Observed 9 September 2026. The July resolution disclosed by Block is identifiable as the 8 July 2026, USD 45 million settlement announced by 46 state attorneys general, co-led by Oregon and Texas. Two state-issued copies establish the substantive agreed terms. Oregon's copy includes the parties' signatures; neither inspected copy establishes judicial entry. The central coordination provision credits redress paid under the January 2025 CFPB order and supplies a state-controlled fallback. It is not an additional USD 75–120 million consumer award to stack on top of the CFPB amount.
[Block's Q2 2026 filing](http[local research file] Note 16, printed page 33, says it entered a July 2026 resolution with multiple state AGs concerning complaints and disputes, and calls the amount immaterial. This is an issuer disclosure, not the operative amount or proof of payment. The identification is corroborated by the [California AG announcement](http[local research file] and [Oregon AG announcement](http[local research file] both dated 8 July 2026. Oregon says it co-led the investigation with Texas.
The [California instrument](http[local research file] is a [PROPOSED] Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, People of California v. Block, Inc. f/k/a Square, Inc., Superior Court, Alameda County. Its case-number field is blank on PDF page 1 and judicial signature/date fields are blank on page 21, visually checked. Its opening and ¶8, pages 2–3, say the parties agreed without factual/liability admission, Block denies wrongdoing, and parties waive appeal. This is an official published settlement text, not a visually verified entered judgment.
The [Oregon instrument](http[local research file] is a Stipulated General Judgment and Money Award, State of Oregon ex rel. Dan Rayfield v. Block, Circuit Court, Multnomah County. PDF page 29 bears Block Chief Legal Officer Chrysty Esperanza's DocuSign signature dated 6 July 2026; page 30 bears Oregon AAG Joseph Ferretti's signature dated 8 July 2026. Page 28's court-approval line is blank; page 31 is a certificate dated 8 July calling the proposed judgment ready for judicial signature. Its case-number field is also blank. Thus signed party assent is observed; court entry, an assigned docket number and final entered-version identity remain unverified. A blank posted copy is not evidence that the court never entered a judgment.
Both instruments' first-page footnote lists the 46 participating states and explains that separate state judgments incorporate substantive terms, with local-rule/law differences. Neither is a single document bearing all 46 AG signatures. Defendant wording includes Block's subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns; no claim is made that each separately signed. California ¶19 / Oregon ¶11(k) define 8 July 2026 as the effective date. Relevant laws include the state's consumer-protection statutes, EFTA and Regulation E. California ¶18 / Oregon ¶11(j) define the resolved pre-effective-date conduct and exclude Afterpay US's BNPL products. Complaint allegations are not admissions or contested judicial findings.
Locators below refer to the published California text unless Oregon is specified; PDF and printed page numbers agree. Statements describe the agreed terms, subject to the court-entry limitation above.
| Mechanism | Agreed requirement / decision right | Relationship to the earlier CFPB order |
|---|---|---|
| Staffed service and escalation | ¶¶44–46, pages 8–9: complaint/error/account-access/fraud intake and resolution or escalation; live customer support 24 hours/day, toll-free human phone at least 13.5 hours/day, including 5–6:30 p.m. Pacific, human chat at least 18 hours/day, reasonable hold/callback timelines, clearly displayed contact/hours and a direct AG complaint contact. Oregon ¶¶31–33, pages 9–10. | Human phone minimum is 13.5 hours rather than CFPB ¶108(a)'s 12. Do not describe this as 24-hour human telephone service. The AG contact is a specific external escalation route; it does not make the AG the initial reviewer of every case. |
| Error investigation and evidence | ¶¶47–50, pages 9–10: prompt, thorough, reasonable investigation without extra prerequisites; results within three business days of completion; explanation and access to relied-on documents for no-error/different-error findings; correction within one business day; provisional credit after ten business days if incomplete; finalization under Regulation E; two-year records. No mandatory contact with the P2P transfer recipient or law enforcement, or extra information before starting, and no linked-instrument exclusion. Oregon ¶¶34–37, pages 11–12. | Largely parallels the CFPB transaction-error requirements and explicitly adds provisional-credit finalization wording. This document-access requirement concerns a Notice of Error, not every closure appeal. |
