The Tilt class action lawsuit is a proposed federal case, Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., alleging that cash advances offered by Tilt Finance (formerly Empower Finance) are actually high-cost loans that violate the Truth in Lending Act, the Military Lending Act, and Georgia’s payday lending law. In October 2025, a federal judge in California agreed the advances qualify as “credit” and refused to force the case into arbitration. Tilt has appealed, and the case is on hold while the Ninth Circuit decides.
Who Sued Tilt and What They Allege
The named plaintiffs are U.S. Navy Petty Officer Samuel Vickery and U.S. Army Sergeant Rae Fuller. They filed in San Francisco County Superior Court against Empower Finance Inc., which rebranded to Tilt Finance Inc. in August 2025. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 3:25-cv-03675, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. An amended complaint was filed on July 7, 2025.1PACER Monitor. Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc. et al
At the core of the complaint is a simple claim: Tilt’s “Instant Transfer Fee” and other charges are really finance charges on a loan, and the company failed to disclose them the way federal law requires for consumer credit. Because both plaintiffs are active-duty service members, they also invoke the Military Lending Act, which caps the military annual percentage rate at 36% and bans mandatory arbitration in covered loans. The complaint also raises claims under the Georgia Payday Lending Act.2Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Earned Wage Access Product Deemed Credit Under MLA, Leading Federal District Court to Deny Motion to Compel Arbitration
The October 2025 Ruling
Tilt tried to shut the case down early by moving to compel arbitration under its terms of service. On October 7, 2025, Judge Corley denied that motion.3Bloomberg Law. Fintechs’ Cash Advances for Workers Draw Suits as States Diverge
The ruling hinged on whether the advances are “credit.” Tilt argued they were non-recourse and therefore not loans. The court disagreed. It found the advances meet the statutory definition of credit under both TILA and the MLA because the consumer takes on the right to defer payment on a debt. The court pointed to several features of the product: when the advance is made, the consumer authorizes a future debit for the advance amount plus charges; more than 90% of advances are in fact repaid; and consumers who revoke that repayment authorization can be cut off from future advances.2Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Earned Wage Access Product Deemed Credit Under MLA, Leading Federal District Court to Deny Motion to Compel Arbitration
The judge also concluded that the Instant Transfer Fee is a finance charge because it’s directly tied to the extension of credit. And because the MLA bans mandatory arbitration for loans to service members and their families, Tilt’s arbitration clause was unenforceable against Vickery and Fuller.4Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., Court Order
The arbitration bar didn’t stop with the MLA claims. Judge Corley found that the TILA and Georgia Payday Lending Act claims share an “intertwined factual basis” with the MLA claims, so none of the named plaintiffs’ claims can be forced into arbitration. She flagged that a proposed “Georgia Class” might include non-military residents who could still be subject to arbitration, but declined to decide that question because Tilt’s motion only targeted the two named plaintiffs.4Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor. Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., Court Order
Where the Case Stands Now
Tilt moved fast. On October 8, 2025, one day after the ruling, it filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 25-6377. Two days later, the district court stayed the case pending the appeal.1PACER Monitor. Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc. et al The parties are briefing the appeal.5Center for Responsible Lending. Payday Loan App Litigation Tracker
No motion for class certification has been filed. There is no settlement. Nothing is being paid out. The class hasn’t been defined by the court. If you’re a Tilt user hoping to file a claim, there is nothing to file yet, and there may never be, depending on how the appeal comes out and whether a class is later certified.
A Separate Mass Arbitration Against Tilt
Outside the Vickery case, the law firms Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Berger Montague P.C. have pursued individual arbitration claims against Tilt on behalf of users of its cash advance product. These are private arbitrations, not court cases. The claims allege TILA violations for failing to disclose the real cost of advances, along with possible state usury violations where undisclosed fees push effective rates above legal limits.6Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP. Tilt Case
The firms have said users may be entitled to statutory damages of $400 to $4,000 under TILA, depending on the type and amount of the advance and the user’s state.6Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP. Tilt Case Intake for new clients is closed.
The Wider Fight Over Cash-Advance Apps
The Tilt case sits inside a broader wave of litigation aimed at earned-wage-access and cash-advance apps. As of May 2026, 14 out of 14 courts to rule on the question have found that these app-based advances are loans subject to TILA, the MLA, or state credit laws. The list of companies facing similar claims includes Brigit, Cleo, Dave, EarnIn, FloatMe, Klover, and MoneyLion.7National Consumer Law Center. Courts Reject Claims That Payday Loan Apps Don’t Offer Loans
State and federal enforcement has followed the same line. New York Attorney General Letitia James sued DailyPay and MoneyLion in April 2025, alleging effective APRs above 500% to 750%.8New Economy Project. Federal Judge Deals Major Blow to Predatory Fintech, Says Earned Wage Access Advances Are Payday Loans The D.C. Attorney General sued EarnIn in November 2024, alleging rates up to 300%. The FTC sued Dave Inc. in November 2024 over allegedly hidden fees and referred the case to the Department of Justice.3Bloomberg Law. Fintechs’ Cash Advances for Workers Draw Suits as States Diverge The common thread across the rulings: fees labeled as “tips,” “expedite fees,” or “instant transfer fees” function as finance charges, and the advances themselves function as credit, whatever the apps call them.
Different Company: TILT Holdings Inc.
A search for a “Tilt class action” also turns up results for TILT Holdings Inc., a Canadian cannabis company, and those results are about a different case. Pinizzotto v. TILT Holdings, Inc. was a securities class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in April 2020, alleging TILT Holdings overstated its goodwill by roughly US$496 million in an October 2018 disclosure. It settled for US$3.65 million, with court approval in December 2021, covering investors who bought TILT Holdings securities between October 12, 2018, and May 1, 2019. The claim deadline has passed.9PR Newswire. Settlement of Class Action Against TILT Holdings Inc.10Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Pinizzotto v. TILT Holdings, Settlement and Fee Approval That case has no connection to Tilt Finance or its cash advance product.