Comerica Bank has been named in a wide range of lawsuits over the past several years, spanning a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement action over its Direct Express prepaid card program, class actions from cardholders, shareholder suits tied to its February 2026 sale to Fifth Third Bancorp, a $30 million employment discrimination case challenging its diversity programs, and older matters including a $54.5 million Ponzi-scheme settlement and a federal banking enforcement action. Some are closed, some settled, and several remain active.
CFPB Lawsuit Over the Direct Express Program
The largest federal case came on December 6, 2024, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Comerica in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The bureau accused the bank of failing disabled and older Americans who received federal benefits through Direct Express, a prepaid card program Comerica had run under a Treasury contract since 2008 and that served roughly 3.4 to 4.5 million people without traditional bank accounts.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB v. Comerica Bank Enforcement Action2Banking Dive. BNY Treasury Direct Express Program Comerica
The complaint alleged a third-party vendor used a “Heavy Queue” function to disconnect nearly 25 million customer service calls between April 2019 and June 2023, and that cardholders who did get through sometimes waited 2.5 to 7 hours. Because Comerica required fraud reports and stop-payment requests by phone or mail, the bureau said the inaccessible lines effectively blocked cardholders from using their protections under Regulation E, the rule implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB v. Comerica Bank Complaint
The CFPB also alleged Comerica charged more than one million cardholders ATM fees for withdrawals that should have been free, forced cardholders unable to stop unauthorized preauthorized payments to close accounts and pay a $4.00 replacement card fee plus $13.50 for expedited shipping, failed to investigate more than 19,900 fraud claims within the required 10-business-day window, and sent vague resolution letters in over 220,000 cases.3Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB v. Comerica Bank Complaint Internal Comerica documents, the bureau said, showed a third-party vendor in Lahore, Pakistan, handled sensitive cardholder data and fraud disputes, which a Comerica executive internally called a “serious contract violation” of the Treasury requirement that services be performed inside the United States or its territories.4American Banker. CFPB Drops Lawsuit Against Comerica Bank Without Prejudice
The CFPB sought a permanent injunction, consumer redress, and civil money penalties. It filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2025, then voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on April 11, 2025, meaning the government technically retains the right to refile. Reporting described the dismissal as part of a broader pullback of Biden-era CFPB enforcement.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB v. Comerica Bank Enforcement Action5Compliance Week. Trump’s CFPB Dismissing Comerica Case Continues to Cut Down Biden-Era Lawsuits
Comerica’s Countersuit Against the CFPB
Comerica sued first. On November 8, 2024, roughly a month before the bureau filed its complaint, the bank went to the same Texas federal court arguing the CFPB’s investigation exceeded its statutory authority. Comerica contended the CFPB was improperly stretching its unfair-practices authority to police customer service issues like hold times, that the Electronic Fund Transfer Act already provided a full framework for fraud disputes, that the bureau’s funding structure was unconstitutional because the Federal Reserve had been operating at a loss since 2022, and that the bank had no “fair notice” of the CFPB’s interpretations. Comerica also argued it “generally acted with the oversight and knowledge or approval of the federal government” in running Direct Express.6Banking Dive. Comerica Sues CFPB Over Costly Prepaid Card Probe7ABA Banking Journal. Comerica Sues CFPB Over Prepaid Card Investigation Both lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed on April 11, 2025.8Bloomberg Law. CFPB, Comerica End Dueling Suits Over Government Benefits Cards
Class Actions From Prepaid Card Users
Cardholders have brought their own cases against Comerica and its vendors, most tied to how fraud disputes were handled.
Almon v. Conduent Business Services
In the Western District of Texas, Almon v. Conduent Business Services, LLC alleged that Comerica and Conduent mishandled Direct Express fraud claims in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. The certified class covered cardholders whose fraud claims were denied between February 12, 2018, and September 28, 2022. A proposed $1.2 million settlement was reached, with final approval set for September 5, 2024.9Direct Express Class Action. Almon v. Conduent Settlement Notice
Chapple v. Comerica Bank
The New York Legal Assistance Group filed Chapple v. Comerica Bank in the Eastern District of New York in September 2021 on behalf of Harriet Chapple, a disabled, elderly Queens resident on Supplemental Security Income. After $966.85 was taken from her Direct Express account through unauthorized ATM withdrawals, the defendants allegedly denied her fraud claim within a week based on nothing more than an account transaction ledger. The complaint alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, breach of contract, and due process failures in the handling of government benefits.10NYLAG. Chapple v. Comerica Bank Complaint
Sparkman v. Comerica (California Way2Go Card)
A separate class action targeted California’s Way2Go Prepaid Mastercard. Paula Sparkman v. Comerica Bank, et al., filed in April 2023 in the Northern District of California, alleged Comerica and Conduent State & Local Solutions violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law by denying disputes over unauthorized transactions based on “conflicting information.”11CA Unauthorized Transactions Settlement. Sparkman v. Comerica Settlement FAQ12ClassAction.org. $1.9M Comerica Bank Settlement Ends Class Action Over Way2Go Disputes13ClassAction.org. Sparkman v. Comerica Settlement Notice
Shareholder Securities Suits
Investors have brought two distinct securities cases.
