A U.S. court has approved a $12.5 million settlement in a Cash App spam text lawsuit, resolving claims that unsolicited referral messages violated Washington state law. The case affects residents who received promotional texts without consent and filed timely claims, with individual payouts estimated to reach about $147, depending on the number of approved claims and administrative costs.
$147 Cash App Payments Overview Table
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Block, owner of Cash App |
| Settlement fund | $12.5 million |
| Eligible group | Washington state residents who received unsolicited referral texts |
| Estimated payout | About $88–$147 per approved claim |
What is the Cash App spam text lawsuit?
The Cash App spam text lawsuit centers on allegations that referral and promotional messages were sent without proper consent. Plaintiffs argued the practice violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act, which regulate electronic communications sent to consumers.
Cash App is operated by Cash App, a peer-to-peer payments platform that allows users to send and receive money, invest in stocks, and manage debit cards. The app has grown rapidly in recent years, particularly among younger users and people without access to traditional banking services.
Its parent company, Block, formerly known as Square Inc., denied any wrongdoing while agreeing to settle the case. The company said the settlement was a way to avoid the cost, uncertainty, and time associated with prolonged litigation.
According to court documents, the disputed text messages were often triggered when existing Cash App users sent referral invitations to contacts stored in their phones. Recipients of those messages claimed they never provided consent to receive marketing communications from Cash App and had no prior relationship with the company.
Plaintiffs argued that the automated nature of the messages and their promotional content placed them squarely within the scope of Washington’s anti-spam laws.
Who was Eligible for $147 Cash App Payments Compensation?
Eligibility for compensation under the settlement was narrowly defined. Only Washington state residents who met specific criteria were allowed to file claims.
To qualify, individuals had to demonstrate that they received one or more unsolicited Cash App referral or promotional text messages during the covered period, which ran from November 2019 through August 2025. Claimants also needed to attest that they did not provide prior, express consent to receive such messages.
In addition, claimants were required to submit a valid claim form by the court-approved deadline. Late submissions were generally rejected, consistent with standard class-action settlement procedures.
An independent claims administrator was appointed to review each submission. The administrator’s role included verifying residency, confirming the timing of the messages, and screening out duplicate or fraudulent claims.
Legal experts say the strict eligibility rules reflect the settlement’s focus on compliance with Washington-specific statutes, rather than federal spam laws that apply nationwide.
Why Payouts Vary and Why $147 is Not Guaranteed
The widely shared figure of $147 has drawn significant public attention, but settlement administrators and legal analysts stress that it represents an estimate, not a guaranteed payment.
The settlement fund must first cover court-approved expenses, including attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and expenses related to notifying class members. Only the remaining amount is distributed to approved claimants.
That remainder is divided on a pro-rata basis, meaning each claimant receives an equal share. If fewer claims are approved, individual payments increase. If more claims are approved, payouts decrease.
Consumer law specialists note that this structure is typical for class-action settlements involving statutory damages. “There is often public confusion about settlement amounts,” said a legal scholar who studies consumer protection litigation. “The headline number reflects the maximum possible payout under certain assumptions, not a promise.”
Settlement administrators estimated that payments would likely fall within a range of roughly $88 to $147, based on anticipated claim volumes.
Legal and Regulatory Context
Washington state has long maintained some of the most robust consumer protection laws governing electronic communications. The Commercial Electronic Mail Act, enacted to curb spam and deceptive marketing practices, places strict limits on unsolicited commercial messages.
Unlike federal statutes such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which apply nationwide, Washington’s law allows for additional remedies and has been interpreted broadly by state courts.
Over the past decade, companies in sectors ranging from retail to financial services have faced similar lawsuits over text-message marketing practices. Many of those cases have ended in settlements without admissions of liability.
Regulators say the growing use of automated messaging tools has increased the risk of non-compliance. “Technology has outpaced consumer understanding,” said a former state enforcement official. “That gap often leads to litigation.”
The Cash App spam text lawsuit fits into a broader pattern of scrutiny facing fintech companies as they scale rapidly while navigating complex regulatory frameworks.
Comparison with Similar Settlements
The Cash App settlement is not unique. In recent years, several technology and financial firms have agreed to multimillion-dollar payouts over alleged violations of state and federal spam laws.
For example, retailers have faced lawsuits over promotional texts sent after customers made in-store purchases, while banks have settled claims related to fraud alert messages that doubled as marketing communications.
Compared with those cases, the Cash App settlement stands out for its narrow geographic scope and relatively high estimated per-person payout. Analysts attribute that to Washington’s statutory damage provisions and the limited size of the eligible class.
“These cases show that even a small number of messages can lead to significant liability,” said a consumer rights attorney who has litigated similar claims.
How Referral Marketing Became a Legal Risk
Referral marketing has been a cornerstone of growth for many fintech platforms. By encouraging existing users to invite friends, companies can expand quickly with relatively low advertising costs.
However, legal experts say referral systems often blur the line between personal communication and commercial advertising. When companies automate or incentivize those messages, they may trigger consumer protection laws.
In the Cash App case, plaintiffs argued that the company exercised enough control over the referral texts to make them commercial messages under Washington law.
Industry groups have urged companies to adopt clearer consent mechanisms and opt-out options to reduce legal exposure.
When and How Payments are Issued
Following final court approval in late 2025, settlement administrators began preparing payment distributions. Approved claimants were allowed to choose between receiving a paper check or an electronic payment.
Payments are expected to be issued in early 2026, though administrators caution that timelines can shift depending on processing volumes and banking delays.
Officials involved in the settlement have warned consumers to be cautious of third-party websites or messages claiming to offer expedited payments or additional compensation. Legitimate communications come only from the official settlement administrator.
Consumer Reaction and Public Attention
The settlement has drawn widespread attention on social media and consumer-focused websites, where headlines often emphasize the potential $147 payout.
Consumer advocates caution that such framing can be misleading. “It’s important for people to understand how class-action settlements work,” said a nonprofit consumer education director. “Not everyone gets the same amount, and many people are not eligible.”
Despite that, the case has increased awareness of consumer rights related to digital communications, particularly among younger users who rely heavily on mobile payment apps.
What this Case Signals Going Forward
For consumers, the Cash App spam text lawsuit highlights the importance of paying attention to consent language when sharing contact information or responding to referral requests.
For companies, it serves as a warning that growth strategies relying on automated messaging must be carefully reviewed for legal compliance.
Regulators and courts are expected to continue examining how fintech firms balance rapid expansion with privacy and consumer protection obligations.
“This settlement should prompt companies to reassess how they obtain, document, and honor consent,” said a Washington-based consumer protection official. “The cost of getting it wrong can be substantial.”
FAQs About $147 Cash App Payments
Did I need a Cash App account to qualify?
No. Eligibility was based on receiving the unsolicited text message, not on having or using a Cash App account.
Can I still file a claim?
No. The court-approved deadline has passed, and late claims are typically not accepted under settlement rules.
Does the settlement mean Cash App broke the law?
No. Block denied the allegations. Settlements resolve disputes without a finding of liability.
Will this affect how Cash App sends messages in the future?
While the settlement does not mandate specific changes, legal experts say companies often adjust practices following such cases.
