This litigation tracker compiles key cases addressing payday loan app products. It highlights how courts and enforcement authorities are analyzing core issues such as whether advances constitute “credit,” how fees and tips are treated under applicable law, and whether these products trigger protections like the Military Lending Act’s 36% rate cap and other disclosure and anti-evasion requirements.
So far, every court that has analyzed payday loan app products has concluded that they are credit.
CRL Amicus “Friend of the Court” Briefs
- MoneyLion — CRL Amicus Brief Supporting Servicemembers and Their Dependents Challenging High-Cost Payday Loan Apps
- FloatMe — CRL & NCLC Amicus Brief Supporting Servicemembers and Their Dependents Challenging High-Cost Payday Loan Apps
- Bridge It — CRL & NCLC Amicus Brief Supporting Servicemembers and Their Dependents Challenging High-Cost Payday Loan Apps
- CRL and NCLC File Amicus Brief in Supporting SSgt. Revell's Rights Under the MLA, TILA, and Georgia Payday Loan Act
- CRL Files Amicus Brief Supporting Active-duty Servicemembers and their Rights to 36% Military APR Rate Cap
- CRL and NCLC File Amicus Challenging High-Cost Payday Loan App Lenders, Fighting Alongside Servicemembers in Class Action Suit
Public Enforcement Actions
- District of Columbia v. ActiveHours Inc. d/b/a Earnin (2024-CAB-007303)
Jurisdiction Superior Court of the District of Columbia Summary In District of Columbia v. Activehours, Inc., the D.C. Attorney General sued EarnIn alleging that its “Cash Out” earned wage access product is deceptively marketed as fee-free and interest-free when, in fact, it charges “Lightning Speed” fees, asserts that these fees translate into average APRs over 300%, far exceeding the District’s 24% interest rate cap, and claims EarnIn has operated in D.C. without the required lending license. The court granted EarnIn's motion to dismiss, finding it lacked primary jurisdiction over whether Cash Out is a loan, deferring to the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, and allowed other key claims related to EarnIn's deceptive practices to move forward. The D.C. Attorney General filed a motion for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal. The court denied reconsideration based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and granted the interlocutory appeal. The case is now in discovery. Alleged Violations D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), D.C. Code § 28-3904 Status Discovery More Information Attorney General Schwalb's press release - Montgomery County, PA v. MoneyLion Technologies, Inc. & ML Plus, LLC (2026-22270)
Jurisdiction Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Summary Montgomery County v. MoneyLion is a Pennsylvania state-law enforcement action brought by the Montgomery County District Attorney on behalf of the Commonwealth, alleging that MoneyLion’s Instacash product violates the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by misrepresenting the nature, cost, and legality of its short-term advances. The complaint alleges that MoneyLion markets Instacash as an earned wage access product with “0% APR” and “no interest,” while charging Turbo Fees and tips that function as interest and can produce annualized rates hundreds of times higher than Pennsylvania’s lawful rate limits at 6%. The complaint alleges that MoneyLion is not licensed to make these loans and uses product-design features, including default tips, $100 transaction limits, and automated repayment practices, that obscure the cost of the loans and encourage repeat borrowing. MoneyLion’s representations and omissions concerning Instacash, including its true cost, lending status, and ability to provide consumers with up to $500 instantly, violate the UTPCPL. Alleged Violations Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law Status Filed More Information Montgomery County's press release - Montgomery County, PA v. Dave Inc. (2026-22268)
Jurisdiction Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Summary Pennsylvania v. Dave, Inc. is a Pennsylvania state-law enforcement action brought by the Montgomery County District Attorney on behalf of the Commonwealth, alleging that Dave’s ExtraCash Advances violate the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by misrepresenting the nature, cost, and legality of its short-term loans. The complaint alleges that Dave markets ExtraCash Advances as interest-free overdraft services or early access to wages, while charging mandatory overdraft fees, express fees, membership fees, and, until 2025, tips that function as interest and can produce extremely high annualized rates. For example, a $40 advance repaid within three days, with a $5 overdraft fee, $0.60 express fee, and $3 membership fee, produces an APR exceeding 2,500%. The complaint further alleges that Dave obscures the true cost and terms of the advances, misrepresents the amount consumers can obtain, and previously pressured consumers to provide tips through misleading representations about donations to children in need. Alleged Violations Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law Status Filed More Information Montgomery County's press release - Weiser v. Activehours, Inc. d/b/a EarnIn (2026CV033099)
