More than one million people who used the Brigit cash-advance app are set to receive a second round of refund checks from the Federal Trade Commission. The agency is distributing more than $6.8 million in payments to 1,052,038 consumers, according to the FTC, following an initial round sent in November 2024 that totaled more than $9.8 million. The payouts stem from an $18 million settlement the FTC reached with Bridge It, Inc., the company behind Brigit, after alleging the app relied on deceptive marketing, hidden fees, and cancellation barriers to trap subscribers.
Why phased Brigit refunds signal a shift in FTC enforcement
The two-round distribution structure in this case is worth examining closely. Rather than sending one lump payment to all affected users, the FTC split the $18 million redress fund into at least two waves. The first, per the FTC, went to 1,818,930 Brigit members in November 2024 and exceeded $9.8 million. The second targets a smaller pool of just over one million recipients for a combined $6.8 million. Together, the two rounds account for more than $17 million of the $18 million fund.
Splitting refunds this way lets the agency reach consumers who may not have cashed initial checks or whose contact information needed updating. It also spreads administrative costs across stages, reducing the risk that a single mailing deadline leaves large numbers of eligible users without payment. For subscribers of fintech apps built on recurring monthly charges, this approach matters because affected populations tend to be large, geographically dispersed, and sometimes difficult to locate after they cancel a service.
The Brigit case also illustrates how the FTC is increasingly using detailed data about subscriber behavior to fine-tune redress. By tracking which checks are cashed, which are returned as undeliverable, and which consumers remain reachable by email or text, the agency can reallocate remaining funds in later rounds. That can lead to slightly higher individual payments for those who do respond, while still honoring the goal of returning as much money as possible to people who were allegedly harmed by deceptive practices.
How Brigit’s $9.99 subscription and hidden fees drew FTC action
The FTC filed its complaint and proposed stipulated order against Bridge It, Inc. on November 2, 2023. The agency alleged Brigit advertised instant cash advances of up to $250 but required users to pay a $9.99 monthly subscription before they could access any advance at all. Even after subscribing, many users received far less than the promised $250, and those who wanted their money quickly faced additional fees for instant transfers that were not clearly disclosed upfront.
Beyond pricing, the FTC accused Brigit of using dark patterns to block cancellations. The complaint described a process designed to discourage users from ending their subscriptions, effectively locking them into recurring charges. Consumers who tried to cancel allegedly encountered confusing menus, repeated prompts to stay, and obstacles that made it easy to give up and remain enrolled.
The proposed order required Brigit to pay $18 million into a redress fund and to stop the practices the agency identified as deceptive. It also bars the company from misrepresenting key terms of any financial product, including eligibility, fees, and the amount of money consumers can receive. The case is listed on the FTC’s Brigit refund program, where consumers can track the status of distributions and find answers to common questions about the settlement.
Gaps in the refund record and what recipients should do next
Even with two large rounds of checks, there are still gaps in the refund record. Some eligible consumers may have moved, changed banks, or closed email accounts since they last used Brigit. Others may mistake FTC mailings for junk or fraud and throw them away unopened. The agency typically relies on address and account data supplied by the company and updated through commercial databases, but that process is not perfect, especially for people with unstable housing or frequent job changes.
Consumers who think they are owed money but have not received a check should start by reviewing their own history with the app. The settlement focuses on people who paid for Brigit’s subscription and were affected by the practices described in the FTC’s complaint. Checking old bank statements for recurring charges tied to the service can confirm whether you were a paying customer during the relevant period.
If you believe you are eligible and were missed, the FTC’s refund page for this case includes contact information for the redress administrator and explains how to inquire about your status. The agency generally does not ask people to apply for refunds in these situations; instead, it identifies recipients from company records. That means unsolicited calls, texts, or social media messages offering to “help” you claim Brigit money are likely scams.
Recipients who do get a check should follow routine precautions. Verify that the mailing clearly identifies the Federal Trade Commission or its contracted administrator, and deposit or cash the check before the expiration date printed on it. If you are unsure whether a payment is legitimate, the safest step is to contact the FTC directly using phone numbers or web addresses listed on its official site, not those provided in an unexpected message.
For current users of cash-advance and budgeting apps, the Brigit settlement underscores the importance of scrutinizing subscription terms, cancellation options, and any promises about “instant” access to funds. As regulators continue to scrutinize recurring-fee models and dark patterns, phased refund programs like this one are likely to become a more common tool for returning money to consumers while signaling that deceptive growth tactics carry real financial consequences.
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
