InfoBytes Blog
New Jersey charges MCA provider with deceptive practices
On December 8, the New Jersey attorney general announced an action against a merchant cash advance provider, its parent company, and six other associated entities (collectively, “defendants”) alleging the defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the General Advertising Regulations through the marketing and transacting of their merchant cash advance (MCA) product. (The defendants are currently facing similar allegations from the FTC, covered by InfoBytes here.) According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in “unconscionable business practices, deceived consumers, and/or made false or misleading statements” by marketing and advertising an MCA product, which was allegedly structured as a short-term, high-cost loan. New Jersey argues that the MCA contracts contain terms that “eliminate the distinctions between loans (with fixed regular payments over a defined term) and legitimate MCAs (with variable payments tied to actual receivables and an undefined term).” New Jersey asserts that traditionally, MCA’s do not have a finite repayment term and thus, the fixed repayment period was the equivalent of a loan to its customers. Moreover, the agreements’ “fixed daily payments extracted from Consumers’ accounts have little to no relation to the businesses’ receivables.” Additionally, New Jersey asserts that the defendants allegedly engaged in unconscionable collection practices, including requiring consumers to sign, in their individual capacity and on behalf of their business, an Affidavit of Confessions of Judgment to obtain the MCA, which would allow judgment against both the Consumer’s business assets and personal assets in the event of a purported default. New Jersey is seeking a permanent injunction, civil penalties, restitution, and disgorgement.
Notably, the New Jersey complaint follows a recent enforcement action against a merchant cash advance provider in California (covered by InfoBytes here), where the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) found, in apparent contrast to the New Jersey action, that MCA agreements with an indefinite repayment period, among other things, operate as a loan equivalent by, placing the “risk of repayment on the merchant by leaving the repayment period open until fully repaid (with fees and interest).”