief District Judge Eric F. Melgren granted preliminary approval.2PACER Monitor. March et al v. Bank of America NA, Order Granting Preliminary Approval
The settlement site does not publish a total fund figure. Instead, each eligible class member received a mailed notice with an Adjustment Form showing an estimated individual payment and the data used to calculate it. Class members who take no action automatically become participating members eligible for that payment, and in exchange release covered claims against the bank.1PPP Settlement. March et al. v. Bank of America PPP Settlement
Key dates and procedures:
- Opt-out, objection, and dispute deadline: November 10, 2025. Class members who believed their estimated payment was incorrect had to submit an Adjustment Form with supporting documentation by this date.
- Final approval hearing: December 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 440 of the Kansas City, Kansas Federal Courthouse.
- Claims administrator: Analytics Consulting LLC.
The claims administrator holds “sole and final, non-reviewable, discretion” over disputes about individual payment calculations. As of the most recent information available on the official settlement site, the court had not issued a final approval order, so distributions had not begun. The status of the December 2025 hearing is not confirmed in the available record.1PPP Settlement. March et al. v. Bank of America PPP Settlement
Lockout Claims: Profiles, Inc. v. Bank of America
The first PPP suit against the bank came almost immediately. On April 3, 2020, Profiles, Inc., a Maryland public relations firm, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging the bank’s online portal blocked it from applying because it lacked a pre-existing “lending relationship” such as a business loan, line of credit, or credit card. Profiles had a depository account, and the bank treated that as disqualifying.3Jones Walker LLP. Profiles Inc. v. Bank of America Class Action Complaint
On April 13, 2020, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher denied the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court found the plaintiffs had not shown that the CARES Act creates an implied private right of action, and that neither the statute nor the SBA’s Interim Final Rule expressly bars lenders from applying their own internal criteria to PPP applications.4Casemine. Profiles Inc. v. Bank of America, Civil Case No. SAG-20-0894 Bank of America had already loosened its policy on April 4, 2020, allowing depository-only clients to apply, though it still excluded businesses with borrowing relationships at other banks. With the injunction denied, the case lost much of its urgency. Similar eligibility-restriction claims were filed against other large lenders during the same period.5Expert Institute. Paycheck Protection Program Class Action Litigation Guide
Fee-Driven Prioritization Claims
In April 2020, a second wave of class actions in California federal court accused Bank of America and three other large banks of quietly reordering their PPP queues. Plaintiffs alleged the banks publicly promised first-come, first-served processing but actually pushed larger loan requests to the front because bigger loans generated bigger fees.6Banking Dive. Lawsuit Accuses JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, BofA, US Bank of Prioritizing Larger PPP Loans
The fee schedule at the center of the claims paid lenders 5% on loans up to $350,000, 3% on loans between $350,000 and $2 million, and 1% on loans between $2 million and $10 million. A single $10 million loan generated a $100,000 fee; a $350,000 loan generated $17,500. Plaintiffs argued that gap gave banks a strong reason to prioritize the largest applications while the initial $349 billion funding pool drained.7Bloomberg Law. Banks Fast-Tracked Large PPP Loans to Max Out Fees, Suits Allege
The California complaints named JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and U.S. Bank alongside Bank of America in separate class actions asserting violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, each alleging harm exceeding $5 million. All four banks denied the allegations. Bank of America’s response was brief: “We deny the allegations.” JPMorgan said it “did not prioritize clients” and aimed to “serve as many clients as possible.”6Banking Dive. Lawsuit Accuses JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, BofA, US Bank of Prioritizing Larger PPP Loans
1099-Worker Forgiveness Claims
A third line of cases targeted how Bank of America handled forgiveness for businesses that paid independent contractors. In February 2023, three California small businesses — Happy Puppy LA, Brandamize, and Aurora Environmental Services — filed a class action in the Central District of California.8Banking Dive. Bank of America Misled PPP Borrowers, Lawsuit Alleges The complaint alleged the bank marketed PPP loans to businesses paying 1099 workers without disclosing that those contractors could apply for their own PPP funds, and that the SBA would not treat payments to 1099 workers as forgivable payroll expenses on the borrower’s loan. Plaintiffs also claimed the bank encouraged them to apply for loan amounts larger than what would be forgiven, boosting the bank’s origination fees.
