What Is the Affirm Lawsuit?
The Affirm lawsuit is the shorthand name for In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, a federal securities fraud class action, not a multidistrict litigation or a currently certified class. Investor Mark Kusnier filed the first version of the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on December 8, 2022, and the court consolidated related filings under one docket, Case No. 3:22-cv-07770-AMO, assigned to U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
The operative complaint names Affirm Holdings, Inc. as the lead defendant, along with chief executive and chairman Max Levchin and then-chief financial officer Michael Linford. It alleges the company and its executives made materially false and misleading statements about Affirm's exposure to rising interest rates during a proposed class period running from November 16, 2021 through February 8, 2023, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
No class has ever been certified in this case, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation lists no Affirm or Affirm Holdings MDL, so this has always been a single proposed securities class action rather than a consolidated mass tort. That distinction matters for anyone searching for an Affirm lawsuit settlement or payout, because the district court dismissed the case with prejudice on September 30, 2025 before any class was ever certified, and the plaintiffs' appeal of that dismissal is what remains pending today.
Why Are People Filing Affirm Lawsuits?
People filed the Affirm lawsuit because the complaint alleges Affirm's executives told investors the company's business model could absorb a sharp rise in interest rates without harm, then the company's own results showed the opposite once rates actually rose. The core dispute centers on public statements Chief Financial Officer Michael Linford made during a May 2021 investor conference, after U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had already warned that the Federal Funds Rate would likely need to increase.
According to the operative complaint and the court's own later order summarizing it, Linford told investors at the MoffettNathanson Payments, Processors, and IT Services Summit that Affirm had "stress tested" its revenue model against "20 years of rates" and found the company "well positioned to succeed in any rate environment," adding that Affirm's model could absorb roughly "650 basis points" of rate increases because 75% of its loan portfolio was funded at a fixed rate or carried no interest-rate exposure at all. Plaintiffs allege this reassurance was misleading because the Federal Funds Rate had not been above 5% since 2006 and 2007, decades before the 20-year stress-test window Linford cited, so the comparison understated how unusual the subsequent rate environment actually was.
The complaint alleges Affirm's own later disclosures contradicted the earlier assurances. By late 2022 and into February 2023, plaintiffs say Affirm's public filings and executive commentary began acknowledging that rising rates were in fact squeezing the company's funding costs, culminating in a February 8, 2023 earnings report in which Affirm widened its quarterly loss, cut its fiscal-year revenue guidance, and announced a workforce reduction of roughly 500 employees, about 19% of its staff, alongside a decision to vacate part of its San Francisco office. Plaintiffs allege Affirm's stock price fell after that announcement because the market was absorbing information the company had allegedly downplayed for more than a year.
Affirm has not admitted wrongdoing at any stage of this litigation, and the district court ultimately agreed with Affirm that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded the fraudulent intent, known in securities law as scienter, that a claim like this requires.
What Injuries Are Included in the Affirm Lawsuit?
The Affirm lawsuit alleges one category of harm, financial losses to shareholders who bought Affirm stock during the proposed class period and watched its value fall once the alleged interest-rate risk materialized. Unlike a mass-tort page describing physical injuries, a securities class action like this one measures harm in investment losses tied to a company's stock price.
No court has ever ruled that Affirm's statements were actually false or misleading, and the district court dismissed the case before reaching that question on the merits, finding instead that the complaint failed on a separate legal requirement. Any financial-loss figure discussed below describes what plaintiffs alleged, not a court-confirmed finding or an approved recovery.
Investment Losses From Affirm's Stock-Price Decline
A securities-fraud investment loss is the drop in a stock's value that a shareholder allegedly suffered because a company's public statements misrepresented or omitted information a reasonable investor would have wanted to know before buying or holding the stock.
Plaintiffs allege that Affirm investors who bought shares between November 16, 2021 and February 8, 2023 paid a price that did not reflect the company's real exposure to rising interest rates, because executives' public reassurances allegedly understated that exposure. When Affirm disclosed weaker guidance, a wider quarterly loss, and a 19% workforce reduction on February 8, 2023, plaintiffs allege the stock fell as the market priced in information the complaint says should have been disclosed earlier.
The complaint does not plead a specific dollar amount of class-wide damages, since that kind of figure is typically calculated later in a securities case, through expert analysis of trading data, only if a case survives dismissal and reaches class certification. This case never reached that stage.