Jurisdiction District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Summary Weiser v. EarnIn is a state enforcement action alleging that EarnIn’s “Cash Out” product is an unlawful, app-based payday loan that violates Colorado’s payday lending and consumer credit laws. According to loan data EarnIn provided to the Colorado Attorney General, EarnIn made more than 3.1 million loans to 56,778 Colorado consumers between January 2023 and July 2025, lending approximately $300 million and collecting more than $16 million in tips and “Lightning Speed” fees. Colorado contends that EarnIn’s advances are loans because the company requires consumers to authorize repayment directly from their bank accounts, repeatedly debits consumers’ accounts until the loans are repaid, and collects finance charges through tips and expedited-access fees. According to the Attorney General, these charges resulted in an average APR of nearly 388%, with some loans exceeding 1,000%, while EarnIn allegedly provided no required loan disclosures and was not a supervised lender. The filing further describes EarnIn’s app design as deceptive, which steered consumers toward paying tips, including requiring multiple steps to select no tip and using messages such as “pay it forward.” The Attorney General seeks restitution for affected consumers, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. Alleged Violations Excess and Unauthorized Charges, Disclosure Violations, Unlicensed Activity, Deferred Deposit Loan Act, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices - Dark Patterns, False or Misleading Statements Concerning Price Status Filed More Information Attorney General Weiser's press release - FTC, et al. v. Dave, Inc (2:24-cv-09566)
Jurisdiction C.D. California (Los Angeles) Summary FTC v. Dave, Inc. is a federal enforcement action against Dave and its CEO, Jason Wilk, alleging violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. The government alleges that Dave deceptively marketed advances of “up to $500” and “instant” access, while rarely offering the advertised amount and requiring consumers to pay undisclosed Express Fees for immediate funding. The amended complaint also alleges that Dave charged consumers unauthorized or inadequately disclosed “tips,” misrepresented that tips would fund meals for children in need, and enrolled consumers in a recurring monthly membership fee without clear disclosures or a simple cancellation mechanism. The FTC referred the case to DOJ, which filed an amended complaint seeking consumer redress, civil penalties, and injunctive relief. The case is in discovery. Alleged Violations FTC Act (unfair or deceptive acts or practices), Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied; Discovery More Information FTC Case Information - Minnesota v. Bridge IT, Inc. d/b/a Brigit (62-CV-26-4231)
Jurisdiction D.C. Second Judicial District, Minnesota Summary Minnesota v. Brigit is a state enforcement action alleging that Brigit’s “Instant Cash” is an unlawful, app-based payday loan that violates Minnesota’s payday lending laws. The Minnesota Attorney General alleges that Brigit made tens of thousands of small-dollar loans to Minnesotans without required licensure or registration, failed to disclose the true cost of borrowing, and charged APRs that regularly exceed 300%, with some exceeding 700%, despite Minnesota’s 50% APR cap for consumer short-term loans. The complaint alleges that Brigit’s advances are loans because Brigit requires consumers to preauthorize repayment, does not clearly disclose that repayment is supposedly voluntary, limits repayment extensions, and uses customer-service communications that reinforce consumers' understanding that repayment is required. Alleged Violations Minnesota Consumer Small Loans (Section 47.60) and Consumer Short-Term Loans (Section 47.601) statutes Status Filed More Information Attorney General Ellison's press release - People of the State of New York v. DailyPay (154851/2025)
Jurisdiction N.Y. Supreme Court Summary In People of the State of New York v. DailyPay, Inc., the New York Attorney General sued DailyPay alleging that its on‑demand pay product operates as an illegal, high‑cost payday lender violating New York usury and wage assignment laws by automatically deducting repayment (plus fees) from user's next paychecks. DailyPay filed a declaratory judgment asking the court to find its product is not a loan and there is no true debt obligation. In September 2025, the case was remanded to N.Y. Supreme Court. On January 23, 2026, DailyPay filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently being briefed. Alleged Violations Wage Assignment (NY), Civil Usury (NY), Criminal Usury (NY), False Advertising (NY), Fraud (NY), Deceptive Practices, Consumer Financial Protection Act, Deceptive Acts or Practices, Consumer Financial Protection Act, Abusive Acts or Practices, Consumer Financial Protection Act Status Remanded to N.Y. Supreme Court; Motion to Dismiss Filed. More Information View the Docket - People of the State of New York v. MoneyLion (451303/2025)
Jurisdiction N.Y. Supreme Court Summary In People of the State of New York v. MoneyLion, the New York Attorney General sued MoneyLion alleging that its “Instacash” advances are effectively high‑cost payday loans disguised as fee‑free wage advances charging mandatory fees (up to $8.99 on a $100, two‑week advance) and soliciting tips, resulting in APRs well above legal limits. In September 2025, the case was remanded to N.Y. Supreme Court. On January 23, 2026, MoneyLion filed a motion to dismiss. Alleged Violations Civil Usury (NY), Criminal Usury (NY), Fraud (NY), GBL § 349 (NY), GBL § 350 (NY), Deceptive Acts or Practices, Consumer Financial Protection Act, Abusive Acts or Practices, Consumer Financial Protection Act Status Remanded to N.Y. Supreme Court; Motion to Dismiss Filed. More Information View the Docket - Mayor and City of Baltimore v. MoneyLion (1:25-cv-03692)
Jurisdiction District Court of Maryland Summary In Mayor and City of Baltimore v. Moneylion, the City of Baltimore sued MoneyLion alleging that its “Instacash Advances” amount to usurious, high‑cost loans disguised as fee‑free earned wage advances. The City argues that MoneyLion inflates its revenue through “tips” and fees that translate into APRs well above Maryland’s 33% legal cap, in violation of the city’s Consumer Protection Ordinance. MoneyLion removed the case to federal court (District of Maryland) and has requested an extension to respond to the City's complaint. The City of Baltimore filed a motion to remand back to state court, which has been briefed by the parties. Alleged Violations Deceptive Trade Practices (Baltimore City Code), Unfair Trade Practices (MCPA, Truth in Lending Act) Status Waiting response to Complaint Motion to Remand More Information View the Docket - Mayor and City of Baltimore v. Dave, Inc. (1:26-cv-00369)
Jurisdiction D.C. Maryland Summary In Mayor and City of Baltimore v. Moneylion, the City of Baltimore sued Dave, Inc alleging that its “ExtraCash Advances” amount to usurious, high‑cost loans disguised as fee‑free earned wage advances. The City argues that Dave inflates its revenue through “tips” and fees that translate into APRs well above Maryland’s 33% legal cap, in violation of the city’s Consumer Protection Ordinance. Dave removed the case to federal court (District of Maryland) and has requested an extension to respond to the City's complaint. The City requested that the case be heard in circuit court for Baltimore City. Alleged Violations Deceptive Trade Practices (Baltimore City Code), Unfair Trade Practices (MCPA, Truth in Lending Act) Status Briefing City's remand motion. More Information View the Docket
Private Consumer Litigation
- Thomas v. Activehours, Inc. d/b/a EarnIn (1:24-cv-02283)
Jurisdiction U.S. District Court of Maryland Summary Thomas v. EarnIn is a putative class action alleging that EarnIn’s “Cash Out” advances are loans subject to Maryland’s consumer lending laws and that EarnIn’s “Lightning Speed” fees and tips constitute interest or finance charges. Plaintiff alleges that EarnIn charges fees that can result in triple-digit APRs. The complaint asserts claims under the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (MCLL), Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and Truth in Lending Act (TILA), alleging that EarnIn failed to obtain required lending licenses and failed to disclose the cost and terms of its advances. The court denied EarnIn’s motion to dismiss the MCLL and TILA claims, finding that plaintiff plausibly alleged that EarnIn’s advances constitute loans and credit under the applicable statutes, but dismissed the MCPA claim. After plaintiff amended the complaint to add a Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) claim, EarnIn moved to dismiss, arguing that its advances were not “debts” and that the MCDCA did not apply to a creditor that originated the advances. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff plausibly alleged a “debt” under the MCDCA and that the statute can apply to creditors and debt originators. The court also found that EarnIn’s placement of repayment preauthorization and fee prompts, together with the location of its contractual disclaimer that users have no obligation to repay, supported an inference of a "practical" obligation to repay. Alleged Violations Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Truth in Lending Act, Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied More Information View the Docket - Burkhardt, et al. v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., et al. (1:25-cv-06761; 26-1197)
