Lyon Firm Files TomoCredit Fraud Class Action

A February 2026 investigation published by Forbes confirmed what thousands of TomoCredit subscribers had been saying for years. The San Francisco fintech company, which sells credit-building subscriptions under the TomoBoost name at prices reaching $1,000 per year, continues to market a service that all three major credit bureaus stopped accepting data from more than a year ago.

These are the facts at the center of the ongoing class action lawsuit filed by The Lyon Firm. If Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion do not accept TomoCredit's data, then no subscription to TomoBoost can improve a consumer's credit history or score through bureau reporting. Yet the company kept selling its plans and continued making aggressive promises about credit improvement.

The Lyon Firm represents consumers who were harmed by these practices. If you paid for a TomoBoost subscription and did not receive the credit improvements the company advertised, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact our lawyers to investigate your claim.

The Gap Between What Was Promised and What Was Delivered

TomoCredit's marketing leaned heavily on outcome-based language. Phrases like "10X credit boost" and references to credit line access of up to $100,000 gave consumers a concrete expectation of real, measurable results. Annual plans ranged from $100 to $1,000, meaning many subscribers paid significant sums for a service the Forbes investigation described as one that "rarely improves scores."

Consumer complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau paint a consistent picture. Subscribers reported no credit reporting activity, no improvement in scores, and no acknowledgment from the company that its service had a fundamental problem. By early 2026, the BBB had logged 870 complaints and assigned TomoCredit an F rating.

Under consumer protection law, this gap between advertised benefits and actual performance forms the basis for claims of false advertising and unfair business practices. When a company collects subscription fees for a service it knows cannot function as marketed, the law recognizes that as more than a simple breach of contract.

Cancellation as an Independent Legal Problem

Beyond the failure to deliver results, the Forbes investigation highlighted what many subscribers had already experienced firsthand: canceling a TomoBoost subscription was its own ordeal.

The company reportedly did not offer any online cancellation option at all until late 2024. Even after adding a cancellation feature, consumers complained the button failed to work and that completing the process required scheduling a phone call. BBB complaints from as recently as January 2026 described cancellation calendars showing no available appointments for months. One consumer, featured in the Forbes piece, ultimately had to switch to an inactive payment card just to stop the charges.

These are not minor inconveniences. Under California's Automatic Renewal Law, subscription companies are required to provide a simple and straightforward cancellation mechanism. When cancellation is engineered to be difficult, that constitutes an independent legal violation separate from any question about whether the underlying service worked.

What the Regulatory Picture Looks Like

The Forbes investigation noted that federal regulators have been largely absent from the TomoCredit situation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which issued dozens of enforcement actions each year during prior administrations, has significantly reduced its activity. The Federal Trade Commission has remained more active but had not taken action against TomoCredit as of the time of publication.

That regulatory gap is precisely why private litigation matters. When government enforcement is limited, class action lawsuits filed by firms like The Lyon Firm become a primary mechanism for holding companies accountable and returning money to harmed consumers.

Why The Lyon Firm Is the Right Choice For Consumer Class Actions

The Lyon Firm has spent nearly two decades handling complex consumer fraud and class action litigation. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay nothing unless there is a recovery. There are no upfront costs and no financial risk to joining the case.

Consumers who paid for any credit boosting subscription and experienced any of the following should contact the firm for a free consultation:

• No measurable credit improvement after using the service
• Difficulty canceling or being charged after cancellation requests
• Unexpected lump-sum charges after seeing a lower monthly price advertised
• Marketing text messages or emails after requesting the company stop contact

The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The window to participate in litigation of this kind is not unlimited. Reaching out now protects your rights.