Who Qualifies for the Affirm Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm Holdings, Inc. common stock between November 16, 2021 and February 8, 2023, the proposed class period in the operative complaint
- You held that stock through a qualifying transaction and can document the purchase and sale dates and prices
- You suffered a financial loss on that investment that plaintiffs attribute to the alleged misrepresentations
You may not qualify if:
- You only bought Affirm stock outside the November 16, 2021 to February 8, 2023 window
- You are thinking of the separate, earlier securities case over Affirm's February 2022 preliminary-earnings tweets, which is a distinct, already-concluded lawsuit described in the related-cases section below
- You are looking for a consumer refund or payout over a specific Affirm purchase or loan, which this securities case does not cover at all
No class was ever certified in this case, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2025, so there is currently no claims process, no settlement fund, and nothing to file for. These criteria describe who the proposed class would have included had the case proceeded, not a right any investor can currently exercise. Only a qualified securities attorney reviewing the Ninth Circuit's eventual ruling on the pending appeal can say whether that changes.
What Is the Current Status of the Affirm Lawsuit?
The current status of the Affirm lawsuit is closed at the district court level and pending on appeal, with the case dismissed with prejudice and no settlement or active claims process. The docket reflects more than two and a half years of pretrial litigation, three rounds of amended complaints, and two separate rulings that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded securities fraud.
Only one proceeding is tracked in the table below. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation lists no Affirm or Affirm Holdings MDL, so there is no consolidated docket, no pending-case count, and no bellwether schedule of the kind mass-tort pages typically report.
In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Investor Mark Kusnier filed the first complaint on December 8, 2022, and the court appointed Kusnier as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel on March 7, 2023, with investor Chris Meinsen later joining as a named plaintiff. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 5, 2023, which the court dismissed with leave to amend on December 20, 2023. A second amended complaint followed on January 19, 2024, and the court granted Affirm's second motion to dismiss on August 26, 2024, again with leave to amend, after finding the complaint did not support a strong inference that Affirm's executives knew their statements were false when made. Rather than file a third amended complaint, plaintiffs sought reconsideration; the court resolved that motion in Affirm's favor on August 14, 2025, and the parties submitted a joint proposed judgment, which the court entered on September 30, 2025, dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 29, 2025, docketed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as No. 25-6869.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (federal) |
| Case Number | 3:22-cv-07770-AMO |
| Filed | December 8, 2022 |
| Judge | U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin |
| Lead Plaintiff / Counsel | Mark Kusnier (with Chris Meinsen), represented by Pomerantz LLP, appointed March 7, 2023 |
| Claims | Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a); SEC Rule 10b-5 |
| Proposed Class Period | November 16, 2021 to February 8, 2023, not certified |
| Current Stage | Dismissed with prejudice September 30, 2025; plaintiffs' appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-6869) as of this writing |
The court's August 14, 2025 order, a public filing available through the Northern District of California's docket, lays out the scienter analysis in detail: it found that the eleven statements plaintiffs identified as false did not themselves show Affirm's executives knew they were misleading at the time, and it declined to let plaintiffs expand their theory through later briefing rather than the operative complaint itself.
Is There an Affirm Lawsuit Settlement or Payout?
There is no Affirm lawsuit settlement or payout from this securities case. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice before any class was certified, so no settlement fund, claims process, or court-approved payout exists for the Kusnier securities litigation.
A dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims in the district court, though the pending Ninth Circuit appeal could still change the outcome if the appellate court reverses. Unless and until that happens, there is nothing to claim, and any site suggesting otherwise about this specific case is describing something that does not currently exist.
Several different dollar figures circulate in searches for an Affirm lawsuit payout, and none of them come from this securities case. The most commonly searched figures, payments up to $3,000 or a flat $20 cash payment, come from a separate class action settlement against Evolve Bank & Trust, Affirm's former banking partner, over a 2024 data breach that exposed customer information across many Evolve-linked fintech apps, Affirm included. That settlement received final approval on December 15, 2025, and the administrator began issuing payments on March 30, 2026, but Affirm itself was not a defendant in that case, it was named only as one of the companies whose customers were affected, and its own claims window has already closed.