| Locks, suspensions and deactivations | ¶51, pages 10–11, says “By June 30, 2026”: reasonably designed procedures for prompt notice, funds-access information and how restrictions may be addressed; prompt review/response and reasonable restoration timelines/efforts, with appropriateness and legal-prohibition qualifications. Oregon ¶38, pages 12–13, repeats this. | This wording does not reproduce CFPB ¶108(c)–(d)'s fixed 24-hour notice and ten-business-day appeal decision requirements. The later settlement does not say it replaces or relaxes that order. June 30 precedes the stipulated July 8 effective date; retain the literal date and seek the final entered text/implementation record before interpreting why. It is not evidence of breach or deliberate backdating. |
| Marketing and fraud policy | ¶¶36–43, pages 7–8: no misleading safety/bank/FDIC statements; discontinue marketing known to increase fraud, direct fraud education, public educational link and takeover-prevention procedures. ¶52, pages 11–12: identify suspected scam accounts, stop their operation and associated persons returning, complaint/trend tracking, good-faith refund policies and warnings. Oregon ¶¶23–30,39. | Anti-fraud restrictions and customer recourse are both required. No Lantern/Tech Coalition supplier or mandatory signal-sharing arrangement is specified. |
| Corporate oversight | ¶¶30–35, pages 6–7: documented compliance management, qualified committee, quarterly Board reporting, employee/contractor training and retained training records. ¶¶53–54, page 12: annual committee-approved compliance report, available to state on request. Oregon ¶¶17–22,40–41. | Do not import the CFPB order's annual sworn Board-approved submission into this different report: this text requires preparation, committee approval and availability on request. |
| Supervision and changes | ¶¶66,75–76, pages 15–17: modification can be sought through the executive committee and court; court retains enforcement/modification jurisdiction. Written non-material changes, including time extensions, can be agreed through counsel without a court order. Where the State determines a material failure and, in its sole discretion, no health/safety/welfare threat, it will give written notice before legal action. Block then has15businessdays to provide a good-faith written response; that response may describe completed correction or ongoing corrective work with a reasonable timetable. Oregon ¶¶54,63–64, pages 17,19–20. | The notice/response requirement applies in the specified circumstances, not to all enforcement;15businessdays is not necessarily a completed-cure deadline. There is no independently observed monitor appointment or prior regulator approval of every operating policy. |
General Section III compliance is due no later than 30 days after the effective date unless otherwise specified (California ¶26; Oregon ¶13). Existing procedures may satisfy the requirements if adequate (¶27 / ¶14), so prospective wording is not an admission that every required practice was absent. Training under California ¶33 / Oregon ¶20 is due within 90 days, then within 60 days of assuming the relevant responsibilities; transaction-error training is annual and before assuming that work (¶34 / ¶21).
Only enumerated obligations expire after five years, including specified committee/reporting, support-hours/contact, account-review and fraud measures (California ¶64; Oregon ¶52). Direct consumer education has a seven-year term (¶65 / ¶53). The texts do not say the whole judgment ends after five years. Written modifications or court entry could affect implementation; none was acquired.
California ¶¶59–60, page 13, and Oregon ¶¶46–48, pages 15–16, provide USD 45,000,000 payable within 30 days to the AGs, allocated at the participating states' discretion. California's specified share is USD 2,941,785.27, allocated under California Business and Professions Code §17206(c); the state's portion and interest are for AG consumer-protection enforcement. Oregon's specified share is USD 3,067,141.53, deposited into its ORS 180.095 account for any lawful purpose. Oregon's money-award table, pages 26–27, separately lists USD 281 filing costs. These are published obligations, not receipts.
Oregon ¶48 expressly allocates USD 264,153.73 out of the same USD 45 million to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), as reimbursement for certain costs and expenses of the participating states' investigation. It directs wire payment using Oregon AG instructions. This is a specific institutional reimbursement entitlement in the signed settlement text. It is neither a separate additional fine nor evidence that NAAG controlled the legal findings, and no bank/recipient payment record was read.
