Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Fintech Lawsuit Highlights True Lender Risk for Bank Partnership Lending Model

By Ashley Simonsen, Andrew Soukup & Matthew Verdin on March 15, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In the wake of rulings upholding federal regulators’ “valid when made” rules, a new lawsuit serves as a reminder that state regulators and class-action plaintiffs’ lawyers may continue to challenge the bank partnership lending model under the “true lender” doctrine.

In early March, the fintech OppFi filed suit to stop California’s banking commissioner from enforcing the state’s interest rate caps on loans made in partnership with FinWise Bank.  See Opportunity Fin., LLC v. Hewlett, No. 22STCV08163 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2022).  According to the complaint, the state regulator threatened enforcement on the grounds that OppFi—and not FinWise Bank—is the supposed “true lender” for purposes of assessing the validity of the loans’ interest rates.  The interest rates on the loans, if made by OppFi, would exceed California’s interest rate caps, including under California’s Fair Access to Credit Act (also known as AB 539), which took effect in January 2020.

OppFi is seeking a declaration that California’s interest rate caps do not apply to the loans made in partnership with FinWise Bank “because OppFi is not making the loans—the Bank is.”  OppFi alleges that FinWise Bank is the lender because it is the entity that “extended credit, entered into contracts with the borrowers for repayment, and remains the title owner of the loans.”  OppFi argues that this has two primary implications.  First, loans made by state-chartered banks like FinWise Bank are statutorily exempt from California’s interest rate caps.  Relying on a favorable decision that Covington obtained for Navient Solutions, a California federal judge recently dismissed claims against OppFi on this same basis, as OppFi alleges.  Sims v. Opportunity Fin., LLC, 2021 WL 1391565, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021).  Second, section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act permits FinWise Bank to make loans at the rate of interest allowed in its home state of Utah (where there is no interest rate cap), and preempts California’s contrary laws.

According to OppFi, the California banking commissioner is attempting to “wage a war” against fintechs that partner with banks.  OppFi said in a press release that the company filed suit “so it can continue to serve close to 7.2 million Californians in need of credit.”  The commissioner, who declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Companies doing business in California that do not comply with the law will be investigated and may be subject to enforcement action to ensure consumer protection and compliance with state law.”

The state regulator’s challenge is part of a continuing trend (as reported here), whereby attacks on bank partnerships have started to abandon Madden arguments in favor of arguments that the nonbank partner is the “true lender.”

Photo of Ashley Simonsen Ashley Simonsen

Ashley Simonsen is a litigator whose practice focuses on defending complex class actions in state and federal courts across the country, with substantive experience in the three hotbeds of class action litigation: New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

Ashley represents clients in…

Ashley Simonsen is a litigator whose practice focuses on defending complex class actions in state and federal courts across the country, with substantive experience in the three hotbeds of class action litigation: New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

Ashley represents clients in the technology, consumer brands, financial services, and sports industries through all stages of litigation, including trial, with a strong track record of success on early dispositive motions. Her practice encompasses advertising, antitrust, product defect, and consumer protection matters. Ashley regularly advises companies on arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and related issues, including mass arbitration risks and issues arising under McGill v. Citibank, N.A. And she is one of the nation’s leading experts on “true lender” issues and the related “valid when made” doctrine.

Read more about Ashley SimonsenEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup serves as co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. He specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a…

Andrew Soukup serves as co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. He specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims, with exposure ranging from millions to billions of dollars. Based on his “proven record,” Andrew has been recognized as an “attorney you want on your side in a bet-the-company case.”

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, gaming, and media and communications industries. He has consistently helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters and his deep understanding of their businesses.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands in class actions accusing them of engaging in deceptive marketing or selling defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
Defeating claims against one of the nation’s leading consumer products companies in industry-wide, multidistrict class-action litigation challenging the company’s marketing and advertising of over-the-counter medicine containing allegedly ineffective ingredients, which earned Andrew recognition by American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week.”
Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including defending several financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a “Class Action Group of the Year.”
Represented several consumer product and life sciences companies from lawsuits seeking economic damages arising out of the sale of products that allegedly caused personal injuries.
Helping several of the world’s most prominent companies from ESG-related claims accusing them of misrepresenting their practices.

Andrew has also achieved favorable outcomes for clients in commercial and indemnification disputes involving contracts, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. Additionally, he provides guidance on arbitration agreements and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by enforcing their arbitration agreements.

As a recognized thought leader on issues impacting class action litigation, Andrew regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in an interview with Litigation Daily on class-action litigation issues. In recognition of his achievements, he has been recognized by The American Lawyer as a Lawyer of the Week, and the Daily Journal recently included him on their list of Leading Commercial Litigators (2025).

Watch: Andrew shares insights on class action litigation, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.

 

Read more about Andrew SoukupEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Matthew Verdin Matthew Verdin

Matthew Verdin focuses on defending clients in the technology and financial services sectors. He has a strong record of delivering wins on behalf of clients in class actions and complex litigation, particularly in privacy and consumer protection lawsuits. Matthew is particularly successful in…

Matthew Verdin focuses on defending clients in the technology and financial services sectors. He has a strong record of delivering wins on behalf of clients in class actions and complex litigation, particularly in privacy and consumer protection lawsuits. Matthew is particularly successful in securing dismissals at the pleadings stage. For example, he won dismissal at the pleadings stage of over a dozen wiretapping class actions involving the alleged use of website analytics tools to collect data about users’ website visits. He also advises companies on managing litigation risk under federal and state wiretapping laws.

Matthew is also dedicated to pro bono legal services. Recently, he helped a domestic violence survivor win a case in the California Court of Appeal. Matthew’s oral argument led to the court ordering renewal of his client’s restraining order just one day later.

Read more about Matthew VerdinEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Global Policy Watch
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo