The MoneyLion class action lawsuit picture has several moving pieces: one approved settlement paying $12.75 million to former Fusion Acquisition stockholders, a pending class action in New York federal court challenging Instacash advances and Credit Builder loans as usurious, and a newer Washington case over unsolicited referral texts. Only the stockholder settlement is currently accepting claims, and its filing deadline has already passed for most claimants.
The $12.75 Million Stockholder Settlement
The one MoneyLion class action that has produced a consumer payout is Martel et al. v. Fusion Sponsor LLC et al., C.A. No. 2024-0329-NAC, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Former Fusion Acquisition stockholders alleged that Fusion’s directors, officers, and sponsor pushed through the 2021 merger with MoneyLion despite conflicts of interest that destroyed value for public shareholders, and issued a false and misleading proxy statement that discouraged stockholders from redeeming their shares before the deal closed. MoneyLion CEO Diwakar Choubey and financial advisor Broadhaven Capital Partners were named for aiding and abetting the alleged fiduciary breaches.1Wolf Popper LLP. MoneyLion Inc. Stockholder Litigation
Vice Chancellor Nathan A. Cook approved the $12.75 million cash settlement on July 24, 2025, calling it an “excellent” and “extremely positive” result and describing aspects of the underlying deal as “a poster-child scenario for the problems and malincentives associated with the de-SPAC form.”2Wolf Popper LLP. Court Approves $12.75 Million Settlement Resolving MoneyLion Stockholder Litigation
Who Qualifies and How Payment Works
The settlement class includes anyone who held Fusion Class A Common Stock as of September 17, 2021, and chose not to redeem all or some of those shares before the merger closed.3Wolf Popper LLP. $12.75 Million Settlement Reached in MoneyLion Stockholder Litigation It is a non-opt-out class under Delaware Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), so members cannot exclude themselves.4MoneyLion Stockholder Settlement. MoneyLion Stockholder Settlement
The Proof of Claim and Release form was due September 2, 2025, and A.B. Data Ltd. is administering the settlement.511th. MoneyLion Investor Settlement As of mid-2026, the settlement website still advises class members that distribution “will take some time” after final approval.4MoneyLion Stockholder Settlement. MoneyLion Stockholder Settlement If you missed the claim deadline but hold eligible shares, the administrator’s website is the place to check whether a late-claim process is available.
Burkhardt: The Active Class Action Over Instacash and Credit Builder Loans
The most significant pending MoneyLion class action for everyday consumers is Burkhardt et al. v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06761 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed in 2025 on behalf of military servicemembers and their spouses nationwide, with a subclass of Florida consumers, the suit alleges that Instacash advances and Credit Builder loans carry usurious interest rates hidden behind Turbo fees, tips, and monthly membership charges. The plaintiffs bring claims under the Military Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and Florida’s usury statute.6National Consumer Law Center. Burkhardt et al. v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. et al.
The case started in the Northern District of Florida and was transferred to the Southern District of New York in August 2025 under the first-filed rule. It landed with Judge Dale E. Ho.7CourtListener. Burkhardt v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. MoneyLion filed a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss in September 2025. On April 15, 2026, Judge Ho denied both, letting the case proceed.8Justia. Burkhardt et al. v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order The court has referred pretrial matters, including class certification, to a magistrate judge. No class has been certified yet, so no claims process exists and there is nothing consumers can file for at this stage.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers also tried to shape how MoneyLion could use its separate settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against them. In December 2025, they asked Judge John Cronan to declare that CFPB deal “non-precedential.” Judge Cronan denied the request, pointing out that the firms had not moved to intervene and that both the CFPB and MoneyLion opposed the request.9Law360. Judge Denies Firms’ Bid to Clarify CFPB’s MoneyLion Deal
Washington Referral-Text Class Action
A newer class action, Murphy v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., was filed in King County Superior Court in March 2026 by Washington consumer Cabrina Murphy. The complaint alleges that MoneyLion’s referral program flooded Washington residents with unsolicited texts by supplying users with pre-written messages and personalized sign-up links, letting them import phone contacts for mass texting, and offering time-based incentives to send more, all without recipient consent or an opt-out mechanism.10Top Class Actions. MoneyLion Class Action Alleges Unsolicited Referral Text Messages Violate Washington Law
Murphy alleges violations of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act, and estimates at least 7,200 potential Washington recipients, putting the amount in controversy near $13.5 million at $500 per statutory violation. MoneyLion removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 15, 2026. It remains pending, with no class certified.11Law360. MoneyLion Hit With Wash. Class Action Over Referral Texts
Related Government Actions That Can Return Money to Consumers
Two government cases against MoneyLion are not class actions but may still result in payments to consumers. Knowing the difference helps if you are trying to figure out where you might collect.
