Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	Legal and Regulatory Proceedings Litigation Visa/MasterCard Merchant Interchange Litigation In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa®, MasterCard® and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 15 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The Bancorp may have obligations in these matters pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a settlement agreement resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs’ class (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”). The settlement agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement, and on March 15, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed that order. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. Several of the remaining opt-out cases have now been set for a trial scheduled to commence on September 21, 2026 in the matter of Grubhub Holdings Inc., et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. Case No. 1:19‑cv‑07273 (N.D. Ill.). On September 27, 2021, the Court overseeing the class litigation entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. In June 2024, the Court denied preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the injunctive relief claims. On November 10, 2025, defendants submitted to the Court a revised proposed settlement of the claims for injunctive relief. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Refer to Note 15 for further information. Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank In 2013 several putative class action lawsuits related to Fifth Third’s Early Access cash advance product were consolidated in the Southern District of Ohio as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest, based on their allegation that the 120% APR disclosure in the Early Access product was misleading. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ TILA claim, with statutory damages capped at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial and on April 27, 2023 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim. On September 30, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying post-trial motions related to the jury verdict. On October 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on November 7, 2024, Fifth Third filed a notice of cross appeal. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on February 4, 2026, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Howards v. Fifth Third Bank On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Troy Howards filed a putative class action against Fifth Third Bank in a lawsuit that was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:18-CV-869, S.D. OH 2018), alleging that Fifth Third improperly charged certain fees related to insufficient funds, customer overdrafts, and out-of-network ATM use. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200, et seq.), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1750 et seq.). Plaintiff seeks to represent putative nationwide classes and California classes of consumers allegedly charged improper repeated insufficient funds fees, improper overdraft fees, and fees for out-of-network ATM use from the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations to present. Plaintiff seeks damages of restitution and disgorgement in the amount of the allegedly unlawfully charged fees and damages proved at trial together with interest as allowed by applicable law. On February 6, 2023, the trial court issued an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim with respect to out-of-network ATM fees and dismissing the two claims for violations of California consumer protection statutes. The Court denied Fifth Third’s motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for certain customer overdrafts and insufficient funds fees. The case is in discovery, and no trial date has been set. Other litigation The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are not parties to any other material litigation at this time. However, there are other litigation matters that arise in the normal course of business, which include, or may include, claims related to product features, pricing and other lending practices. For example, Fifth Third Bank, National Association is a defendant in a number of civil lawsuits related to consumer solar lending practices and solar installer sales practices issues. These include a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (MDL No. 3128). While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate resolution or range of financial liability with respect to these contingent matters, management believes that the resulting liability, if any, from these other actions would not have a material effect upon the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of a matter, if unfavorable, may be material to the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Governmental Investigations and Proceedings The Bancorp and/or its affiliates are or may become involved in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by various governmental regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities, including but not limited to the FRB, OCC, CFPB, FDIC, SEC, FINRA, U.S. Department of Justice, etc., as well as state and other governmental authorities and self-regulatory bodies regarding their respective businesses. For example, Fifth Third has been cooperating with investigations by a number of state attorneys general regarding consumer solar lending and solar installer sales practices. Additional matters will likely arise from time to time. Any of these matters may result in material adverse consequences or reputational harm to the Bancorp, its affiliates and/or their respective directors, officers and other personnel, including adverse judgments, findings, settlements, fines, penalties, orders, injunctions or other actions, amendments and/or restatements of the Bancorp’s SEC filings and/or financial statements, as applicable, and/or determinations of material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. Investigations by regulatory authorities may from time to time result in civil or criminal referrals to law enforcement. Additionally, in some cases, regulatory authorities may take supervisory actions that are considered to be confidential supervisory information which may not be publicly disclosed. Reasonably Possible Losses in Excess of Accruals The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous claims and lawsuits as well as threatened or potential actions or claims concerning matters arising from the conduct of its business activities. The outcome of claims or litigation and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. The following factors, among others, contribute to this lack of predictability: claims often include significant legal uncertainties, damages alleged by plaintiffs are often unspecified or overstated, discovery may not have started or may not be complete and material facts may be disputed or unsubstantiated. As a result of these factors, the Bancorp is not always able to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes for each claim. An accrual for a potential litigation loss is established when information related to the loss contingency indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Any such accrual is adjusted from time to time thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. The Bancorp also determines, when possible (due to the uncertainties described above), estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses, in excess of amounts accrued. Under U.S. GAAP, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Bancorp is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Bancorp believes the risk of loss is more than slight. For matters where the Bancorp is able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, the Bancorp currently estimates that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to legal and regulatory proceedings in an aggregate amount up to approximately $85 million in excess of amounts accrued, with it also being reasonably possible that no losses will be incurred in these matters. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Bancorp’s analysis of currently available information, and as new information is obtained the Bancorp may change its estimates. For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established accrual that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established accruals, the Bancorp believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against the Bancorp and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Bancorp’s results of operations for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the size of the loss or liability imposed and the operating results for the applicable period.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa®, MasterCard® and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 15 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The Bancorp may have obligations in these matters pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a settlement agreement resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs’ class (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”). The settlement agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement, and on March 15, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed that order. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. Several of the remaining opt-out cases have now been set for a trial scheduled to commence on September 21, 2026 in the matter of Grubhub Holdings Inc., et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. Case No. 1:19‑cv‑07273 (N.D. Ill.).

On September 27, 2021, the Court overseeing the class litigation entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. In June 2024, the Court denied preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of the injunctive relief claims. On November 10, 2025, defendants submitted to the Court a revised proposed settlement of the claims for injunctive relief. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Refer to Note 15 for further information.

In 2013 several putative class action lawsuits related to Fifth Third’s Early Access cash advance product were consolidated in the Southern District of Ohio as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest, based on their allegation that the 120% APR disclosure in the Early Access product was misleading. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ TILA claim, with statutory damages capped at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial and on April 27, 2023 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim. On September 30, 2024, the trial court issued a decision denying post-trial motions related to the jury verdict. On October 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on November 7, 2024, Fifth Third filed a notice of cross appeal. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on February 4, 2026, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Troy Howards filed a putative class action against Fifth Third Bank in a lawsuit that was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:18-CV-869, S.D. OH 2018), alleging that Fifth Third improperly charged certain fees related to insufficient funds, customer overdrafts, and out-of-network ATM use. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17200, et seq.), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1750 et seq.). Plaintiff seeks to represent putative nationwide classes and California classes of consumers allegedly charged improper repeated insufficient funds fees, improper overdraft fees, and fees for out-of-network ATM use from the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations to present. Plaintiff seeks damages of restitution and disgorgement in the amount of the allegedly unlawfully charged fees and damages proved at trial together with interest as allowed by applicable law. On February 6, 2023, the trial court issued an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim with respect to out-of-network ATM fees and dismissing the two claims for violations of California consumer protection statutes. The Court denied Fifth Third’s motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for certain customer overdrafts and insufficient funds fees. The case is in discovery, and no trial date has been set.

The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are not parties to any other material litigation at this time. However, there are other litigation matters that arise in the normal course of business, which include, or may include, claims related to product features, pricing and other lending practices. For example, Fifth Third Bank, National Association is a defendant in a number of civil lawsuits related to consumer solar lending practices and solar installer sales practices issues. These include a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (MDL No. 3128). While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate resolution or range of financial liability with respect to these contingent matters, management believes that the resulting liability, if any, from these other actions would not have a material effect upon the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or

The Bancorp and/or its affiliates are or may become involved in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by various governmental regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities, including but not limited to the FRB, OCC, CFPB, FDIC, SEC, FINRA, U.S. Department of Justice, etc., as well as state and other governmental authorities and self-regulatory bodies regarding their respective businesses. For example, Fifth Third has been cooperating with investigations by a number of state attorneys general regarding consumer solar lending and solar installer sales practices. Additional matters will likely arise from time to time. Any of these matters may result in material adverse consequences or reputational harm to the Bancorp, its affiliates and/or their respective directors, officers and other personnel, including adverse judgments, findings, settlements, fines, penalties, orders, injunctions or other actions, amendments and/or restatements of the Bancorp’s SEC filings and/or financial statements, as applicable, and/or determinations of material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. Investigations by regulatory authorities may from time to time result in civil or criminal referrals to law enforcement. Additionally, in some cases, regulatory authorities may take supervisory actions that are considered to be confidential supervisory information which may not be publicly disclosed.

The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous claims and lawsuits as well as threatened or potential actions or claims concerning matters arising from the conduct of its business activities. The outcome of claims or litigation and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. The following factors, among others, contribute to this lack of predictability: claims often include significant legal uncertainties, damages alleged by plaintiffs are often unspecified or overstated, discovery may not have started or may not be complete and material facts may be disputed or unsubstantiated. As a result of these factors, the Bancorp is not always able to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes for each claim. An accrual for a potential litigation loss is established when information related to the loss contingency indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Any such accrual is adjusted from time to time thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. The Bancorp also determines, when possible (due to the uncertainties described above), estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses, in excess of amounts accrued. Under U.S. GAAP, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Bancorp is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Bancorp believes the risk of loss is more than slight. For matters where the Bancorp is able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, the Bancorp currently estimates that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to legal and regulatory proceedings in an aggregate amount up to approximately $85 million in excess of amounts accrued, with it also being reasonably possible that no losses will be incurred in these matters. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Bancorp’s analysis of currently available information, and as new information is obtained the Bancorp may change its estimates.

For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established accrual that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established accruals, the Bancorp believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against the Bancorp and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Bancorp’s results of operations for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the size of the loss or liability imposed and the operating results for the applicable period.