Are there still active civil lawsuits by Epstein victims in 2025?

1. New bank lawsuits put civil claims back in the spotlight

In October 2025, plaintiffs represented by veteran Epstein victim lawyers Sigrid S. McCawley and Brad Edwards filed suits alleging Bank of America and BNY Mellon enabled Epstein’s trafficking; U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff set quick deadlines for motions to dismiss and scheduled an oral argument for December 15, 2025, signaling the courts are moving these cases rapidly ^{[2] [1]}. Business Insider reported the judge ordered November deadlines for motions and warned the cases could be trial‑ready as soon as next summer — a timetable that underlines how new civil actions can advance quickly when judges compress the schedule ^[1].

2. What the bank suits allege — money, accounts and ignored red flags

The complaints claim specific bank conduct: one suit says an Epstein employee had a victim open a Bank of America account used to pay her rent while abuse continued; another alleges BNY processed roughly $378 million in payments to victims without flagging suspicious activity ^[1]. The Guardian’s coverage framed the suits as arguing banks “chose profit over protecting the victims,” and noted prior banks paid “hundreds of millions” in settlements even while denying wrongdoing ^[2].

3. These new suits sit atop a longer litigation history

Civil litigation connected to Epstein is not new. Over many years there have been individual lawsuits, numerous out‑of‑court settlements, and ongoing efforts to challenge earlier prosecutorial agreements; Wikipedia’s litigation overview documents prior suits, dismissed claims, settlements, and a long‑running federal action aimed at vacating Epstein’s non‑prosecution agreement on victims’ rights grounds ^[3]. That institutional history explains why new suits often reference prior settlements and why some victims pursued civil remedies while others participated in settlement funds tied to the estate ^[3].

4. How plaintiffs and courts frame the purpose of these cases

Plaintiffs’ lawyers say lawsuits against financial institutions serve both to hold institutions accountable and to prevent future trafficking by forcing systemic changes in how banks detect and report abuse‑related financial activity ^[2]. Courts appear receptive to moving certain cases quickly when judges see a public interest or clear legal issues, as Rakoff’s scheduling of the October bank suits illustrates ^[1].

5. Political and public scrutiny is influencing disclosure and momentum

In late 2025 Congress and the White House were also in the news over Epstein material: the House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act to compel DOJ disclosure of files, and large releases of documents by the House Oversight Committee fed media attention and survivor advocacy — context that increases scrutiny on ongoing civil cases and may influence both public perception and litigation strategy ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Reporting notes that some survivors and lawmakers pressed for transparency while others raised privacy concerns for victims ^{[4] [6]}.

6. Caveats, limitations and what’s not covered

Available sources confirm active civil suits in 2025 (notably the October bank filings and long‑running litigation) but do not provide a complete docket list of every pending Epstein‑related civil action nationwide; comprehensive case inventories, individual claim statuses, or settlements after November 2025 are not detailed in the provided material ^{[1] [3]}. If you want specific case numbers, plaintiffs’ names, or the latest rulings after the December 2025 argument dates, those particulars are not found in the current reporting and would require checking court dockets or subsequent news updates ^{[1] [2]}.

7. How to follow developments and competing views

Follow the Rakoff docket entries for the Bank of America and BNY suits and reporting by outlets covering the Epstein files and victim advocacy groups for updates; major outlets cited here (Business Insider, The Guardian) emphasize institutional accountability and victim advocacy, while historical entries note prior settlements and legal dismissals — both threads matter to understanding outcomes ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If your interest is remedy for victims or institutional reform, read the complaints directly and watch for motions to dismiss and discovery rulings that will reveal how much evidence the plaintiffs can marshal against banks ^{[1] [2]}.

Bottom line: civil litigation by Epstein’s alleged victims remained active in 2025 — new bank suits filed in October were moving quickly through federal court, and those actions build on a long history of civil claims, settlements and ongoing legal challenges tied to Epstein’s estate and plea agreement ^{[1] [2] [3]}.