In 2023, Levi & Korsinsky filed a class action in the Central District of California for investors who bought Comerica stock between February 9, 2021, and May 29, 2023. The complaint alleged Comerica made materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose the scope of its Direct Express problems, including the vendor’s handling of sensitive data in Pakistan and repeated Regulation E failures. The lead plaintiff deadline was October 20, 2023.14Levi & Korsinsky. Comerica Incorporated Class Action Lawsuit15Access Newswire. Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Shareholders of Comerica Class Action
A second shareholder action was announced by Kaskela Law LLC in November 2025. It alleges Comerica’s CEO sought Fifth Third as a “friendly white knight” to secure a post-closing role after an activist investor called for his removal, and that the board used deal protections to block competing bids.16Business Wire. Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action Against Comerica
The HoldCo Challenge to the Fifth Third Merger
The most public deal challenge came from HoldCo Asset Management, which sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery. HoldCo alleged Comerica’s board breached its fiduciary duties by rushing the sale, saying the transaction was negotiated in just 17 days without a special committee, that CEO Curtis Farmer served as lead negotiator while standing to receive post-closing compensation exceeding $29 million, that the $500 million breakup fee was excessive, and that the board had brushed off an earlier takeover approach from another bank.17The Bank Slate. Investor Sues Comerica Claiming Flawed Sale to Fifth Third18Banking Dive. HoldCo Lawsuit Comerica Fifth Third Deal
HoldCo sought a temporary restraining order to stop the merger from closing. Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn denied it on January 23, 2026, finding HoldCo had not shown a “colorable claim” that the deal protections were illegal or inequitable and that the 4.7% termination fee was reasonable. The court noted HoldCo had initially “cheered and took credit for the deal” before attacking it after Comerica and Fifth Third declined to credit the activist in disclosures.19Delaware Court of Chancery. HoldCo Opportunities Fund V v. Angulo Shareholders approved the merger on January 6, 2026; the Federal Reserve signed off on January 13, 2026; and the $12.3 billion all-stock deal closed on February 2, 2026, making Fifth Third the ninth-largest U.S. bank.20Detroit Free Press. Fifth Third Finalizes Purchase of Comerica
The $30 Million DEI Discrimination Suit
On January 28, 2026, James Spilko, a White male Vice President at Comerica, sued the bank in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking more than $30 million in damages. The complaint alleges Comerica’s diversity, equity, and inclusion program used rigid demographic quotas that displaced merit-based hiring and promotion, and that Spilko was denied nearly 30 promotion opportunities over five years despite exemplary performance reviews.21PR Newswire. $30M DEI Lawsuit Alleges Comerica’s Program Violates Law
The complaint describes what it calls “Soviet-style” personnel controls, alleging senior management compensation and performance ratings were tied to hitting demographic targets, that HR used centralized monitoring to place “preferred demographics” in leadership roles, and that job titles and qualifications were adjusted to align with quotas. As evidence, the complaint cites the fact that 100% of Comerica’s business units met their DEI performance goals for multiple consecutive years.21PR Newswire. $30M DEI Lawsuit Alleges Comerica’s Program Violates Law
The case is pending before Judge Linda V. Parker. Instead of moving to dismiss, Comerica moved to stay the case and compel arbitration. Briefing on that motion wrapped in February 2026, and Comerica filed a separate motion to strike the plaintiff’s declaration in March 2026.22PACER Monitor. Spilko v. Comerica Management Co., Inc.
Woodbridge Ponzi Scheme Settlement
In an earlier matter, Comerica agreed to a $54.5 million settlement resolving claims that it had aided a Ponzi scheme run by Woodbridge Investments and its principal, Robert H. Shapiro. Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action in the Central District of California and a related adversary proceeding in Delaware bankruptcy court alleged Comerica provided banking services to Woodbridge while knowing of suspicious activity, amounting to aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.23Woodbridge Liquidation Trust. Comerica Settlement Notice The settlement, entered without any admission of liability, received final approval on December 17, 2021. Of the $54.2 million class payment, roughly 61% went to the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and 39% to non-contributing claimants, with an additional $300,000 resolving the Delaware action.24Woodbridge Liquidation Trust. Woodbridge Liquidation Trust 8-K Filing
OCC Enforcement Action Against Comerica Bank & Trust
Separate from the Direct Express matters, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency entered a formal agreement with Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A., an indirect subsidiary, on April 8, 2024. The OCC found the bank had engaged in “unsafe or unsound practices” tied to its risk governance framework and internal controls.25Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Comerica Bank & Trust Formal Agreement The trigger was a May 2023 upgrade to a wealth management technology platform from Fidelity National Information Services, which suffered repeated crashes, causing transaction errors, account reconciliation failures, and the bank overdrawing its own accounts by millions of dollars.26Banking Dive. Comerica OCC Enforcement Action The agreement required the bank to set up a compliance committee, submit plans covering corporate governance, asset management controls, data management, financial accounting, third-party risk, internal audit, and IT asset end-of-life management by June 30, 2024, and hire an independent third party to review financial reports going back to early 2023. No monetary fine was imposed.
Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Fraud Ruling
In a January 2026 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Comerica was not liable for fraud on the court in a long-running bankruptcy dispute, In re M.T.G., Inc. The case centered on Charles Taunt, a Chapter 7 trustee who failed to disclose a fee agreement with Comerica while serving as trustee for the debtor’s estate. Taunt’s undisclosed conflict led to court orders allowing Comerica’s $5.3 million secured claim, granting relief from the automatic stay, and settling pre-petition lender liability claims for just $10,000.27FindLaw. In Re M.T.G., Inc.
A lower court had already found that Taunt and his law firm committed fraud on the court. The Sixth Circuit held that Comerica did not share that liability. The bank could not be directly liable, the panel said, because it was not an “officer of the court” and did not owe the heightened candor duty required for such a finding. The court also rejected vicarious liability, finding no principal-agent relationship because Comerica lacked the right to control how Taunt did his work.27FindLaw. In Re M.T.G., Inc.