Albert Corporation, which offers app-based cash advances to consumers, is facing a class action tied to protections for servicemembers under the federal Military Lending Act (MLA). The MLA caps the “military annual percentage rate” (MAPR) at 36% for covered borrowers and requires specific disclosures, and regulators often scrutinize add-on charges—like expedited or “instant” transfer fees—because they can function like finance charges that increase the effective cost of short-term credit. The proposed settlement website indicates that eligible class members include active-duty servicemembers (or their spouses/dependents) who received an instant advance and paid an instant transfer fee during the stated period, with a reported payment of $30 per transaction and no proof required. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs allege that charging instant transfer fees in connection with advances to covered borrowers violated the MLA, effectively pushing the cost of credit beyond what the law allows or failing to treat those fees properly under the Act’s rules. Its significance is that it highlights an ongoing tension in the fintech “earned wage access” and cash-advance space: even when products are marketed as low-cost alternatives to payday loans, optional convenience fees can draw legal challenges if they are closely tied to obtaining funds and raise the true price of borrowing. Similar disputes have appeared across the short-term credit and fintech industry—often hinging on whether a fee is genuinely optional, how it’s calculated, and whether it should be included in APR/MAPR—underscoring that companies serving military families must design pricing and disclosures to comply with MLA requirements and related consumer-protection expectations in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment.