Explore Credit is the subject of multiple federal class action lawsuits alleging that the online installment lender charges illegal interest rates, sometimes above 700%, while hiding behind a claim of tribal sovereign immunity that plaintiffs say is a sham. The company operates as a brand of WLCC Lending JEM, one of more than two dozen lenders tied to the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, and it is named directly as a defendant in at least one active federal case.
Who Explore Credit Is and How Its Loans Work
Explore Credit advertises installment loans of $100 to $3,000, with repayment terms of 61 days to 72 months and a stated APR range of 5.99% to 35.99%.1Explore Credit. Installment Loans It also charges origination fees of 1% to 8%, late fees of $25 to $50, and returned-payment fees of $25 to $35.2Financer. Explore Credit Review
Borrower reports tell a different story about the actual cost. Consumers have told the Better Business Bureau that effective interest rates on their Explore Credit loans reached 700% or higher, with one borrower citing a rate of 799%.2Financer. Explore Credit Review The BBB has logged 315 complaints against the company over the past three years and assigns it an F rating; 33 complaints went unanswered and 11 were marked unresolved. Common complaints involve unauthorized automatic withdrawals that continued after borrowers revoked permission, approved loans that were never funded, and difficulty getting refunds or accurate account information.3BBB. Explore Credit LLC Complaints
Court filings describe Explore Credit as one of a large family of brands operated through the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (WLCC) and a related entity, WLCC II. Sibling brands include Fast Day Loans, Falcon Funding Group, Arrowhead Advance, Fox Hills Cash, Bison Green Lending, Rapid Loan, and others. The individuals plaintiffs identify as running the operation are Geneva Lone Hill, president of WLCC; Raycen Raines III, its CEO and a board member; and Bret A. Crandall, described as WLCC’s director of compliance.4ClassAction.org. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL et al. Complaint
The Class Action Cases Naming Explore Credit and Its Network
Bridges v. Raines (Western District of North Carolina, 2024)
Explore Credit is named directly as a defendant in Bridges et al. v. Raines et al., filed March 25, 2024. The case also names Arrowhead Advance, Fast Day Loans, and First Day Loan alongside Raines and WLCC. Plaintiffs allege loans carrying interest rates above 600% and bring claims under federal RICO, several states’ usury laws, and North Carolina’s Consumer Finance Act and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.5NARF. Bridges v. Raines
In December 2025, the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the loan agreements’ arbitration clauses and stayed the litigation pending that process.5NARF. Bridges v. Raines That ruling matters for anyone considering their own claim: the standard Explore Credit loan agreement contains an arbitration clause that courts have so far enforced, which pushes disputes out of court and out of class treatment.
Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL (Northern District of Illinois, 2024)
The most prominent case against the broader network is Anthony Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL d/b/a Fast Day Loans, et al., filed April 5, 2024.6CourtListener. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL The Illinois plaintiff says he received a loan with a 763.34% APR and seeks class action status for other borrowers.4ClassAction.org. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL et al. Complaint The complaint brings four counts: a request that the loans be declared void and uncollectible; damages under the Illinois Interest Act for interest above the state’s 9% cap; damages and injunctive relief under the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act and Consumer Fraud Act for charging interest above 36%; and federal RICO claims against Crandall and unnamed co-conspirators seeking treble damages for collecting “unlawful debt.”7Internet Archive. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL Complaint The named defendants include WLCC Lending FDL, WLCC, WLCC II, Lone Hill, Raines, and Crandall. As of July 2025 the case remained active.
