Reprinted with permission from CNet.com.
Illinois has just ordered Global Payday Loan to stop issuing loans to state residents. It also has fined the company $234,000 for charging excessive interests rates. But the decision raises the broader question of whether states should regulate Internet conduct that crosses state lines.
The investigation began after a complaint from someone who borrowed $300. The loan in question fell under an Illinois provision that capped annual finance charges at 36 percent.
State investigators found serious problems with the transaction. For one thing, the loan was written with a six-day term, which did not give the borrower sufficient time to repay the loan. Furthermore, the fees on the loan exceeded the $15.50 per $100 allowed under Illinois law.
In addition, the annual percentage rate on the loan interest rate came to 2,190 percent, as the borrower was required to repay the $300 loan plus a $90 finance charge just six days after the loan had been originated. According to the Illinois agency charged with loan oversight, Global Payday then continued to violate the borrower's rights by sending her e-mail warnings and making phone calls asserting that her account was delinquent and demanding payment.
The subsequent fine cost Global Payday $234,000. All well and good, right? Not necessarily. According to the state's notice of order, Global Payday is located in Jenkintown, Penn., and Salt Lake City--not in Illinois. By offering loans over the Internet, the company is making such loan opportunities available to potential borrowers in all of the states, not just Illinois.
While Illinois might want to flex its muscles to protect its citizens in regulating payday loans in certain ways, other states may want to impose different legal requirements. In so doing, a company like Global Payday that seeks to engage in Internet business across state lines might be nagged by uncertainty when it comes to figuring out cross-border legal compliance.
Constitutional arguments could be made that state efforts to regulate e-business that, in part, comes within their borders improperly burdens interstate commerce. The argument could be made that only the federal government has authority uniformly to regulate. Such arguments have been made in other contexts. But there remains much uncertainty. Coming months--and years--will likely determine how much authority states truly will have when it comes to Internet regulation.
Eric J. Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual-property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to email@example.com with "Subscribe" in the subject line. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect those of Sinrod's law firm or its individual partners.
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, one of the 100 largest law firms in the world, is a full-service firm of more than 600 lawyers. In addition to legal services, Duane Morris has independent affiliates employing approximately 100 professionals engaged in other disciplines. With offices in major markets, and as part of an international network of independent law firms, Duane Morris represents clients across the United States and around the world.