A separate, older consumer class action, Shephard v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., filed in 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleged Affirm misrepresented the fees and consumer protections of its buy now, pay later product under New York's general business law. Affirm moved to compel arbitration in that case under its user agreement, and it is a legally distinct consumer dispute from the securities fraud case covered on this page, with no connection to Affirm's stock price or shareholders.
Affirm Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The latest Affirm lawsuit updates and news, including rulings, amended complaints, and the pending appeal, are tracked below as they're confirmed. The Affirm securities class action was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025, and the case now sits before the Ninth Circuit on appeal, with no class certified and no settlement reached. The timeline below tracks every confirmed development from the first filing forward, including separate proceedings involving Affirm that are not part of this case.
Affirm Lawsuit Timeline of Events
A separate consumer class action over Affirm's BNPL fees is filed in New York
Plaintiff Judith Shephard filed Shephard v. Affirm Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Affirm misrepresented its buy now, pay later product's fees and consumer protections. This consumer case is legally distinct from the securities fraud litigation covered on this page, and Affirm moved to compel arbitration under its user agreement.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opens an inquiry into buy now, pay later lending
The CFPB announced it was examining the risks and benefits of buy now, pay later products, naming Affirm among the companies under review, citing concerns about accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting. Affirm's stock fell roughly 10.6% following the announcement, a decline plaintiffs later cited as early evidence of the market's sensitivity to regulatory risk around Affirm's business model.
A separate, earlier Affirm securities case is filed over premature earnings tweets
A different group of plaintiffs sued Affirm in the Northern District of California, Case No. 22-cv-01243 before Judge Vince Chhabria, alleging the company posted misleading preliminary earnings figures on social media before its full results came out, after which the stock fell roughly 32% once complete numbers showed a wider-than-expected loss. That case is a distinct lawsuit from the one covered on this page and was dismissed on September 28, 2022.
The earlier, separate Affirm earnings-tweet securities case is dismissed
Judge Vince Chhabria granted Affirm's motion to dismiss the Twitter-disclosure securities case, Case No. 22-cv-01243, closing that distinct litigation without a settlement. This ruling predates and is unrelated to the interest-rate-risk case that is the subject of this page.
Investor Mark Kusnier files the securities class action over interest-rate risk
Mark Kusnier filed the first complaint in what became In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07770, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging Affirm and its executives misrepresented the company's exposure to rising interest rates.
The lead-plaintiff deadline passes as multiple investor firms seek the role
Several securities litigation firms, including Pomerantz, Holzer & Holzer, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, Levi & Korsinsky, Robbins LLP, Kirby McInerney, and others, publicly notified Affirm investors of the February 6, 2023 deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.
The court appoints Mark Kusnier as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz as lead counsel
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California appointed Mark Kusnier as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel for the consolidated Affirm Holdings securities litigation, clearing the way for an amended, operative complaint.
Plaintiffs file their amended complaint
Lead plaintiff Mark Kusnier, joined by Chris Meinsen, filed an amended complaint against Affirm Holdings, Inc., Max Levchin, and Michael Linford, laying out the interest-rate-risk misrepresentation theory in its fullest form to that point.
The court dismisses the amended complaint with leave to amend
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Affirm's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding it insufficient as pleaded, but gave plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint rather than closing the case outright.
Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint
Plaintiffs narrowed their case in a second amended complaint, focused specifically on statements about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to interest-rate changes, the theory that carried through to the case's final resolution.
The court dismisses the second amended complaint for failing to plead scienter
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Affirm's second motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs had not pleaded facts supporting a strong inference that Affirm's executives knew their interest-rate statements were false when made, the legal standard known as scienter, and again granted leave to amend within 30 days.
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration instead of filing a third amended complaint
Rather than file a new complaint, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 26, 2024 dismissal order, arguing the court had overlooked specific statements and witness evidence bearing on scienter.
The court rejects reconsideration and reaffirms the dismissal
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued a 15-page order rejecting plaintiffs' reconsideration arguments one by one, including their reliance on CFO Michael Linford's May 2021 conference remarks that Affirm's model could absorb 650 basis points of rate increases, and directed the parties to prepare a joint proposed form of judgment.
The court enters judgment and dismisses the Affirm securities case with prejudice
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered judgment dismissing In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation with prejudice, closing the case at the district court level with no recovery for the proposed class.
