2025’s beginning is far from an auspicious one for fintech company Dave and its CEO, Jason Wilk. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a civil enforcement complaint against both the startup and the CEO. The complaint, which builds on an earlier case filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), accuses the company of deceptive marketing practices related to its personal finance app and cash advance services.

At the core of the complaint is the allegation that Dave’s advertising misled consumers about the terms of its cash advance service. The company promoted the ability to access “up to $500” instantly, but, according to the DOJ, most users did not receive that amount—or received nothing at all. Additionally, consumers were allegedly hit with unexpected “express fees” for accessing cash advances quickly, fees that were not disclosed until users provided the app access to their bank accounts. Furthermore, Dave is accused of making it difficult for consumers to cancel recurring monthly charges.

The complaint further suggests that these charges violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which mandates that companies provide clear and simple cancellation processes for subscription services. Dave’s interface, according to the DOJ, also misled users about the impact of tips paid by customers, with many people unaware of the voluntary nature of these tips or misled about how they were being used.

This development comes two months after the FTC had filed a complaint against Dave (back in November). At that time, the FTC did not seek civil penalties in its initial filing and only named Dave as the defendant. After reviewing the case, the FTC referred the matter to the DOJ for further action. The DOJ filed an amended complaint in December 2024, including Jason Wilk, Dave’s CEO, as a co-defendant and seeking civil penalties in addition to consumer redress. The amended lawsuit emphasizes that Wilk, as the company’s CEO, played a direct role in overseeing the business practices under scrutiny. The legal action now seeks unspecified monetary penalties and a permanent injunction to prevent Dave and Wilk from engaging in similar practices in the future.