Jurisdiction S.D. New York; 2nd Circuit Summary Burkhardt v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. is a putative class action alleging that MoneyLion’s “Instacash” advances and “Credit Builder” loans violate the Military Lending Act (MLA) and Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Plaintiffs allege that MoneyLion disguises finance charges as “Turbo Fees,” “Tips,” and monthly membership fees, resulting in costs that exceed applicable limits and are not properly disclosed. The complaint alleges that Instacash advances are extensions of consumer credit and that MoneyLion’s preauthorized debits effectively provide access to borrowers’ bank accounts as security for the advances. The complaint also challenges MoneyLion’s “Credit Builder” product, a 12-month installment loan of $500 to $1,000 with stated APRs of 5.99% to 29.99%. Plaintiffs allege that MoneyLion requires borrowers to pay a $19.99 monthly membership fee throughout the loan term, even though the primary benefit of the membership is access to MoneyLion’s credit products, and that the fee therefore constitutes a finance charge that must be included in the disclosed APR. The court denied MoneyLion’s motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Instacash constitutes consumer credit subject to the MLA, that the Credit Builder membership fee constitutes a finance charge under TILA, and that MoneyLion’s preauthorized debit arrangement constitutes prohibited security for MLA-covered loans. The court also found that MoneyLion’s arbitration provision could violate the MLA because it effectively requires covered borrowers to arbitrate despite a provision allowing borrowers to opt out within 30 days. MoneyLion appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the appeal is pending. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act; Truth In Lending Act Status Motions to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration denied; 2nd Circuit has ordered Burkhardt to be heard in tandem with Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., No. 26-655 More Information View the Docket - Feeman, et al. v. Bridge It, Inc. (1:25-cv-03806)
Jurisdiction S.D. New York Summary Feeman v. Bridge It, Inc. is a putative class action alleging that Brigit's "Instant Cash" advance product violates the Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiffs, including active-duty servicemembers, allege that Brigit's advances require preauthorized repayment on a future date and that its subscription and expedite fees function as finance charges, producing effective interest rates that exceed the Military Lending Act's 36% APR cap. Brigit moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, arguing its advances are not "credit" and its fees are not "finance charges" under the MLA or TILA. The court denied the motion, holding that Brigit's advances constitute debt because they require repayment of borrowed amounts on a future date, and joining other courts in finding that earned wage access products of this kind meet the statutory definitions of credit and finance charge under TILA and the MLA. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss / Motion to Compel Arbitration denied; on appeal to the Second Circuit More Information FTC Case Information - Bailey, et al. v. Creditly Corp., d/b/a Credit Genie (25STCV14044)
Jurisdiction Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County Summary Bailey v. Credit Genie is a putative class action alleging that Credit Genie’s cash advance product violates the Military Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Georgia Payday Loan Act. Credit Genie moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that its cash advances did not constitute “consumer credit” under the MLA because borrowers had no legal obligation to repay and could revoke payment authorization. The California Superior Court denied the motion, holding that Credit Genie’s cash advance product constituted consumer credit because it involved deferred repayment through preauthorized debits from borrowers’ bank accounts on payday. The court further held that a legal obligation to repay was not required for debt or credit to exist under the MLA or TILA and that the ability to revoke payment authorization did not eliminate repayment obligations. The Court also held that Credit Genie’s expedite fees, tips, and mandatory $4.99 biweekly “Bank Connection Fee” constituted finance charges because they were imposed as incidents to the extension of credit. The Court emphasized allegations that Credit Genie used deceptive interface techniques to secure tips and that borrowers could not cancel the recurring subscription fee while an advance remained outstanding. Because the product constituted “consumer credit” under the MLA, the Court held that the MLA barred enforcement of the arbitration agreement notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act. Credit Genie has appealed. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth In Lending Act, Georgia Payday Loan Act Status Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Dismiss denied More Information View the Docket - Giordano Handy-Gerena v. Activehours, Inc., d/b/a EarnIn (2025-CAB-002545)
