The Simple Fast Loans lawsuit most people are asking about is Ward v. Simple Fast Loans, Inc., a 2024 California class action that accused the lender of charging roughly 220% APR on loans the state caps near 42%. A federal judge sent the case to arbitration on April 21, 2025, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it four days later. No class was ever certified, no settlement was reached, and there is no active federal lawsuit against the company at the time of writing.1PACER Monitor. Maxwell Ward v Simple Fast Loans, Inc et al
What the Ward Class Action Alleged
Maxwell Ward filed the case in Los Angeles County Superior Court in July 2024. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and docketed as Case No. 2:24-cv-07068, with Simple Fast Loans, Inc., Fulton Loan Servicing, Inc., and Community Loans of America, Inc. named as defendants.1PACER Monitor. Maxwell Ward v Simple Fast Loans, Inc et al
The core allegation was straightforward: Simple Fast Loans offered California borrowers loans at about 220% APR, far above the state’s legal ceiling.2Truth in Advertising. Simple Fast Loans Class Action California Financial Code § 22304.5, enacted through Assembly Bill 539 and effective January 1, 2020, caps consumer loans between $2,500 and $9,999 at roughly 36% APR, with smaller loans capped near 30%. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that loans exceeding those caps were illegal, that the loans should be void, and that borrowers could recover money already paid.3Warren Terzian LLP. SimpleFastLoans Class Action
How the Case Ended
On April 21, 2025, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The order required Ward to arbitrate his individual claims and stayed any request for public injunctive relief until arbitration was complete. Rather than proceed to individual arbitration, Ward filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on April 25, 2025, ending the federal case.1PACER Monitor. Maxwell Ward v Simple Fast Loans, Inc et al
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the claims could in theory be refiled. In practical terms, though, the arbitration ruling means any renewed dispute by an individual borrower would likely be routed out of court.
The Rent-a-Bank Structure Behind the APR
The reason a lender could charge 220% APR in a state that caps rates near 42% comes down to how Simple Fast Loans is structured. According to the company’s own complaint responses, it acts as a loan servicer for “CC Connect,” a program facilitated by Capital Community Bank (CCBank), a Utah state-chartered bank supervised by the FDIC.4BBB. Simple Fast Loans BBB Complaints Banks are generally exempt from state interest rate caps, so a loan formally originated by CCBank can carry triple-digit rates even when the borrower lives in a state that would otherwise prohibit them.
The National Consumer Law Center lists Simple Fast Loans among the high-cost lenders using CCBank’s charter and has called such arrangements of “questionable legality,” arguing the nonbank partner is the real lender and the bank is renting out its charter.5NCLC. High-Cost Rent-a-Bank Loan Watch List6NCLC. Payday Lenders Plan To Evade California’s New Interest Rate Cap Law Through Rent-a-Bank Schemes Courts in several states have looked at whether the bank is the “true lender” in these partnerships. The Ward case was one such challenge, and it did not produce a ruling on that question.
Warren Terzian LLP, one of the firms behind the Ward suit, also flagged more than a dozen other states with rate caps that could be relevant to the same lending model, including Illinois, Florida, Texas, and Oregon.3Warren Terzian LLP. SimpleFastLoans Class Action
Other Legal and Regulatory Actions
Ward was not the company’s only brush with litigation or regulators.
In 2020, DeMarquis v. Simple Fast Loans, Inc. (Case No. 1:20-cv-00770) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging improper use of telephone equipment for communications. It settled quickly and was voluntarily dismissed in September 2020.7CourtListener. DeMarquis v Simple Fast Loans, Inc
In April 2024, the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner issued an order against Simple Fast Loans for failing to file required quarterly and annual reports by the January 31, 2024 deadline. The order directed the company to stop the reporting violations, submit the overdue filings within 30 days, and comply with future deadlines. The OCCC warned that continued noncompliance could bring penalties of up to $1,000 per day or license suspension.8Texas OCCC. Order to File Timely and Accurate Reports, OCCC Case No. L24-00041
Where Things Stand
With the Ward case dismissed, no federal class action is currently pending against Simple Fast Loans. At least one other firm, Dostart Hannink LLP, has publicly described an ongoing investigation into the company’s lending rates, though no further formal lawsuit from that firm appears in available records.2Truth in Advertising. Simple Fast Loans Class Action Consumer advocacy groups have separately asked the FDIC to investigate CCBank and downgrade its Community Reinvestment Act rating over its high-cost lending partnerships.9NCLC. NCLC Comment Letter to FDIC re CCBank CRA
Borrowers who believe they were charged an illegal rate should note the practical effect of the Ward outcome: the arbitration agreements in Simple Fast Loans contracts have so far kept these disputes out of court. Anyone considering a claim will likely need to review their loan agreement’s arbitration clause and consult a consumer finance attorney about individual, rather than class, remedies.