Magistrate Judge's finding: Payday lenders covered by FTC Act even if affiliated with American Indian Tribes

Share This Page

In an FTC action challenging allegedly illegal business practices by a payday loan operation affiliated with American Indian Tribes, a United States Magistrate Judge just issued a report and recommendation on the scope of the FTC Act.  Attorneys will want to give the order a careful read, but here’s the need-to-know nugget:  Over the defendants’ vigorous opposition, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the FTC Act “gives the FTC the authority to bring suit against Indian Tribes, arms of Indian Tribes, and employees and contractors of arms of Indian Tribes.”  Most importantly, the Judge’s finding confirms that the FTC’s consumer protection laws apply to businesses regardless of tribal affiliation.  The FTC sees that as a key step in protecting consumers from deceptive and unfair practices.

The FTC sued a web of defendants — including AMG Services, Inc., 3 other Internet-based lending companies, 7 related companies, and 6 individuals, including race car driver Scott Tucker and his brother Blaine Tucker — for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the Truth in Lending Act in their payday loan practices.  Some of the defendants tried to get the FTC case dismissed, claiming that their affiliation with American Indian Tribes makes them immune from those federal statutes.

Not so, urged the FTC.  True, the FTC Act makes no specific reference either way to its applicability to tribal entities.  But citing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, the FTC reasoned that “statutes of general applicability that are silent on tribal issues presumptively apply to tribes and tribal businesses.”

The defendants responded that the FTC Act isn’t a “statute of general applicability” because Congress wrote certain exemptions into the law.

“Exemptions alone aren’t dispositive,” said the FTC, quoting the Ninth Circuit’s Chapa De case.  As the Court held in Chapa De, “The issue is whether the statute is generally applicable, not whether it is universally applicable.  We have previously held that other federal statutes that contain exemptions are nevertheless generally applicable.”

Citing that decision and others, the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation rejected the defendants’ immunity theory and concluded that “the FTC Act has a broad reach and is one of general applicability.”  The order reserves judgment on whether the defendants are “not for profit” corporations for purposes of the FTC Act, but held that TILA and EFTA apply regardless of the defendants’ disputed for-profit status. 

The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is now subject to review by United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro.

A related update:  The FTC reached a partial settlement with the principal defendants in the case.  Under the terms of the order, those defendants will be barred from using threats of arrest and lawsuits as a tactic for collecting debts, and from requiring all borrowers to agree in advance to electronic withdrawals from their bank accounts as a condition of getting credit.  The FTC continues to litigate other counts against the AMG defendants, including that they deceived consumers about the cost of their loans by charging undisclosed charges and inflated fees. 




It's still early in the "game" but this ruling will certainly give pause to payday loan lenders contemplating collaboration with tribes.
There should never be any hidden fees in regards to loans. Companies should be penalized for doing this. Consumers have enough to pay without having to deal with hidden fees.
Life is tough enough without dishonest lenders.
Does this also apply to lenders like Plain Green who claim they are not a 'payday lender'?
Has the issue of Tribal Entities charging higher rates than individual states allow been taken up or resolved? Plain Green has been mentioned here - they charge much higher rates than what is allowed in my home state (California) - I'm curious if that makes their loans (or whatever they're calling them if not Payday Loans) invalid or illegal.
Yup! I agree with that there should never be any hidden fees in regards to loans.
This is great advice, I like all details that you provide in your. articles. The information provide is very useful for us. Thanks for giving us nice info. thanks for sharing.

nice post It's still early in the "game" but this ruling will certainly give pause to payday loan lenders contemplating collaboration with tribes.

Our finance department is garnishing 100% General Welfare checks from our tribal members for debts owed. The General Welfare doctrine provides a safe harbor by the federal government, not to tax. It seems unethical and illegal for our tribe to garnish 100% and not match the safe harbor granted by IRS. Our administrative office name-calls, harass and bullies tribal members. There are no court orders to with-hold the money and no way for the tribal member to dispute the charges. I know of no-one on the planet who will garnish 100% of a welfare check for debt collection.

Add new comment

Comment Policy

Privacy Act Statement

It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system (PDF), and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system (PDF). We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.