Jurisdiction Superior Court District of Columbia Summary Giordano Handy-Gerena v. EarnIn is a puntative class action alleging that EarnIn's Instant Cash violates D.C.'s consumer protection laws by operating as an unlicensed lender, misrepresenting its cash advances as non-loan products, and charging unlawful, high-cost credit through EarnIn's lighting speed fees and so-called tips. These fees function as interest, pushing the effective cost of borrowing above D.C.’s legal limits while obscuring the true price of the transactions. EarnIn moved to dismiss, arguing that it is not a lender, that its fees are not interest, and that its product falls outside existing lending and check-cashing laws. It also invoked the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine, contending that the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB), not courts, should decide whether its business model requires a license. The court granted EarnIn's motion to dismiss on the basis of primary jurisdiction. Applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the court emphasized the DISB's authority over financial institutions, the need for regulatory discretion in addressing financial products, and the risk of inconsistent rulings while regulators are actively considering how to treat earned wage access. Because DISB has not yet issued definitive rules and is currently evaluating the issue, the court determined that these questions should first be addressed by DISB. Alleged Violations D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act Status Motion to Dismiss granted More Information View the Docket - Lowe v. MoneyLion (1:25-cv-04098; 26-655)
Jurisdiction S.D. New York; 2nd Circuit Summary Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. is a putative class action alleging that MoneyLion’s "Instacash" violates the Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. MoneyLion requires borrowers, including active-duty servicemembers, to link bank accounts and authorizes automatic debits on payday, and its subscription and expedite fees constitute finance charges under Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. The complaint further contends that MoneyLion’s business model functions as high-cost credit without proper disclosures, misrepresenting the cost of funds and eligibility terms to borrowers. MoneyLion moved to dismiss the amended complaint or compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied MoneyLion’s motions, holding that it joins many others across the nation in concluding that "these early payday services constitute the extension of credit." The court emphasized that MoneyLion's "no obligation to repay" is limited because 98% of customers repay advances, and MoneyLion's Turbo Fees and Tips are part and parcel of the overwhelming majority of Instacash advances, and waiting for five days for payment defeats the purpose of early wage access. MoneyLion has appealed the court's decision to the Second Circuit. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss denied; Appealed to 2nd Circuit More Information View the Docket - Vickery v. Empower Finance (3:25-cv-03675; 25-6377)
Jurisdiction N.D. California (San Francisco) & 9th Circuit Summary Vickery v. Empower Finance is a putative class action alleging that Empower’s “Cash Advance” earned wage access product violates the Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Georgia Payday Lending Act. The district court held that the Cash Advance qualifies as “credit” under the Military Lending Act, making Empower a “creditor” and rendering its arbitration clause unenforceable for covered servicemembers. On that basis, the court denied Empower’s motion to compel arbitration. Empower has appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit and parties are briefing the appeal. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, Georgia Payday Lending Act (GA) Status MTC denied; Appealed 9th Circuit More Information View the Docket - Moss v. Cleo AI Inc. (2:25-cv-00879; 25-5856)
Jurisdiction W.D. Washington & 9th Circuit Summary Moss v. Cleo AI, Inc. is a puntative class action alleging that Cleo’s “Cash Advance” app conceals its true cost. Cleo's Cash Advance fees translate into triple-digit APRs, trapping active-duty servicemembers in cycles of debt. The court denied Cleo’s motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint plausibly alleges that Cleo’s express-fee and subscription-fee structure functions as “finance charges” under Military Lending Act and Truth in Lending Act. Cleo appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the parties have submitted briefing. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied; Appealed 9th Circuit; stayed More Information View the Docket - Golubiewski v. Activehours, Inc. (3:22-cv-02078)
Jurisdiction M.D. Pennsylvania Summary Golubiewski v. Activehours, Inc. is a putative class action alleging that EarnIn disguises usurious interest as “tips” and “lightning speed” fees on its cash-advance app and is not licensed under Pennsylvania lending laws. The court denied EarnIn’s motion to dismiss claims under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law, the Consumer Discount Company Act, and Truth in Lending Act, finding the fees plausibly constitute finance charges. The case is now in the discovery phrase. Alleged Violations Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PA), Loan Interest and Protection Law (PA), Consumer Discount Company Act (PA), Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied; Discovery More Information View the Docket - Johnson v. Activehours, Inc. (1:24-cv-02283)
