Dave Inc./DE Commitments Disclosure

Note 12 Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. Other than as described below, management does not believe that any of these proceedings or claims will have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, legal proceedings and claims are subject to many factors that are difficult to predict, so there can be no assurance that, in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, the Company will not incur material costs.

1. United States of America v. Dave, Inc. and Jason Wilk (filed December 30, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California)

In January 2023, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) staff seeking information in connection with the sale, offering, advertising, marketing or other promotion of cash advance products and online financial services. In response, the Company cooperated with the FTC staff while seeking to engage constructively with the FTC to resolve this matter.

On August 21, 2024, the FTC staff sent the Company a proposed consent order and draft complaint, alleging that the Company had violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act") which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" and certain provisions of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act related to the Company’s platform and offering of the ExtraCash Product (the “Complaint”), and advising that it would recommend the filing of an enforcement action if the Company did not settle the FTC’s claims. The Company engaged in good faith negotiations with the FTC staff to settle the claims but these negotiations were unsuccessful, and on November 5, 2024, the FTC filed the Complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company. The Complaint sought a permanent injunction, monetary relief for an unspecified amount and “other relief as the court determines to be just and proper.” The FTC then referred the case to the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), and on December 30, 2024, the DOJ filed an amended civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and our Chief Executive Officer, Jason Wilk as defendants (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that Dave violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act as well as the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. The DOJ is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, monetary relief and other relief. On February 28, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ’s Amended Complaint. On April 7, 2025, the DOJ filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss and on April 21, 2025 the Company filed its reply in support of the Company's motion to dismiss. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on June 30, 2025. On September 12, 2025, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On October 10, 2025, the Company answered the Amended Complaint.

2. Michael Russell et al. v. Dave, Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust (filed April 1, 2025 in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, California)

On April 1, 2025, a putative class action was filed by Michael Russell and other named plaintiffs (the "Russell Plaintiffs") against the Company in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, California, alleging that the Company’s practices violate the Military Lending Act (“MLA”) and Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). The Russell Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, monetary relief and other relief. On May 5, 2025, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. On July 2, 2025, rather than oppose the motion, the Russell Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the “Russell Amended Complaint”) which added a claim under the Georgia Payday Loan Act. On July 29, 2025, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration was held on December 8, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as well as its motion to compel arbitration. On December 26, 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the District Court has stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

3. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dave, Inc. (filed December 30, 2025 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland)

On December 30, 2025, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“City of Baltimore”) filed a complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, alleging violations of the Baltimore City Consumer Protection Ordinance through unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the Company’s ExtraCash product. The City of Baltimore is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, monetary relief and other relief. On January 29, 2026, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Litigation Accrual

The Company records an accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2025, the Company has recorded an aggregate accrual for legal contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable of $7.8 million. Significant changes in the accrual may be required in future periods as these or other cases progress and additional information becomes available. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably predict the possible outcome of the matters described above due to, among other things, the fact that they raise difficult factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these or other matters, and the Company may incur a

loss in excess of the amount accrued. The defense or resolution of these or other matters could involve significant monetary costs and have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial results and operations.