The Financial Technology Association (FTA) and the American Fintech Council (AFC) have submitted an Amicus Brief in Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc. and Moss v. Cleo AI, Inc., case requesting that Earned Wage Access (EWA) be distinguished from loans.
The groups submitted a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse district court decisions that found EWA to be extensions of credit.
EWA can provide workers with their salaries or earnings on a rolling basis, rather than once or twice a month, which is typical in the US.
The Fintech groups fear that if EWA is deemed to be a credit product, these services will be relegated to the Fintech dustbin.
Penny Lee, President and CEO of the FTA, said the EWA “frees workers from an arbitrary and rigid payroll cycle that doesn’t meet their financial needs.” She asked the court to protect these financial tools.
Phil Goldfeder, CEO of the AFC, added that EWA protects workers’ wages that have already been earned while providing an alternative to high-interest credit.
“When courts misapply lending laws to non-loan products, they risk cutting off access to safe, transparent financial tools and pushing consumers toward harmful alternatives. We encourage the court to recognize the nuances of EWA products and ensure the regulatory structure reflects how these products truly work.”
The group highlighted that EWA does not charge interest, late fees, or penalties, and there is no recourse.
Both Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc. and Moss v. Cleo AI Inc. held that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Military Lending Act. The Fintech groups state these decisions are “severely flawed.”
In 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an Advisory Opinion recognizing EWA as a product distinct from extensions of credit.