Jurisdiction D. Maryland Summary Johnson v. Activehours, Inc., is a proposed class action alleging that EarnIn’s cash-advance app charges “lightning speed” fees and optional “tips” that effectively serve as interest. The court granted in part and denied in part EarnIn’s motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs plausibly allege that EarnIn functions as a creditor under Maryland’s Credit Law and that its fees may violate the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in October 2025, to which EarnIn again moved to dismiss. The court has not acted on the motion to dismiss, and the case remains ongoing with discovery. Alleged Violations Consumer Loan Law (MD), Consumer Protection Act (MD), Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint granted (MCLL, interest in excess; Truth in Lending Act, creditor and advances credit) and denied in part (MCPA, reliance); Discovery More Information View the Docket - Orubo v. Activehours, Inc. (5:24-cv-04702)
Jurisdiction N.D. California (San Jose) Summary Orubo v. Activehours, Inc., is a putative class action alleging that EarnIn disguises usurious “lightning speed” fees and required “tips” as non-loan service charges. Plaintiffs claim those fees produce APRs ranging from 130% to over 1,700% and that EarnIn fails to disclose the true cost of its “advance” to users. The court denied EarnIn’s motion to dismiss. EarnIn filed a motion for judgment on pleadings alleging the tips and lighting speed fees are voluntary and therefore not finance charges under Truth in Lending Act, "Cash Out" product is neither "credit" nor a "loan" under Truth in Lending Act and Georgia law, and Georgia law confirms tips and fees are not "interest." In November 2025, the court announced it will issue further order on EarnIn's motion. The case is in the discovery phase with protective order. Alleged Violations Georgia Payday Loan Act (GA), Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied; Motion for Judgment on Pleadings pending; Discovery More Information View the Docket - Stow v. Activehours, Inc. (1:25-cv-00391)
Jurisdiction M.D. North Carolina Summary Stow et al. v. Activehours, Inc. is a class action alleging that EarnIn’s cash-advance app’s “lightning speed” fees and required “tips” violate North Carolina consumer-finance statutes. EarnIn moved to compel arbitration based on its online Terms of Service signed by named plaintiffs. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiffs had validly agreed to arbitration, and stayed the case for one year. Alleged Violations North Carolina Consumer Finance Act (NC), North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NC), North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (NC) Status Motion to Dismiss Granted; Stayed (moving to arbitration) More Information View the Docket - Revell v. Grant Money, LLC (3:25-cv-05994; 25-7035)
Jurisdiction N.D. California & 9th Circuit Summary Revell v. Grant Money, LCC is a putative class action alleging that Grant Money's earned wage access product violates the Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Georgia Payday Lending Act. The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and refused to strike the class claims, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable under the Military Lending Act because the EWA constitutes “consumer credit.” Grant Money has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, Georgia Payday Loan Act Status Motion to Dismiss Denied; Appealed 9th Circuit More Information View the Docket - Ramirez v. ActiveHours, Inc. (5:25-cv-03625)
Jurisdiction N.D. California (San Jose) Summary Ramirez v. ActiveHours, Inc is a punitive class action challenging EarnIn's "CashOut" and "Lightning Speed" advances violating the Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, and Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act. Parties have stipulated to select arbitration, and the case was referred on August 21, 2025. Simultaneously, the parties have completed briefing on EarnIn's motion to dismiss with a hearing scheduled on November 20, 2025. An order on the motion to dismiss is forthcoming. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (IL) Status Motion to Dismiss denied More Information View the Docket - Michael Russell et al. v. Dave Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust (2:25-cv-04029; 26-12)
Jurisdiction District Court, C.D. California & 9th Circuit Summary In Russell et al. v. Dave, plaintiffs sued Dave and Evolve Bank & Trust alleging that its "ExtraCash" product engages in predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and Georgia Payday Loan Act. Plaintiffs allege that when the various finance charges are considered, the average APR for an ExtraCash loan is 329%. The Court held ExtraCash offers credit and that its fees are finance charges within the meaning of Truth in Lending Act and Military Lending Act, notwithstanding the fact that it is styled as an overdraft. The Court found that the Regulation Z exemptions for overdraft fees do not apply because there was a written agreement for credit. The court also noted that in applying Truth in Lending Act is looks to substance over for, and ExtraCash bears more similarly to typical credit arrangments, than accommodation for inadvertent overdrafts. Dave appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, Georgia Payday Loan Act Status Motion to Dismiss denied; Appealed to 9th Cirucit More Information View the Docket - Feeman, et al. v. Albert Corporation, et al (2:25-cv-03605)