California ¶¶55–58, pages 12–13, and Oregon ¶¶42–45, pages 14–15, establish consumer redress of USD 75–120 million with three decisive conditions. First, redress payments under CFPB docket 2025-CFPB-0001 satisfy this obligation, with no further redress required under this judgment. Second, if Block has not paid at least USD 75 million in connection with that order by 16 January 2030, it must instead use a materially similar redress plan proposed to the Multistate AG Executive Committee by 18 March 2030, approved by that committee before payment. If payments are underway but unfinished on 16 January 2030, an update is required. Third, within ten days after sending CFPB the ¶122 Redress Report, Block must notify the committee that payments have been completed. Do not recast March 18 as a payment-completion deadline; it is the fallback plan-submission deadline.
The executive committee is precisely the AGs of Oregon, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Vermont and Washington (California ¶22; Oregon ¶11(n)). This is an explicit redress-plan approval route, not a general veto over every Cash App decision. The published text does not specify its internal voting rule.
The earlier CFPB packet explains its USD 75 million reserve/floor and possible residue-to-CFPB/Treasury mechanism. This July text uses redress paid “in connection with” that order and requires a materially similar fallback plan. It does not support a fresh claim that all of the floor must already have reached consumers, or that a separate second USD 75–120 million is owed in addition. The signed terms, AG announcements and issuer statement establish an agreed resolution; none of these records proves actual July-settlement payment totals.
Release follows full payment of the state-payment amount (California ¶¶61–63, pages 13–14; Oregon ¶¶49–51, pages 16–17). It broadly covers the state's civil claims for defined pre-effective conduct, preserves enforcement of the judgment and does not create, waive or limit private rights of action. Criminal liability and specified other liabilities remain outside the release. Parties' waiver of appeal is not a waiver by every customer.
The California announcement's final settlement-information paragraph visibly labels and links http[local research file] through a publisher-supplied Proofpoint wrapper. More directly, the Oregon announcement's final paragraph links that exact domain with an ordinary href, alongside the CFPB official case page. Both links are retained in the official HTML. This establishes an official AG referral to the remediation site, correcting the earlier narrow search failure to find one. It still does not establish the administrator's appointment instrument, validate each check, or prove a payout total. This run did not revisit or transact with that site.
Strongest supported account: state AGs agreed an additional public enforcement and payment arrangement that expressly preserves/credits the existing federal redress commitment and assigns fallback-plan approval to a named eight-state committee. NAAG has a disclosed, bounded investigation-expense reimbursement within the state-payment pool. Customer remedies and anti-fraud restrictions coexist, with legally meaningful differences between the state and CFPB formulations.
The strongest rival to treating this as a new centralized restriction mechanism is the text itself: repeated existing consumer-law duties, permission to satisfy terms through adequate existing procedures, a specific federal-redress credit, and no named external signal supplier. The record supports coordination of enforcement and remedy; it does not connect this settlement to Lantern decisions or the Cash App closure count in that separate case.
The next decisive records are the entered California/Oregon judgment and docket entry (court custodians), any written timing amendment explaining or carrying forward the June 30 requirement, actual state/NAAG receipts, and the implemented restriction-review procedure plus committee-approved annual report (Block/state AG custodians). The Oregon signatures establish assent but stop short of observed judicial entry. No new court account, outreach or broader state hunt was undertaken. Acquisition stops at this signed-instrument breakpoint for the forest review.
captures-ag.json records five retained originals, all ordinary unauthenticated GETs with HTTP 200, hashes and dates: California notice, proposed judgment and complaint; Oregon notice and signed stipulated-judgment packet. The California judgment was read in full, PDF 1–21, with pages 1/21 visually checked. Oregon pages 1–21 and 26–31 were read, with signature/approval pages 28–30 visually checked; pages 22–25 were captured but not substantively read (notice-address continuation). California complaint scope is PDF 1 and 11–13 only: caption, account-access allegations ¶59–63, causes of action/prayer and 8 July 2026 date. The complaint is not an operative order. Both announcements' complete substantive bodies and relevant links were read; unrelated site-navigation content was not treated as substantive reading.
Oregon original SHA-256: 4aa51e7210a316a00ddaf3945765c07d9df02e9ae23b4457eda590086b4b5b9f. California proposed judgment SHA-256: 496f00ab441b042a11bd1742ea07a597d28b8c93052a8d59b5acf84213e45ed1. Extracts and PNGs are reading aids. Q2 filing scope was the July-resolution paragraph, printed 33/web-reader line 1259; no original SEC GET retry, and no full-filing reading claim. No case, atlas or ZIP was edited.