ARTICLE
5 November 2025

DFPI Orders Lender To Pay $1 Million For Alleged Violations Of The Fair Access To Credit Act

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The DFPI alleged that the lender charged rates and administrative fees above those limits and continued the practice as recently as January 2023.
United States Consumer Protection
A.J. Dhaliwal’s articles from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence industries
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

On October 17, 2025, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) entered a consent order with a licensed consumer lender, alleging violations of the Fair Access to Credit Act, which amended the California Financing Law to cap interest rates and fees on consumer loans between $2,500 and $10,000.The DFPI alleged that the lender charged rates and administrative fees above those limits and continued the practice as recently as January 2023.

The DFPI's investigation identified multiple violations of the Fair Access to Credit Act, including:

  • Exceeding rate and fee limits. The lender allegedly charged interest and administrative fees above the Act's 36% annual cap plus the federal funds rate.
  • Improper inclusion of administrative fees. The DFPI found that the lender failed to treat administrative fees as part of the total cost of credit, resulting in effective rates that exceeded statutory limits.
  • Conditioned refunds. The lender's refund notices allegedly required borrowers to take affirmative steps to receive repayment, contrary to DFPI expectations that refunds be automatic.

The company agreed to pay a $1 million penalty and $5,500 in investigative costs.It also must cease collecting unlawful charges, vacate or amend judgments that included impermissible amounts, and issue all outstanding borrower refunds totaling $218,000.

Putting It Into Practice: California continues to be active in enforcing its consumer protection laws (previously discussed here and here). The DFPI has repeatedly used its authority under the California Financing Law to address rate, fee, and collection issues across the lending market.Licensed lenders should maintain robust compliance programs that account for state-specific limits and ensure refund and recovery practices align with state requirements.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More