The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not preclude Minnesota from applying its payday lending law to loans consummated in Delaware that are made to Minnesota residents over the Internet.

The Minnesota Supreme Court joins the 10th Circuit which, under similar facts in Quik Payday Inc. v. Stork, also rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the application of the borrower’s home state law to Internet payday loans.

In State of Minnesota v. Integrity Advance, LLC, the Minnesota Attorney General (AG) filed a lawsuit against the lender in which she alleged that loans made by the lender to Minnesota residents over the Internet violated several provisions of Minnesota’s payday lending law, including interest rate and term limits. The lender argued that the application of Minnesota law to its loans violated the extraterritoriality principle of the Commerce Clause because Minnesota was seeking to regulate commerce that occurred wholly outside the state.

According to the lender, the “commerce” in question occurred outside of Minnesota because the loan contracts were signed by the lender in Delaware at its principal place of business. While not expressly stated in the opinion, the loan contracts presumably included a choice-of-law provision designating Delaware law.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the AG and its decision was affirmed by the court of appeals. In rejecting the lender’s Commerce Clause argument and affirming the appellate court, the Supreme Court characterized as “unjustifiably narrow” the lender’s view that where the loan contracts were signed by the lender was the sole determinant of where the challenged “commerce” occurred.

Instead, the Court found that the “commerce” regulated by the Minnesota law included “[t]he payment of funds to and from Minnesota borrowers, which for most of these loan transactions included electronic transfers into and out of Minnesota banks” and “the approximately 28,000 calls and emails between [the lender] and prospective borrowers in Minnesota by prescribing the terms and conditions of the loans [the lender] could offer.”

As a result, the Court concluded that the Minnesota law had only a “negligible” effect on commerce in other states and did not “control the terms on which companies lend money in other states.” Because the lender did not argue that the Minnesota law was discriminatory or excessively burdened interstate commerce, those issues were not considered by the Court.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court distinguished the Minnesota law from the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) provision at issue in the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Midwest Title Loans v. Mills. Under that provision, a loan was deemed to be made “in” Indiana, and hence subject to regulation by Indiana, if the loan involved an Indiana resident solicited in the state by any means. The lender, which advertised in Indiana, made loans to Indiana residents, in person, in Illinois.

After the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), based on the UCCC provision, demanded that the lender cease this activity, the lender sued the DFI in federal district court, arguing that the Commerce Clause prevented the extra-territorial regulation contemplated by the UCCC. The district court’s decision agreeing with the lender’s position was unanimously affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.  (The lender, which was represented by Ballard Spahr, also obtained attorneys’ fees from the State of Indiana as a “prevailing party” in a federal Civil Rights Act lawsuit brought by the lender.)

The Minnesota Supreme Court observed that, in contrast to the UCCC, the Minnesota law’s jurisdictional provision limited the law’s application to loans that were completed while a Minnesota resident was physically located in that state.

Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws throughout the country, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance (including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs).

For more information, please contact Consumer Financial Services Group Practice Leader Alan S. Kaplinsky, Practice Leader Jeremy T. Rosenblum, or Mark J. Furletti.

Copyright © 2015 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.

Related Practice

Consumer Financial Services


Visit CFPB Monitor, our blog on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >

Subscribe to the blog via e-mail >