--- title: "CFPB 将从 CashCall 获得 1.34 亿美元，长达 12 年的法律纠纷终于结束" type: "News" locale: "zh-CN" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/277688542.md" description: "CashCall 必须向因其非法贷款行为受到伤害的消费者支付 1.34 亿美元的赔偿金，这一决定得到了地区法院的确认。该公司利用部落贷款人绕过州利率上限，导致借款人背负高利贷。最高法院拒绝审理 CashCall 的上诉，结束了始于 2013 年的法律斗争。在代理主任拉塞尔·沃特的领导下，消费者金融保护局（CFPB）收回赔偿金的能力仍然不确定，尤其考虑到该机构近期在对金融机构提起诉讼和达成和解方面的历史" datetime: "2026-03-03T22:31:45.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/277688542.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/277688542.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/277688542.md) --- # CFPB 将从 CashCall 获得 1.34 亿美元，长达 12 年的法律纠纷终于结束 - **Key insight:** CashCall is officially on the hook for a $134 million restitution payout to compensate consumers who were harmed by the company's illegal loan tactics. - **What's at stake:** A district court confirmed that CashCall used a 'tribal lender' as a front to bypass state interest rate caps and trap borrowers in high-interest debt. - **Forward look:** It remains unclear whether the CFPB under acting Director Russell Vought will collect the money. The subprime lender CashCall has reached the end of its legal dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and must pay $134 million in restitution for initiating high-interest loans through a tribal lender to evade state usury laws. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to accept CashCall's appeal, ending a legal dispute that began in 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year affirmed a district court's judgment ordering CashCall to pay $134 million in legal restitution to the CFPB. That award now stands. Every Hail Mary made by CashCall—from challenging the CFPB's constitutionality to demanding a jury trial—was rejected by the courts, marking the end of the line for the lender. But it remains unclear whether the CFPB under acting Director Russell Vought will collect any money given the agency's view of litigation and past settlements. The CFPB sued CashCall in 2013 alleging the company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by collecting interest on loans that were void. The CFPB claimed CashCall, based in Orange, Calif., had engaged in "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices," by collecting interest and fees on consumer loans that were legally void under state law because the company used an affiliate of a tribal lender to evade state usury laws. The company could not be reached for comment. CashCall's founder CEO is John Paul Reddam, a California race horse owner, and CashCall largely ceased originating high-interest consumer installment loans in 2018. In the past year, under the Trump administration, the CFPB's leadership has dropped more than half of all lawsuits and dismissed several big settlements against financial institutions. For example, last July, the CFPB terminated a $95 million settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union for allegedly illegally charging service members overdraft fees. The case against CashCall has taken many twists and turns, including one 2016 ruling that found in favor of the lender and a ruling that cut the award amount to roughly $10 million. The CFPB originally sued CashCall, Reddam, WS Funding LLC and Delbert Services Corp., alleging the lender had partnered with now-defunct Western Sky Financial, to originate small-dollar loans to avoid state usury laws. The CFPB alleged that CashCall sought to bypass state usury laws by partnering with Western Sky, a lender incorporated under the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The CFPB argued that the loans were invalid under state laws, and thus unenforceable. After a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed CashCall's liability but remanded the case to determine the appropriate restitution. On remand, the district court calculated the $134 million award based on "legal restitution." CashCall's primary argument on appeal was that the district court's order of legal restitution had preserved the company's right to a jury trial. But the Ninth Circuit concluded that CashCall had previously waived its right to a jury trial and the company had participated in a bench trial without objection. CashCall had also challenged the $134 million amount, claiming the court should have deducted $93 million that was lent to consumers but was never repaid. But the district court held that legal restitution means the full amount lost to consumers and that any losses sustained by the company did not entitle CashCall to keep "unjust gains," that included charges of illegal interest and fees. Before appealing to the Supreme Court, CashCall had requested a rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. ### 相关股票 - [CASH.US](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/quote/CASH.US.md) ## 相关资讯与研究 - [热线中心在 2026 年志愿精神活动中表彰 Pathward | CASH 股票新闻](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/282191985.md) - [特朗普政府下周一启动 CAPE 退税系统，退还美国进口商 1660 亿美元](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/282775240.md) - [美联储独立性遭连环猛攻，地区联储或成博弈要塞！](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/282849446.md) - [特朗普将出席最高法院庭审，再次打破传统](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/281384629.md) - [Bessent 表示，由于最高法院的挫折，特朗普的关税可能会在七月重新实施](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/282912097.md)