Plaintiffs—an Asian American woman and her venture capital firm—challenge an investment program operated by PayPal, arguing that it unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race by only investing in "Black and Latinx-led"` emerging venture capital funds.

On April 16, 2025, Defendant asked the court to dismiss the case, asserting that Plaintiffs lacked standing because they never applied for funding from the program and were therefore not harmed by the selection criteria they are challenging. Defendant also claimed that the lawsuit was filed too late, beyond the deadline of 3 years, and that Plaintiffs failed to bring valid claims.

On May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and reasserted that they sought funding from Defendant and suffered harm from the program's allegedly discriminatory selection criteria.

On May 28, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint arguing once more that some of the claims were filed too late. Defendant also argued that Plaintiffs' added claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) should be dismissed because they applied for funding and not credit from PayPal. Lastly, Defendant argued that claims made under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) should be dismissed because the fund investments were "customized" and "selective" assessments, not public accommodations.

On July 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law opposing the Defendant's motion to dismiss filed in May. Plaintiffs argued that 1) they adequately alleged that their claims were timely, 2) there was discrimination in monetary credit by Defendant against Plaintiff, and 3) a claim under NYCHRL was adequately alleged.

On August 1, 2025, Defendant replied to Plaintiffs' opposition by making the same arguments as in the May motion to dismiss.

On December 19, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court stated that Plaintiffs' claims at issue are timely since the parties had a tolling agreement. Due to this agreement and the statute of limitations being three years, this case was effectively filed on May 22, 2024. As a result, the court stated that Plaintiffs' claims are timely if they accrued on or after May 22, 2021 (if Plaintiffs received notice of the allegedly discriminatory decision on or after that date). The court then turned to Defendant's argument that a pre-answer motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds can be granted only if it's clear on the face of the complaint that the statute of limitations has run. The court stated that this argument would work if the only act Plaintiffs were challenging were PayPal's October 2020 decision not to fund Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants also discriminated against them on May 26, 2021, when they announced another round of investments. The court stated that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that "the announcement was a discrete discriminatory act". When a Plaintiff is subjected to multiple acts of discrimination "each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging the act."

As for the NYCHRL claim, the court rejected Defendants attack on Plaintiffs' claim due to the law's instruction that it be construed liberally to accomplish its broad and remedial purpose. The court affirms that PayPal and its investment fund were broadly open to the public. For Plaintiffs' ECOA and NYSHRL claims the court found that Plaintiffs failed to state credit discrimination claims under those laws. This is largely due to the statutory definitions of "applicant" and "credit". The complaint doesn't allege that Plaintiffs would have been required to pay funding and investments back.