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit
Mark Kusnier and Chris Meinsen filed a notice of appeal, docketed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as No. 25-6869, asking the appellate court to reverse the district court's dismissal and allow the case to proceed.
A separate Evolve Bank & Trust data breach settlement affecting Affirm customers wins final approval
A federal court granted final approval to an $11.9 million class action settlement resolving data breach claims against Evolve Bank & Trust, Affirm's former banking partner, after a 2024 ransomware attack exposed customer data across Affirm, Dave, Wise, and other fintech apps that relied on Evolve. Affirm was not a defendant in that case.
Payments go out in the separate Evolve Bank & Trust data breach settlement
The settlement administrator in the Evolve Bank & Trust data breach case began issuing payments of up to $3,000, or a flat $20 cash payment, to approved claimants, a settlement that remains legally distinct from and unrelated to the Affirm securities lawsuit covered on this page.
How to File an Affirm Lawsuit
These 5 steps outline how to file an Affirm lawsuit.
- Confirm your purchase dates fall in the class period: Check whether you bought Affirm Holdings, Inc. common stock between November 16, 2021 and February 8, 2023, since that is the proposed class period in the dismissed complaint.
- Preserve your brokerage records: Save trade confirmations or brokerage statements showing the dates, prices, and share counts of any Affirm stock you bought or sold during that window, in case the Ninth Circuit revives the case.
- Understand there is currently no claim to file: The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2025, so there is no settlement fund, claim form, or deadline right now, regardless of what any third-party site may suggest.
- Watch the Ninth Circuit appeal: Track No. 25-6869 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, since a reversal there is the only current path back toward a live claims process in this specific case.
- Consult a securities litigation attorney: Speak with a lawyer who handles securities class actions if you believe you have a significant, documented loss, since only an attorney can assess how the pending appeal and the statute of limitations affect any option you may still have.
Affirm Lawsuit is no longer accepting new claims. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice on September 30, 2025, after the plaintiffs elected to stand on their complaint rather than amend it again, and the plaintiffs' notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed October 29, 2025, remains pending as of this writing.
What Evidence Would You Need for an Affirm Lawsuit Claim?
Evidence for an Affirm lawsuit claim would start with documented proof of exactly when you bought and sold Affirm stock, since this case turns entirely on whether a purchase fell inside the proposed class period and whether the price paid reflected the alleged misrepresentations.
- Brokerage trade confirmations: records showing the exact dates, share counts, and prices of any Affirm Holdings, Inc. common stock you bought or sold between November 16, 2021 and February 8, 2023.
- Account statements: monthly or annual brokerage statements covering the same window, useful as a backup if individual trade confirmations are missing.
- Proof of loss: documentation of the price you paid versus the price you later sold at or the value on a relevant date, since a securities claim depends on a measurable financial loss, not just ownership.
No claims process currently exists for this case, so there is nowhere to submit these records today. Keeping them matters anyway, because the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the pending appeal is what would determine whether a claims process for this specific case ever opens, and that kind of process, if one is ever created, typically arrives long after the underlying conduct.
What Did Affirm's Executives Say About Interest-Rate Risk?
Affirm's own chief financial officer, Michael Linford, made the public statements at the center of this case, telling investors in May 2021 that Affirm had stress-tested its business against two decades of interest-rate history and found it well positioned regardless of the rate environment. The court's own August 14, 2025 order, a public filing in the case, quotes Linford telling a May 11, 2021 investor conference that Affirm's model could get "650 basis points" of rate increases because "75% of our portfolio is funded with fixed rate or no polluting," meaning no interest-rate exposure at all, with the remaining 25% described as within Affirm's control.
Plaintiffs alleged that framing was misleading because the Federal Funds Rate had not exceeded 5% since 2006 and 2007, decades before the 20-year stress-test period Linford referenced, and it did not approach that level again during the proposed class period either. The district court did not ultimately rule on whether the statements themselves were false, instead finding that plaintiffs had not pleaded facts showing Affirm's executives knew, at the time they spoke, that the statements were misleading, the scienter requirement that securities fraud claims must clear before a case can proceed to discovery.
| Development | Source | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFPB opens BNPL inquiry naming Affirm | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | December 16, 2021 | Regulatory scrutiny cited in the complaint as a stock-price-sensitive event; Affirm shares fell roughly 10.6% afterward |
| Linford's 650-basis-point stress-test remarks | MoffettNathanson Payments, Processors, and IT Services Summit | May 11, 2021 | The specific statement plaintiffs' reconsideration motion centered on, quoted directly in the court's August 2025 order |
| Q2 FY2023 earnings, guidance cut, 19% workforce reduction | Affirm Holdings, Inc. public disclosure | February 8, 2023 | End of the proposed class period; the disclosure plaintiffs allege revealed the previously downplayed interest-rate exposure |
How Does the Affirm Lawsuit Compare to Other Affirm-Related Cases?
