Ohio Supreme Court Case Could Shape Future Bank-Fee Litigation

08/26/26

The Supreme Court of Ohio is considering a case that could significantly affect how banks and other businesses defend contract claims involving fees that customers paid without objection.

In Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit asked the state's highest court to clarify Ohio's voluntary-payment doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a person from recovering a payment made voluntarily and with full knowledge of the relevant facts, even if the person misunderstood whether the payment was legally required.

The case concerns two potentially conflicting pricing terms in a bank product agreement. The specific product is no longer offered, but the questions before the Court have much broader implications. The Court will determine how "relevant facts" should be defined under the voluntary-payment doctrine and whether the defense remains available when an agreement contains potentially conflicting price terms.

The answers could influence consumer class actions involving account fees, loan charges and other contractual payments. If the doctrine is interpreted narrowly, plaintiffs may have greater ability to challenge charges after paying them-potentially over many years-even when the amount charged was disclosed and understood. That could increase litigation exposure and make it more difficult to resolve certain claims early in a case.

The decision may also affect how courts distinguish between a customer's knowledge of the amount paid and knowledge of every fact that could affect the legal characterization of that payment. For banks, that distinction matters because many consumer agreements contain multiple disclosures required by state and federal law. A discrepancy between those disclosures could potentially become the basis for both a substantive claim and an argument against applying the voluntary-payment defense.

Beyond litigation, the case underscores the importance of consistent pricing terms, clear disclosures and regular review of account agreements. It may also provide greater clarity regarding a longstanding Ohio defense that applies across industries.

OBL is monitoring the case closely because the Court's eventual decision could shape the defense of consumer contract and fee litigation throughout Ohio.