Cash App Spam Text Settlement: Who Got Paid and How Much

Block Inc., the parent company of Cash App, agreed to pay $12.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it sent unsolicited spam texts to Washington state residents through its “Invite Friends” referral program. The case, Bottoms v. Block, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01969-MJP, was filed in November 2023 by Washington resident Kimberly Bottoms in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The court granted final approval on December 2, 2025. Payments of $394.36 per accepted claim began distributing in early February 2026. The settlement covered Washington residents who received Cash App referral texts without their consent between November 14, 2019, and August 7, 2025. Block denied all wrongdoing throughout.

Cash App Spam Text Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

November 2019 — The Invite Friends Referral Program Launches

Cash App, owned by Block Inc., launched its “Invite Friends” referral program around November 2019. The program offered a financial incentive: existing users could send a pre-filled text message to contacts in their phone with a referral link. If the contact signed up and met certain criteria, both the sender and the new user received a bonus payment.

To use the feature, Cash App users granted the app access to their device contact list. The app then displayed contacts alongside a button to send the referral text. The message was pre-written by Cash App and included an individualized hyperlink. Users pressed a button. Cash App did the rest.

That structural design became the legal problem. The person pressing the button may have been a Cash App user. But Cash App built the system, wrote the message, and routed the delivery. Under Washington’s CEMA, the question was whether that made Block a party who “substantially assisted” in transmitting an unsolicited commercial text.

November 2023 — Kimberly Bottoms Files the Class Action

Washington resident Kimberly Bottoms filed Bottoms v. Block, Inc. in November 2023, initially in Washington state court before the case was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Bottoms alleged she received “annoying and harassing” Cash App referral texts despite never consenting to receive them.

The complaint accused Block of violating Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Under CEMA, companies cannot send or “substantially assist” in transmitting unsolicited commercial text messages to Washington residents without their prior, affirmative consent. CEMA’s reach is broader than the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which focuses on automated calls. CEMA explicitly extends liability to facilitators, not just direct senders.

Bottoms sought statutory damages of $500 per text message sent in violation of the law, with potential treble damages under the CPA. Block’s data later showed the app had sent referral texts to approximately 1,975,187 Washington phone numbers during the class period. At $500 per text, the theoretical maximum exposure ran into the hundreds of millions.

December 2023 — Washington Attorney General Intervenes

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown intervened in December 2023 to defend the constitutionality of CEMA and the CPA. Block had challenged the laws as overbroad, arguing they violated its First Amendment rights and conflicted with federal TCPA standards. The AG’s intervention signaled the state’s position: these laws were intentional consumer protections, not regulatory overreach.

May 2024 — Block Files Motion to Dismiss

Block filed a motion to dismiss in May 2024, arguing it provided no “substantial assistance” in transmitting the texts and that the individual users who pressed the button were the senders, not Block. The company also argued CEMA did not apply because federal TCPA standards should govern the case.

July 2024 — Judge Rejects Block’s Motion to Dismiss

U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied Block’s motion to dismiss in July 2024. The ruling was direct: TCPA standards were irrelevant to a CEMA claim. CEMA’s liability extends to entities that substantially assist in transmitting unsolicited commercial texts, and Pechman found Bottoms had pled sufficient facts to support that theory. The case proceeded.

October 2024 — Block Files Motion for Summary Judgment

Block filed a motion for summary judgment on October 23, 2024, challenging Bottoms’s individual claims before the case could proceed to trial. The motion was fully briefed but not decided by the court. The parties moved toward settlement before the court ruled.

June 2025 — $12.5 Million Settlement Agreement Reached

Bottoms filed a motion outlining the proposed settlement on June 30, 2025. Block agreed to pay $12.5 million to resolve the class action. The settlement covered all Washington residents who received Cash App referral texts without consent between November 14, 2019, and August 7, 2025. Block did not admit wrongdoing. Its formal position: it had fully complied with state and federal law and agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation.

July 29, 2025 — Preliminary Approval Granted

U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 29, 2025. The official settlement website, BottomsTextSettlement.com, launched within 30 days. Notices were distributed to class members. The claims deadline was set for October 27, 2025.

October 27, 2025 — Claims Deadline Passes

The deadline for Washington residents to file a claim, opt out, or object to the settlement passed on October 27, 2025. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jennifer Rust Murray estimated, in a September 25 declaration supporting her fee motion, that no more than 5% of the 1,975,187 class members would submit valid claims. That estimate implied between $88 and $147 per claimant under initial projections.

December 2, 2025 — Final Approval and Dismissal

U.S. District Judge John Chun, who had been assigned the case in September, presided over the final approval hearing on December 2, 2025. Chun found the settlement “fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class” and dismissed the case.

The court awarded $3.1 million in attorney fees from the settlement fund. Class representative Kimberly Bottoms received a service award of $10,000. The remaining approximately $8.7 million was allocated to class members who filed valid claims by the October 27 deadline.

The actual per-claim payout came in higher than initial estimates. With fewer claimants than anticipated, each accepted claim received $394.36.

February 2026 — Payments Begin Distribution

Payment distribution to eligible class members began in February 2026. Claimants received their awards through the payment method they selected when filing their claim by October 27, 2025. The settlement administrator for the case was Bottoms Text Settlement, P.O. Box 2631, Baton Rouge, LA 70821.

What the Lawsuit Alleged

The legal theory was precise. CEMA prohibits sending or “substantially assisting” in the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic messages to Washington residents. The key phrase is “substantially assists.” Bottoms argued Cash App did not merely enable users to send texts. It designed the referral system, pre-wrote the messages, created the delivery infrastructure, and incentivized the behavior with financial rewards.

This distinguished the case from scenarios where a user independently composes and sends a marketing message. Cash App controlled the content. Cash App built the button. Cash App routed the transmission. The referral text was not a user’s communication; it was Cash App’s commercial solicitation, transmitted by a user as a proxy.

Block’s counter-argument was that users themselves initiated the messages and bore responsibility for the transmissions. Judge Pechman rejected that framing in July 2024, finding that CEMA’s reach to facilitators applied and the TCPA standard Block sought to invoke was legally irrelevant to a state CEMA claim.

Who Was Eligible for the Settlement

The class was Washington-specific. To qualify, a person needed to meet three conditions: they received a Cash App referral program text between November 14, 2019, and August 7, 2025; they were a Washington state resident when they received the text; and they had not clearly and affirmatively consented in advance to receive the message.

An example of the text at issue read: “Hey! I’ve been using Cash App to send money and spend using the Cash Card. Try it using my code and you’ll get $5. [code] [link].” The message did not indicate a funds request or transfer. It was a marketing invitation sent under the guise of a personal recommendation.

The class did not include residents of other states, even if they received identical texts. CEMA is a Washington state statute. Its protections apply only to Washington residents.

Settlement Payout Breakdown

The Broader Context: Block’s $255 Million Regulatory Settlement

The spam text settlement did not exist in isolation. In January 2025, Block agreed to pay $255 million to federal and state regulators over separate failures in Cash App’s security and compliance programs. That settlement covered entirely different conduct.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reached a deal requiring Block to pay a $55 million civil penalty and compensate fraud victims with up to $120 million. The CFPB’s position: “Block employed weak security protocols for Cash App and put its users at risk.” The agency found that Block directed defrauded users to their banks for transaction reversals, then denied those banks’ requests for reimbursement, effectively leaving users without recourse.

Block also paid $80 million to 48 state financial regulators for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. The regulators found Cash App’s compliance program failed to detect or prevent illegal transactions on the platform. As part of the CFPB consent order, Block was required to implement 24-hour live customer service, fully investigate unauthorized transaction disputes, and provide timely refunds.

Together, the spam text case and the CFPB action exposed two distinct failures at Cash App: predatory marketing practices and inadequate fraud protection. Neither case was an admission of wrongdoing by Block. But between the two, Block paid close to $270 million in 2025 alone to resolve consumer protection claims tied to Cash App.

What Washington’s CEMA Means for Businesses

The Bottoms settlement carries implications beyond Cash App. CEMA is stricter than the federal TCPA in one specific way: it assigns liability to companies that “substantially assist” in transmitting unsolicited commercial messages, not just to the direct senders. That reach catches referral programs, affiliate marketing networks, and any platform that enables users to send commercial messages to third parties.

The TCPAWorld legal commentary noted the case directly: “Companies operating refer-a-friend style SMS programs need to be very cautious in Washington state.” A business can build a referral program that complies with TCPA in every other state and still face CEMA exposure in Washington if the recipient did not affirmatively consent.

Block’s constitutional challenge, that CEMA was overbroad and conflicted with federal law, failed at both the motion-to-dismiss stage and ultimately through the settlement. The Washington AG’s intervention reinforced that the state intended CEMA to apply broadly to digital marketing facilitators, not just direct senders. Businesses operating referral programs with Washington customers need written, affirmative opt-in consent from recipients before those texts go out.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Cash App spam text case illustrates a design pattern that has become common across consumer tech: referral programs that blur the line between personal communication and corporate marketing. The text looked like a message from a friend. It came through a friend’s account. But it was written by Cash App, delivered by Cash App’s infrastructure, and triggered by a financial incentive Cash App created. That is a commercial solicitation, not a personal recommendation.

Recipients had no way of knowing they were being marketed to by a corporation when they read what appeared to be a peer-to-peer text. That asymmetry is exactly what consumer protection laws like CEMA are designed to address.

The structural parallel matters for consumers using any app with a “share with contacts” or “invite a friend” feature. When a platform pre-fills a message, provides the delivery mechanism, and incentivizes the send, recipients are receiving a commercial communication regardless of who pressed the button. Consent to receive those messages should be opt-in, not assumed.

The $394.36 per-claim payout was meaningful for a spam text. Under CEMA’s $500-per-violation statutory damages framework, the settlement represented a fraction of Block’s theoretical maximum exposure. That gap reflects the cost-benefit of litigation for both sides. For consumers, the lesson is cleaner: platforms that profit from viral referral programs bear responsibility for the consent status of every number they reach, and regulators in at least one state have shown they will enforce that responsibility. Cases like the Momentum Solar robocall lawsuit show the same enforcement pattern playing out against companies that treat unsolicited outreach as a growth channel rather than a legal obligation. The Prime Energy lawsuit similarly demonstrates how consumer product companies face accountability when marketing claims outpace the legal standards for honesty and consent. And the Poppi false advertising settlement shows that juries and courts have little tolerance for corporations that build revenue on consumer confusion rather than transparent communication.