ARTICLE
22 June 2026

DFPI Orders $4 Million Penalty For Alleged Unlicensed Lending Violations

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.
On June 8, the DFPI announced that it had entered into a consent order with a commercial equipment lender, requiring the company to pay $4 million penalty and provide borrower refunds.
United States California Finance and Banking
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

On June 8, the DFPI announced that it had entered into a consent order with a commercial equipment lender, requiring the company to pay $4 million penalty and provide borrower refunds. According to the DFPI, the lender allegedly violated the California Financing Law by engaging in unlicensed lending activity, paying compensation to unlicensed brokers, and charging unlawful interest and fees.

The alleged violations were identified during the company’s 2023 application for a California Financing Law license. According to the consent order, some loans under $5,000 were deemed consumer loans subject to California’s small-loan provisions. Specifically, the consent order alleges that the company:

  • Engaged in unlicensed lending. The company allegedly originated California loans before obtaining a license under the California Financing Law.
  • Compensated unlicensed brokers. According to the DFPI, the company paid third-party brokers that were not licensed or exempt.
  • Charged unlawful interest and fees. Certain loans under $5,000 allegedly included interest and administrative fees above California’s statutory limits.

Under the consent order, the company must pay the $4 million penalty, refund borrowers who paid interest above California’s statutory caps on covered loans, provide notice to eligible borrowers before issuing refunds, submit a report to the DFPI confirming compliance with the refund program, and pay $78,000 in investigative costs.

Putting It Into Practice: The consent order is the latest in a series of state enforcement matters focused on licensing compliance (previously discussed herehere, and here). Companies engaged in lending, brokering, servicing, money transmission, or similar regulated financial activities should evaluate licensing coverage across applicable states and monitor whether business partners, referral sources, and compensation arrangements create additional licensing obligations.

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]

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