Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FTC Takes Aim at Mobile Banking App for Deceptive Advertising Practices

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Beineng Zhang on November 8, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Advertising-Digital-Blog-Image-660x283

On November 5, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a complaint against a company in connection with its mobile banking app, alleging violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and Section 4 of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”) for misleading customers through hidden fees and other deceptive practices. According to the FTC, the app targeted financially vulnerable individuals with surprise “tip” fees, amounting to 15% of cash advances, which was falsely marketed as a charitable donation. While customers were led to believe their tips funded meals for children, only a fraction of the funds was actually donated, while the rest was retained by the company as revenue. Between 2022 and mid-2024, this practice reportedly generated over $149 million for the company.

The FTC’s complaint also highlighted misleading advertisements promising users instant access to cash advances of up to $500. In practice, only a small percentage of users received this advertised maximum amount, with many receiving much lower sums despite meeting repayment conditions. The app additionally charged undisclosed “express fees” ranging from $3 to $25 for expedited access to funds, a cost revealed only after users linked their bank accounts. Those who declined this fee faced a wait of up to three business days.

Moreover, the complaint criticized the company’s implementation of a $1 monthly membership fee, which many users found challenging to cancel. Some reported being charged repeatedly despite efforts to terminate their membership. 

The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent further violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA by the company, in addition to monetary relief.

Putting It Into Practice: This year, FTC enforcement actions have demonstrated a strong focus on deceptive advertising practices (previously discussed here and here). It is worth noting that the complaint called out a $1 monthly membership fee that was challenging for consumers to cancel despite its small amount. Companies should exercise caution regarding such fees, especially in light of the FTC’s recent finalization of its “click-to-cancel” rule (see our discussion here). 

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Beineng Zhang Beineng Zhang

Beineng Zhang is an associate in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Beineng ZhangEmail
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo