Comerica Bank Accused of Pocketing Millions From Federal Benefits Recipients

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit alleges Comerica Bank is profiting from interest earned on federal benefits funds, money that belongs to millions of Americans using the Direct Express program.

Consumers Affected: Individuals in the U.S. who received federal benefits funds from the government that were held by Comerica.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Comerica Bank is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it illegally retained investment income earned from the federal benefits funds it manages—profits that rightfully belong to millions of vulnerable Americans. 

The lawsuit claims that Comerica, which administers the Direct Express program on behalf of the U.S. Treasury, has quietly collected over $100 million annually in interest from funds meant for Social Security recipients, disabled individuals, veterans, and others in need.

Comerica Bank: Profiting Off the Needy?

The lawsuit was filed by Mary Pustelak and Linda Carle, both Michigan residents and longtime enrollees in the Direct Express program. Pustelak participated from 2013 until 2024, while Carle has been enrolled since 2016. Each month, their federal benefits were deposited into Comerica-managed accounts, accessible via Direct Express debit cards.

But what they—and millions of others—didn’t realize was that before they ever spent their money, Comerica was using their funds to generate substantial investment income, the lawsuit alleges. Under Comerica’s own terms of service, account holders are the rightful owners of the funds. Yet, according to the lawsuit, the bank has never shared any of the interest it earned, instead pocketing the profits for itself.

How the Alleged "Direct Express" Scheme Works

Since 2008, Comerica has held an exclusive contract with the U.S. Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service to administer the Direct Express program. Each year, the bank receives around $3 billion in federal benefits funds for distribution to roughly 3.4 million enrollees.

The lawsuit alleges that Comerica exploited the gap between the time it received these deposits and the moment beneficiaries withdrew them. By investing the funds in the interim, Comerica was able to generate interest and other returns—money that, under Michigan law, legally belongs to the account holders.

The Direct Express program was specifically designed for unbanked individuals—people who don’t have traditional checking or savings accounts. These recipients had little reason to suspect that Comerica was profiting off their deposits before they could even access their own money.

Banks Face Growing Scrutiny Over Financial Practices

Comerica isn’t the only financial institution facing legal scrutiny for allegedly deceiving consumers.

• SoLo Funds, a peer-to-peer lending platform, is being sued for misleading borrowers with claims of zero-interest loans. Plaintiffs argue that hidden “tips” and “donations” function as disguised finance charges, creating sky-high effective interest rates.
  
  
• Bank of America is accused of enrolling customers in automatic bill payments without clear disclosure—then unexpectedly canceling their participation unless they maintained a qualifying bank account. Customers faced late fees, damaged credit scores, and financial hardship as a result.
  
  
• Robinhood, the popular trading platform, is under fire for allegedly exploiting its Deposit Sweep Program. A lawsuit claims the company offered below-market interest rates on uninvested cash while raking in substantial profits from the same funds.
  
  
• Wells Fargo is being sued for allegedly aiding a Ponzi scheme that defrauded 1,000 mostly elderly investors out of $300 million. The lawsuit claims the bank facilitated transactions that funneled victims’ savings into fraudulent entities.

In their lawsuit against Comerica Bank, Pustelak and Carle want to represent anyone in the US who, during the six years preceding the lawsuit, received federal benefits funds from the government that were held by Comerica pursuant to the Direct Express program.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Pustelak, et al. v. Comerica Bank
• Case No.: 2:25-cv-10659-DPH-DRG
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• E. Powell Miller and Gregory A. Mitchell (The Miller Law Firm, P.C.)

Are you a Direct Express cardholder? Do you suspect Comerica is mishandling your benefits? Share your story below.