CFPB Redress for Military Borrowers
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued MoneyLion in September 2022 for allegedly overcharging active-duty servicemembers and dependents on installment loans in violation of the Military Lending Act. The core allegation: monthly membership fees of $20 to $30 required to access “Membership-Program Loans,” when included in the Military Annual Percentage Rate calculation, pushed the loans above the MLA’s 36% rate cap.12CFPB. CFPB v. MoneyLion Technologies Complaint
A stipulated final judgment entered November 24, 2025, requires MoneyLion to deposit $1.75 million into a redress account. About $1.72 million goes to reimbursing membership fees paid by military borrowers who had an outstanding loan between December 1, 2017, and October 11, 2024, and roughly $26,000 goes to borrowers who could not cancel memberships because of outstanding balances. No civil penalty was imposed.13CFPB. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., ML Plus LLC, and Other Subsidiaries Eligible borrowers do not file claims themselves; MoneyLion is required to identify affected borrowers, issue payments, and report the results to the Bureau.14CFPB. Stipulated Final Judgment and Order
New York Attorney General Instacash Suit
On April 14, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued MoneyLion, alleging that Instacash is a predatory, usurious lending product disguised as an earned wage access service. The complaint says MoneyLion markets Instacash as “0% APR” with “no mandatory fees,” but nearly 90% of advances carry fees: a “Turbo” fee of up to $8.99 to skip a two-day wait, plus tips on about 40% of advances that the AG alleges are extracted through guilt-based messaging and by withholding future advances from non-tippers. A typical $100 advance with an $8.99 fee and a $2 tip over two weeks works out to an annual rate above 350%, and the average all-in cost exceeded 800% APR.15NY Attorney General. People of the State of New York v. MoneyLion Inc. – Complaint16National Consumer Law Center. MoneyLion’s Costly “0% APR” Earned Wage Payday Loans
The AG says MoneyLion collected more than $24.6 million in fees from New York users alone between October 2018 and December 2023, and is seeking an injunction, restitution, disgorgement, damages, and civil penalties under state law and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act.15NY Attorney General. People of the State of New York v. MoneyLion Inc. – Complaint MoneyLion removed the case to federal court in May 2025, but Judge Colleen McMahon remanded it back to New York state court on November 12, 2025, finding the claims were fundamentally state-law matters.17CourtListener. People of the State of New York v. MoneyLion Inc. No further public rulings have surfaced through mid-2026. If restitution is ultimately ordered, it would go to affected New York users.
Why an Earlier Case Matters for Current Consumers
In 2019, California consumer Marggieh DiCarlo filed a putative class action alleging MoneyLion Plus operated as a “high-tech debt trap” because she could not cancel her membership until she repaid a $500 credit-builder loan and accumulated fees. MoneyLion moved to compel arbitration and won. On February 19, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver was enforceable because the agreement allowed the plaintiff to seek public injunctive relief in individual arbitration, satisfying California’s McGill rule.18U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. DiCarlo v. MoneyLion Inc.
That history is why Judge Ho’s April 2026 ruling in Burkhardt matters. MoneyLion again tried to force the case into arbitration and lost, meaning the current class action will move forward in court rather than being broken up into individual arbitrations. Whether it produces a payout for consumers depends on class certification and either a settlement or a verdict, both of which are still ahead.