DailyPay is drawing on its ties to employers as one key reason a state judge should dismiss a New York lawsuit against the earned wage access provider.

DailyPay is “fundamentally different” from EWA companies that offer their services directly to consumers, the company wrote in its April 3 reply to a brief from the New York Attorney General opposing DailyPay’s January motion to dismiss the case. 

New York AG Letitia James sued DailyPay and a second EWA provider, MoneyLion, a year ago in separate actions in New York State Supreme Court, alleging that they violated state usury laws by making illegal, high-interest loans to workers. James’ lawsuits also alleged false advertising and deceptive practices.

Both companies are asking judges to dismiss the AG’s lawsuits. 

State Supreme Court Judge Alexander Tisch set an April 10 deadline for motion filings in the DailyPay case. He has not yet set a hearing date.

DailyPay said in its reply that it is merely “an adjunct to the payroll system through which employers can provide on-demand pay to workers.”

“Workers access pay that already belongs to them, and DailyPay settles exclusively with employers through the payroll process,” the court filing said. “DailyPay does not seek or collect repayment of earned pay from workers and does not assess their creditworthiness.”

Providers of EWA services, also known as on-demand pay services, have proliferated in recent years to let employees tap their earned pay before a scheduled payday. 

Workers bear no repayment obligations even if their employer doesn’t pay DailyPay, the company wrote. The AG’s opposition “relies on irrelevant facts,” it added.

New York-based DailyPay also cited an advisory opinion from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, issued in December 2025, that said employer-sponsored EWA programs do not constitute lending.

The CFPB opinion reflects an “emerging consensus” that employer-partnered EWA services do not extend credit, DailyPay wrote.

The company also added that “no court has found that employer-partnered services like DailyPay’s constitute loans.” There have been some court decisions finding that consumer-direct EWA products are loans, in cases when providers deal directly with workers and not their employers.

In August, U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin in Baltimore denied a motion by EWA provider Activehours, which does business as EarnIn, to dismiss a lawsuit in Maryland alleging that the company was a lender under Maryland law. Other federal courts have also found that EWA products constitute loans.

Rubin has set a May 4 deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion seeking class certification in the EarnIn case.

In the MoneyLion lawsuit, the New York AG filed its opposition brief March 20 to MoneyLion’s January motion to dismiss the case. MoneyLion faces a deadline Friday to file its reply to the AG’s opposition motion.

As part of its filing, DailyPay also asked Tisch to convert the civil lawsuit from the expedited “special proceeding” under which it was filed into a plenary action with a jury trial. The company also wants the court to allow the parties to conduct discovery. 

By contrast, the New York AG brought the MoneyLion case as an ordinary civil lawsuit.