Brown v. WLCC Lending FDL (Southern District of Indiana, 2022)
An earlier class action, Karen Brown v. WLCC Lending FDL d/b/a Fast Day Loans, et al., was filed April 19, 2022. It alleged the same rent-a-tribe structure, loans with APRs above 700%, and violations of Indiana’s Consumer Credit Code plus federal RICO.8ClassAction.org. Brown v. WLCC Lending FDL et al. Complaint The same three individual defendants were named.9Top Class Actions. Class Action Alleges Internet Lender Violates Lending Laws, Claims Tribal Immunity
Elder v. Raines (District of Maryland)
In Elder v. Raycen Raines, et al., a magistrate judge recommended in 2020 that default judgment be entered against Lone Hill, Raines, and WLCC, finding that they participated in an illegal rent-a-tribe payday lending scheme and ordering a refund to the plaintiff. The same court described WLCC as a “privately held corporation” that “provides no benefit to the Oglala Sioux Tribe or any other tribe.”10GovInfo. Elder v. Raycen Raines et al.
Why the Tribal Immunity Defense Is Being Challenged
Every WLCC lending brand, Explore Credit included, presents itself as “an entity of the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, a tribal corporation wholly owned by the Wakpamni Lake Community,” and argues that tribal sovereign immunity shields it from state lending laws and private lawsuits.4ClassAction.org. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL et al. Complaint
Plaintiffs argue that shield is not real. Their core factual claims across these cases are that no tribal members participate in day-to-day lending; that the work actually happens off-reservation in Utah, Texas, Canada, and Belize; that the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s own Economic Development Office declined to partner in the business, prompting Raines and Lone Hill to form WLCC and WLCC II to proceed independently; and that the tribe receives little or no benefit beyond a small per-loan fee.4ClassAction.org. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL et al. Complaint In 2014 the Oglala Sioux tribal council passed a resolution formally establishing that Raines lacked authority to sign contracts with outside parties on behalf of the tribe.11Indianz. Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation Article
WLCC leadership has publicly defended the operation as a legitimate government-owned business. In 2014, Lone Hill said the community was “pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps” and stressed the operation’s importance to tribal economic development.12Wakpamni Lake Community. Wakpamni Lake Community
Courts elsewhere have been receptive to the rent-a-tribe theory. In Williams v. Martorello, the Fourth Circuit upheld a nearly $44 million damages award against a non-tribal businessman who ran a tribal lending scheme issuing Virginia loans at APRs above 700%, holding that immunity does not automatically extend to non-tribal participants running day-to-day operations and that online tribal lending is off-reservation conduct subject to state law.13Courthouse News. Fourth Circuit Sides With Virginia Borrowers in Rent-a-Tribe Lending Scheme The Lac du Flambeau litigation produced a proposed $37.4 million settlement fund and cancellation of roughly $1.4 billion in outstanding debt for an estimated 980,000 borrowers, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in a related case that tribal sovereign immunity does not exempt tribal lenders from bankruptcy stays.14WPR. Lac du Flambeau Tribal Leaders and Lenders Reach Deal in Class Action Lawsuit
What This Means if You Have a Loan With Explore Credit
None of the pending Explore Credit cases has produced a class-wide judgment, refund, or debt cancellation. Bridges, the case that names Explore Credit directly, is currently stayed and headed to arbitration.5NARF. Bridges v. Raines Banas remains active in Illinois.6CourtListener. Banas v. WLCC Lending FDL Borrowers are not automatically part of anything at this stage.
A few practical points follow from the record. First, most states cap consumer loan interest well below the rates borrowers report on these loans, and the theory across every case is that state usury law applies regardless of the tribal label. Second, the loan agreements contain arbitration clauses that at least one federal court has enforced, which limits the ability to sue in court. Third, if you are dealing with automatic withdrawals you want to stop, complaints filed with the BBB show that written revocations have not always been honored, so contacting your bank directly to block the debit is a separate step from telling the lender.3BBB. Explore Credit LLC Complaints
Federal help is limited right now. In March 2025 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it would not prioritize enforcement of the payment-withdrawal provisions of its payday lending rule, which had just taken effect on March 30, 2025, and which would otherwise limit a lender to two unsuccessful bank-account withdrawal attempts before requiring new authorization.15CFPB. Payday Lending Rule State attorneys general and state financial regulators can still act, and private class actions like Banas continue to move forward.