Bank of America responded that it was “borrowers’ responsibility to follow SBA rules regarding loan amount eligibility” and that it processed loans based on the representations in each application.8Banking Dive. Bank of America Misled PPP Borrowers, Lawsuit Alleges On April 11, 2024, Judge Josephine L. Staton dismissed Happy Puppy LA, Inc. v. Bank of America (No. 2:23-cv-01354) after a joint stipulation. The named plaintiffs’ individual claims were dismissed with prejudice following a settlement of those claims; the class allegations were dismissed without prejudice because no class had been certified. Each side bore its own costs.9PACER Monitor. Happy Puppy LA Inc. et al v. Bank of America NA
Arbitration Has Blocked Parallel 1099 Cases
A separate set of 1099-worker cases has run into the arbitration clause in Bank of America’s standard deposit agreements. In Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, six small businesses brought similar forgiveness claims in Maryland federal court. On August 22, 2023, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby granted the bank’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the deposit agreements contained a valid delegation clause requiring an arbitrator, not the court, to decide whether the arbitration provision covered the dispute.10Justia. Modern Perfection LLC et al v. Bank of America NA, No. 1:2022cv02103
On January 13, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The panel held the deposit agreements clearly delegated all disputes, including questions about the scope of arbitration, to an arbitrator. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not raised a viable argument under the Supreme Court’s Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski framework in their opening briefs and had never asked the district court to stay the case pending arbitration rather than dismiss it.11ABA Banking Journal. Fourth Circuit Upholds Arbitration in PPP Loan Lawsuit Against BofA
That decision has been followed elsewhere. In November 2025, a Southern District of Florida judge cited Modern Perfection as “particularly instructive” when compelling arbitration in Blue Line Investigative Solutions LLC v. Bank of America, noting that every court to interpret the provision had ruled the same way.12FindLaw. Blue Line Investigative Solutions LLC v. Bank of America NA, No. 0:25-cv-61110 For borrowers relying on that deposit agreement, the arbitration clause is now a significant barrier to class litigation.
Agent Fee Lawsuits
A different set of suits was filed by the accountants, attorneys, and consultants who helped small businesses prepare PPP applications. SBA regulations describe those professionals as “agents” entitled to be paid by the lender out of the SBA processing fee. The lead case on this theory, brought by Alliant CPA Group against Bank of America and more than a dozen other banks, alleged the lenders either refused to pay or made it impossible for applicants to indicate on SBA forms that an agent had assisted them.13Heninger Garrison Davis LLC. PPP Agent Fees Class Action
The theory took an early hit in Florida. In August 2020, Judge T. Kent Wetherell dismissed Sport & Wheat CPA v. Servisfirst Bank, finding that neither the CARES Act nor the PPP regulations require lenders to pay agent fees without an executed SBA Form 159, the compensation agreement signed by lender, borrower, and agent. Because the plaintiff never completed that form, there was no enforceable obligation. Claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract were also rejected.14ClassAction.org. Bank of America NA Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements Roughly 60 similar suits were filed nationwide, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to consolidate them. The Alliant CPA case against Bank of America and other banks has since settled, with financial terms not publicly detailed.13Heninger Garrison Davis LLC. PPP Agent Fees Class Action
Government Enforcement Runs on a Separate Track
Private class actions are only part of the picture. The SBA’s Office of Inspector General reported in April 2025 that the agency had forgiven over 10.5 million PPP loans totaling more than $750 billion. Of those, 37,938 loans worth roughly $4.6 billion were later flagged as potentially ineligible under a status the SBA calls “hold code 70.” The agency acknowledged it had only partially completed its review and agreed to develop formal criteria for recovering improper payments.15SBA. SBA’s Actions to Address Forgiven PPP Loans Subsequently Flagged as Potentially Ineligible The Department of Justice separately retains authority to bring False Claims Act cases against lenders and borrowers who knowingly submitted false information to obtain PPP funds.16Jones Walker LLP. PPP Bank Litigation Tracker Bank of America customers who received a notice in the March settlement should focus on that case’s deadlines; those with claims tied to their deposit agreements should expect arbitration rather than court.