Legal Receipts: Straight From the Complaint

The following are direct quotes from the FTC’s complaint filed March 27, 2025 in the Southern District of New York. Nothing is paraphrased. Nothing is invented.

“Cleo promises instant or same-day cash advances, such as a ‘$250 spot’ and up to $250 for Plus consumers, and up to $500 for Builder consumers. However, internally Cleo’s policies limit cash advances to below the advertised amounts. For example, Cleo limits the amount first-time customers can receive to $100. Moreover, almost no one receives even close to the advertised dollar amount.”
— FTC Complaint, Paragraph 3

• This is the FTC stating on the record that Cleo’s internal policies directly contradicted what was shown in its ads. The $250 and $500 figures were advertised broadly, but the internal cap for first-time users was $100, and even that was rarely reached.
• The phrase “almost no one” is not hyperbole from a journalist. It is the FTC’s own characterization, filed in federal court. Specific percentages are redacted from the public-facing complaint, but the FTC had access to Cleo’s internal data when it made this claim.

“Internally, Cleo employees discussed the misleading nature of its advertisements. For example, when advertisements referred to $100, internal chats discussed that advertisements were getting the [REDACTED – percentage redacted in source].”
— FTC Complaint, Paragraph 33

• Cleo’s own employees were communicating internally about the gap between what was advertised and what was delivered. This is not a case of a company being unaware of the problem. The employees saw it. The complaint refers to this evidence directly.
• Internal chats referencing a misleading statistic about their own ads constitute evidence of knowledge. This matters legally because it undercuts any future defense that the deception was unintentional.

“Most consumers select the ‘Today’ option and then end up paying what a consumer described as a ‘BOGUS HIDDEN fee’ which has, at times, accounted for more than a third of Cleo’s annual revenue.”
— FTC Complaint, Paragraph 41

• The “Today” fee, ranging from $3.99 to $9.99, was not disclosed before consumers subscribed. It was presented only after subscription, after billing information was collected, and deep in the advance flow.
• A hidden fee that accounts for more than a third of annual revenue is not an incidental design flaw. It is a structural revenue source built on a promise Cleo’s own app contradicted in fine print after the money changed hands.

“Until at least late 2023, Cleo did not permit consumers with an outstanding cash advance to cancel their subscriptions through the App. If these consumers tried to cancel the Plus or Builder subscriptions, and they reached out to Cleo’s customer service, Cleo told them that consumers could not cancel subscriptions until the full cash advance was repaid.”
— FTC Complaint, Paragraphs 45-46

• This is a textbook negative option trap. Under ROSCA, sellers are legally required to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges. Blocking cancellation through the app and having customer service confirm the block is a direct violation of that requirement.
• The FTC’s complaint describes this as a mechanism that “forced consumers to rack up unwanted monthly subscription fees.” The word “forced” is doing legal work here: it describes a practice with no consumer consent and no exit.

“In nearly all cases, Cleo never discloses the cash advance amount before the consumer subscribes to, and pays for, the Plus or Builder.”
— FTC Complaint, Paragraph 35

• Under ROSCA, sellers must clearly and conspicuously disclose all material transaction terms before obtaining billing information. “Material” means anything that would affect a consumer’s decision. The actual advance amount is the most material term in a cash advance product.
• Disclosing the actual advance amount only after the subscription fee is charged is the exact sequence ROSCA was designed to prohibit. This is Count II of the FTC’s complaint.

Anatomy of a Bait-and-Switch: How Cleo Built the Trap Step by Step

The FTC’s complaint maps out Cleo’s onboarding sequence in detail. Each step moved the consumer deeper into the product while withholding the one piece of information that mattered most: how much money they would actually get.

• The app opened with “UP TO $250 IN CASH ADVANCES” in large text and a prominent blue “Sign up” button. No qualifications. No conditions. Just the number and the invitation.
• After tapping sign up, consumers were taken through a data collection process: personal information, bank account details, and income account linking. Cleo used an AI risk classifier during this process to determine the actual advance amount, but did not inform consumers of the result at this stage.
• The app then presented two subscription plans: Cleo Plus at $5.99/month and Cleo Builder at $14.99/month. The Plus plan was preselected. A large blue “Continue to Plus” button guided consumers forward. No advance amount was disclosed here.
• Consumers were prompted to set up payment. They provided billing information and Cleo set the payment date. The monthly subscription charge became active. No advance amount was disclosed here either.
• Only after subscribing and paying did the app reveal the actual advance amount. For most consumers, that number was dramatically lower than $250. The complaint cites examples of consumers being offered $70, $35, $30, and $20.
• At this point, a consumer wanting to get funds “Today” encountered the next hidden cost: an express fee of $3.99 to $9.99 that had not been mentioned in any material way before this screen. Even with this fee paid, the complaint states money could arrive the next day.
• The fine print that did exist, when it appeared at all, was in smaller, lighter text at the bottom of screens. The complaint notes this fine print was not consistently present across versions of the enrollment process, including a version released after the FTC contacted the company.

Societal Impact Mapping: Who Gets Hurt and How

The “Cost of a Life” Metric

What Now? Who to Pressure and What to Do

The FTC has filed. A court has to act. And in the meantime, Cleo remains in operation. Here is who has jurisdiction and what you can do.

Regulators With Jurisdiction

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The plaintiff in this case. Filed under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and ROSCA. The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction and monetary relief. FTC complaints can be submitted at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. If you were a Cleo subscriber who experienced advance shortfalls, undisclosed fees, or cancellation blocks, your report becomes part of the evidentiary record.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The CFPB has authority over financial products and apps targeting consumers. Earned wage access and cash advance apps are under ongoing scrutiny. Submitting a complaint at ConsumerFinance.gov adds to regulatory pressure even outside the current FTC action.
• State Attorneys General: Each state’s AG has consumer protection authority. The Southern District of New York action is federal, but state-level cases can run parallel. If you are in a state with an active consumer protection office, file there as well.
• Apple App Store and Google Play Store: Both platforms have developer policies prohibiting deceptive apps. Formal complaints to both platform operators create additional pressure outside the court system and can result in app restrictions or removal while litigation proceeds.

Direct Actions

• If you are a current Cleo subscriber, document every charge. Screenshot your subscription history, every fee deduction, and every customer service conversation. This documentation is useful for both individual disputes and as evidence in FTC proceedings.
• If you were blocked from canceling due to an outstanding advance balance, file a dispute with your bank or card issuer. Subscription charges that cannot be canceled through a simple mechanism may be disputable as unauthorized recurring charges under Regulation E (for debit) or Fair Credit Billing Act (for credit).
• Share the FTC complaint text directly with anyone you know who uses or is considering cash advance apps. The specific dollar amounts, the fee disclosures, and the cancellation practices documented in this case apply to a pattern of behavior that exists across multiple fintech products beyond Cleo.
• Connect with local mutual aid networks in your area. Mutual aid funds operate without fees, without subscriptions, and without hidden costs. They exist specifically to fill the gap that predatory fintech has monetized. Search “mutual aid [your city]” or find directories through BigDoorBrigade.com.
• Support and follow organizations pushing for federal earned wage access regulation, including the CFPB’s ongoing rulemaking on the topic. Public comment periods on fintech rules are open to everyone and carry legal weight in the regulatory process.