The securities case on this page is one of several distinct legal matters that involve Affirm, and sharing the company's name is not evidence they are connected.
The closest lookalike is an earlier, already-concluded Affirm securities case, filed in the same federal court over a different set of facts: allegedly misleading preliminary earnings figures Affirm posted on social media on February 10, 2022, before releasing complete results. That case, Case No. 22-cv-01243 before Judge Vince Chhabria, was dismissed on September 28, 2022, months before the interest-rate-risk case covered on this page was even filed, and it has no bearing on the current Ninth Circuit appeal.
A separate consumer class action, Shephard v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., filed in 2021 in the Southern District of New York, alleges Affirm misrepresented its buy now, pay later product's fees and consumer protections under New York law, a consumer-protection theory with no connection to Affirm's stock price or shareholders. Affirm moved to compel arbitration in that case under its user agreement.
A third, unrelated matter is the Evolve Bank & Trust data breach litigation, which reached an $11.9 million settlement with final approval on December 15, 2025. Affirm was not a defendant in that case; it was one of many fintech companies, including Dave and Wise, whose customers were affected because Affirm used Evolve as a banking partner. Any mention of a $3,000 or $20 Affirm-related payout traces back to that separate settlement against Evolve, not to the securities case on this page.
| Case | Defendant | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (this page) | Affirm Holdings, Inc.; Max Levchin; Michael Linford | N.D. Cal., No. 3:22-cv-07770-AMO | Dismissed with prejudice Sept. 30, 2025; appeal pending, 9th Cir. No. 25-6869 |
| Earlier Affirm earnings-tweet securities case (unrelated, earlier) | Affirm Holdings, Inc. | N.D. Cal., No. 22-cv-01243 | Dismissed September 28, 2022; concluded |
| Shephard v. Affirm Holdings, Inc. (unrelated, consumer) | Affirm Holdings, Inc. | S.D.N.Y., No. 7:21-cv-05241 | Affirm moved to compel arbitration; consumer BNPL fee dispute, not a securities case |
| Evolve Bank & Trust data breach litigation (unrelated, different defendant) | Evolve Bank & Trust | Multidistrict consumer data breach litigation | $11.9 million settlement approved Dec. 15, 2025; Affirm customers affected but Affirm is not the defendant |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Affirm lawsuit about?
The Affirm lawsuit is a federal securities class action alleging Affirm Holdings, Inc. and two executives misrepresented how exposed the company's business was to rising interest rates, leading investors to pay inflated prices for Affirm stock between November 16, 2021 and February 8, 2023.
Is the Affirm lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
It is a proposed federal securities class action, In re Affirm Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, not a multidistrict litigation, and no class was ever certified before the case was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2025.
Is there an Affirm lawsuit settlement right now?
No settlement exists in this securities case. The district court dismissed it with prejudice before any class was certified, so there is no settlement fund, no claim form, and no payout connected to this specific lawsuit as of this writing.
Why do some sites mention a $3,000 or $20 Affirm payout?
Those figures come from a different, unrelated case, the Evolve Bank & Trust data breach settlement, which paid affected customers of several fintech apps, Affirm included, after a 2024 cyberattack. Affirm was not a defendant in that case, and it has no connection to the securities fraud lawsuit covered on this page.
Why was the Affirm securities lawsuit dismissed?
The court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs did not plead facts showing Affirm's executives knew their interest-rate statements were false or misleading when they made them, the scienter requirement securities fraud claims must satisfy, and the court reaffirmed that finding again on reconsideration in August 2025.
Can I still join the Affirm lawsuit?
Not currently. The case was dismissed with prejudice at the district court and no class was certified, so there is nothing to join unless the pending Ninth Circuit appeal reverses that outcome, which a securities attorney can help you track.