Does a “Moral Damage Industry” Exist in Banking Litigation? A Jurimetric Approach

Abstract

The civil liability of financial institutions for material and moral damages resulting from service provision and credit practices ranks among the most litigated issues in the system of justice. It is critical to examine its proportion among other case types, litigation outcomes for involved parties and average claim values. Through jurimetrics, statistics and data science applied to quantitative empirical analyses, the study reveals that banks are the primary claimants in material damage cases while being defendants in nearly all moral damage suits. Consumers prevail in most cases, with award amounts being notably modest—moral damage claims are systematically filed for lower amounts than material damages. Partial grating of claims is also the prevailing outcome in moral damages cases, demonstrating that the actual compensation amounts awarded are even lower than the requested. The data indicates the alleged “moral damage industry” remains unsubstantiated in banking litigation. Findings suggest financial institutions do not operate as a monolithic bloc in the system of justice, employing varied legal strategies. Notably, even well-established legal matters (e.g., undue registration in credit bureau listings) continue driving significant litigation volume in consumer banking disputes.