What was filed
The docket lists a complaint with jury demand filed on September 29, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is Dash.fi Technologies Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-11130. Document 1 is that complaint. The cause of action is listed as 15 U.S.C. § 1125 trademark infringement (Lanham Act), and the nature of suit is 840 Trademark. On October 1, the docket showed a clerk's notice of impending reassignment and a reassignment entry. The docket does not show a judgment.
What the complaint alleges
The complaint says Dash.fi is a financial technology company and program manager for a Mastercard-branded corporate credit card that advertisers use to buy ads on Meta's Facebook and Instagram platforms. It alleges the card includes an Ad Pay Protection feature that audits campaigns for invalid clicks and traffic, submits refund requests to Meta, and escalates through chargebacks. It alleges that since mid-2025 Dash.fi pursued about 11,800 chargeback disputes totaling about $39 million, of which about $35 million was returned to cardholders.
The complaint calls Meta's conduct the Dash.fi Ban and alleges it was retaliation. By the complaint's account, Dash.fi began auditing ad traffic and sending refund requests to Meta in January 2025; by spring 2025 Meta began declining charges on the card; Dash.fi began chargeback disputes in mid-2025; and by July 2025 Meta began blocking the bank identification numbers associated with Dash.fi Cards. The complaint also alleges false or misleading statements to Dash.fi customers. Examples pled include telling advertisers the card was a "Risk Payment - confirmed compromise," that it violated Meta policies, that Dash.fi was a "virtual bank" that failed verification, and that users should use a credit card from a traditional bank. The complaint says TransPecos Bank and Patriot Bank issue the Dash.fi Card and are traditional banks.
Count I alleges unfair competition and false advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Counts II and III allege intentional interference with contractual and prospective economic relations. Count IV alleges California unfair competition under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The prayer seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including treble damages and fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). That is a prayer for relief. A court has not granted it.
A complaint is not a ruling
None of this is a finding. A newly filed complaint tells you what Dash.fi alleges about Meta's billing disputes, card blocking, and statements to advertisers. It does not tell you that Meta advertised falsely, interfered with contracts, or competed unfairly. The court has not decided the case.