Jurisdiction C.D. California Summary Feeman v. Albert Corp. is a putative class action alleging that Albert Corporation and Albert Cash, LLC’s “Albert Instant” violates the Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act, and the Georgia Payday Lending Act. Albert Instant extends high-cost consumer credit (exceeding 400% military APR) to active-duty servicemembers and their families, requiring a six-day repayment period, without complying with federal disclosure requirements or the Military Lending Act’s 36% APR cap. The parties reached a class-wide settlement. The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, vacated the motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the case pending final approval. Under the proposed settlement, Albert agreed to create a $5.2 million settlement fund to provide pro rata monetary relief to class members, estimated at approximately $30 per eligible transaction, and to implement injunctive relief prohibiting the assessment of certain transfer fees on advances to servicemembers and their dependents for a defined period. Albert denied all wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. The settlement is pending final approval. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status The settlement is pending final approval. More Information View the Docket - Moss v. Klover Holdings, Inc. (25-cv-5758)
Jurisdiction N.D. Ilinois Summary Moss v. Klover Holdings, Inc. is a putative national class action alleging that Klover’s “Klover advance” and “Balance Advance” violate the Truth in Lending Act and the Military Lending Act. Klover markets its advances as cash advances that provide users with funds before payday in exchange for users’ authorization to debit their linked bank accounts on a scheduled date, and that Klover’s expedite fees and “tips” are finance charges that result in effective interest rates that exceed the Military Lending Act’s 36% APR limitation on credit extended to servicemembers and their dependents. Klover moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its “non‑recourse” advance products do not constitute credit under the Truth in Lending Act or the Military Lending Act and that its fees are not finance charges. The court denied the motion, holding that the factual allegations plausibly allege that Klover’s products constitute extensions of consumer credit under the Truth in Lending Act and the Military Lending Act and that Klover’s expedite fees and tips are finance charges incident to the extension of credit. The court also adopted the reasoning of other federal district courts, finding that similar earned wage access and cash advance products meet the statutory definitions of credit and finance charge under Truth in Lending Act and the Military Lending Act. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss denied. More Information View the Docket - Burrison v. FloatMe (1:25-CV-10885; 26-1256)
Jurisdiction D. Massachusetts; 1st Circuit Summary Burrison v. FloatMe, Corp. is a putative class action alleging that FloatMe’s cash advance product violates the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act.FloatMe makesadvances to users, including active duty servicemembers, requiring linked bank accounts and automated debits on payday, and that its subscription and expedite fees constitute finance charges under Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.4(a). The district court considered whether the Military Lending Act applied, noting that under 10 U.S.C. § 987, “consumer credit” excludes only residential mortgages or loans tied to the purchase of personal property, and otherwise is defined by a combination of statutory and regulatory definitions. To qualify as consumer credit under the Military Lending Act, the extension of credit must involve: (1) credit (the right to defer or incur debt), (2) a covered borrower, for personal, family, or household purposes, and (3) a “creditor” engaged in the business of extending consumer credit to covered borrowers more than 25 times per year. The court observed that FloatMe’s cash advance model, automatic debits, ongoing underwriting, and fees for instant access, falls within this definition. FloatMe moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, but the court held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the Military Lending Act, which bars enforcement in disputes involving consumer credit extended to servicemembers. The court further held that this limitation extends to Burrison’s Truth in Lending Act claim, finding it likewise non-arbitrable. FloatMe has appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Alleged Violations Military Lending Act, Truth in Lending Act Status Motion to Dismiss denied; Appealed to 1st Circuit More Information View the Docket