Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various legal proceedings, including, from time to time, regulatory, supervisory, and governmental matters as well as actions which are asserted to be maintainable as class action suits, employment claims, or enforcement actions. We review these actions on an ongoing basis to determine whether it is probable and estimable that a loss has occurred and use that information when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We have provided reserves where necessary for all claims and, based on current knowledge and in part upon the advice of legal counsel, all matters are believed to be adequately covered by insurance, or, if not covered, would not be likely to have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Nonetheless, given the inherent unpredictability of these matters, an adverse outcome could, from time to time, have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Other Litigation and Claims On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against us and two of our former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was denied on March 29, 2024. On Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies (continued) September 18, 2025, the parties jointly filed a Notice of Settlement, and on October 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court has taken under submission. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement (which are subject to final documentation and court approval), we expect to pay $40.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against us and our two former officers. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the settlement amount will be funded from available insurance coverage and this amount, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 who file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by the Court. The expected settlement amount is reflected as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 within the current portion of other accrued liabilities on our consolidated financial statements, with a corresponding insurance recovery recorded within accounts receivable, net. On February 18, 2020, a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al., No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against certain of our current and former officers and directors. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based largely on the allegations made in the Koffsmon action. The Hellman action seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the company. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, the Hellman action is stayed. On July 15, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action entitled DiBlasio v. Streit, et al., No. 24-cv-05924 was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against certain of our current and former officers and directors. A first amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2024. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based on the allegations made in Koffsmon action, and on the Consent Order from the Federal Reserve Board. The DiBlasio action seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the company. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, the DiBlasio action is stayed. On June 25, 2025, the Court entered an order consolidating the Hellman action and the DiBlasio action, with the Hellman action designated the lead case and the DiBlasio action closed administratively. The consolidated case remains stayed. Given the uncertainty of litigation, we are currently unable to estimate the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible losses, if any, or the impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, except as disclosed. Other Legal Matters We monitor federal laws and the laws of all 50 states to identify laws or regulations that apply (or may apply) to our products and services. We have obtained money transmitter licenses (or similar such licenses) where applicable, based on advice of counsel or when we have been requested to do so. If we were found to be in violation of any laws and regulations governing our business, which includes without limitation banking, money transmitters, electronic fund transfers, escheatment, changes in accounting policies, or money laundering in the United States or abroad, we could be subject to penalties or could be forced to change our business practices. From time to time, we enter into contracts containing provisions that contingently require us to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) contracts with our card issuing banks, under which we are responsible to them for any unrecovered overdrafts on accountholders’ balances; (ii) certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities, and other claims arising from our use of the premises; (iii) certain agreements with our officers, directors, and employees, under which we may be required to indemnify these persons for liabilities arising out of their relationship with us; and (iv) contracts under which we may be required to indemnify our retail distributors, suppliers, vendors and other parties with whom we have contracts against claims arising from certain of our actions, omissions, violations of law and/or infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights and/or other intellectual property rights. Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies (continued) Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. With the exception of overdrafts on accountholders’ balances, historically, we have not been required to make payments under these and similar contingent obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in our consolidated balance sheets. For additional information regarding overdrafts on accountholders’ balances, refer to Note 5 — Accounts Receivable.

In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various legal proceedings, including, from time to time, regulatory, supervisory, and governmental matters as well as actions which are asserted to be maintainable as class action suits, employment claims, or enforcement actions. We review these actions on an ongoing basis to determine whether it is probable and estimable that a loss has occurred and use that information when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We have provided reserves where necessary for all claims and, based on current knowledge and in part upon the advice of legal counsel, all matters are believed to be adequately covered by insurance, or, if not covered, would not be likely to have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Nonetheless, given the inherent unpredictability of these matters, an adverse outcome could, from time to time, have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against us and two of our former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was denied on March 29, 2024. On

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement (which are subject to final documentation and court approval), we expect to pay $40.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against us and our two former officers. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the settlement amount will be funded from available insurance coverage and this amount, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019 who file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by the Court. The expected settlement amount is reflected as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 within the current portion of other accrued liabilities on our consolidated financial statements, with a corresponding insurance recovery recorded within accounts receivable, net.

On February 18, 2020, a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al., No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against certain of our current and former officers and directors. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based largely on the allegations made in the Koffsmon action. The Hellman action seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the company. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, the Hellman action is stayed.

On July 15, 2024, a putative shareholder derivative action entitled DiBlasio v. Streit, et al., No. 24-cv-05924 was filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against certain of our current and former officers and directors. A first amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2024. The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based on the allegations made in Koffsmon action, and on the Consent Order from the Federal Reserve Board. The DiBlasio action seeks to recover, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the company. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, the DiBlasio action is stayed.

On June 25, 2025, the Court entered an order consolidating the Hellman action and the DiBlasio action, with the Hellman action designated the lead case and the DiBlasio action closed administratively. The consolidated case remains stayed.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, we are currently unable to estimate the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible losses, if any, or the impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, except as disclosed.

We monitor federal laws and the laws of all 50 states to identify laws or regulations that apply (or may apply) to our products and services. We have obtained money transmitter licenses (or similar such licenses) where applicable, based on advice of counsel or when we have been requested to do so. If we were found to be in violation of any laws and regulations governing our business, which includes without limitation banking, money transmitters, electronic fund transfers, escheatment, changes in accounting policies, or money laundering in the United States or abroad, we could be subject to penalties or could be forced to change our business practices.

From time to time, we enter into contracts containing provisions that contingently require us to indemnify various parties against claims from third parties. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) contracts with our card issuing banks, under which we are responsible to them for any unrecovered overdrafts on accountholders’ balances; (ii) certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities, and other claims arising from our use of the premises; (iii) certain agreements with our officers, directors, and employees, under which we may be required to indemnify these persons for liabilities arising out of their relationship with us; and (iv) contracts under which we may be required to indemnify our retail distributors, suppliers, vendors and other parties with whom we have contracts against claims arising from certain of our actions, omissions, violations of law and/or infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights and/or other intellectual property rights.

Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the obligated amounts associated with these types of agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. With the exception of overdrafts on accountholders’ balances, historically, we have not been required to make payments under these and similar contingent obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations in our consolidated balance sheets. For additional information regarding overdrafts on accountholders’ balances, refer to Note 5 — Accounts Receivable.