Processing Content
- Key insight: CashCall is officially on the hook for a $134 million restitution payout to compensate consumers who were harmed by the company’s illegal loan tactics.
- What’s at stake: A district court confirmed that CashCall used a ‘tribal lender’ as a front to bypass state interest rate caps and trap borrowers in high-interest debt.
- Forward look: It remains unclear whether the CFPB under acting Director Russell Vought will collect the money.
The subprime lender CashCall has reached the end of its legal dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and must pay $134 million in restitution for initiating high-interest loans through a tribal lender to evade state usury laws.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to accept CashCall’s appeal, ending a legal dispute that began in 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Every Hail Mary made by CashCall—from challenging the CFPB’s constitutionality to demanding a jury trial—was rejected by the courts, marking the end of the line for the lender.
But it remains unclear whether
The CFPB sued CashCall in 2013 alleging the company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by collecting interest on loans that were void. The CFPB claimed CashCall, based in Orange, Calif., had engaged in “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices,” by collecting interest and fees on consumer loans that were legally void under state law because the company used an affiliate of a tribal lender to evade state usury laws.
The company could not be reached for comment. CashCall’s founder CEO is John Paul Reddam, a California race horse owner, and CashCall largely ceased originating high-interest consumer installment loans in 2018.
In the past year, under the Trump administration, the CFPB’s leadership
The case against CashCall has taken many twists and turns, including one 2016 ruling that found in favor of the lender and a ruling that cut the award amount to roughly $10 million.
The CFPB originally sued CashCall,
The CFPB alleged that CashCall sought to bypass state usury laws by partnering with Western Sky, a lender incorporated under the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The CFPB argued that the loans were invalid under state laws, and thus unenforceable. After a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed CashCall’s liability but remanded the case to determine the appropriate restitution. On remand, the district court calculated the $134 million award based on “legal restitution.”
CashCall’s primary argument on appeal was that the district court’s order of legal restitution had preserved the company’s right to a jury trial. But the Ninth Circuit concluded that CashCall had previously waived its right to a jury trial and the company had participated in a bench trial without objection.
CashCall had also challenged the $134 million amount, claiming the court should have deducted $93 million that was lent to consumers but was never repaid. But the district court held that legal restitution means the full amount lost to consumers and that any losses sustained by the company did not entitle CashCall to keep “unjust gains,” that included charges of illegal interest and fees.
Before appealing to the Supreme Court, CashCall had requested a rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied.