The only publicly documented lawsuit against Three Sticks Lending is Craft v. Three Sticks Lending, a 2024 bankruptcy adversary proceeding in the Northern District of Alabama that settled within weeks after the court raised the question of tribal sovereign immunity. No class action, state attorney general case, or federal regulatory action has been filed against Three Sticks Lending itself, though related Rosebud Sioux lending brands have been sued repeatedly, and the broader tribal-lending industry has absorbed billions of dollars in settlements since 2019.
The Craft Bankruptcy Case
John Craft filed the adversary proceeding on January 8, 2024, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 8:24-ap-80002). Represented by attorney John C. Larsen, Craft alleged that Three Sticks Lending violated the automatic stay, the federal bankruptcy protection that bars creditors from collecting once a debtor files.1PACER Monitor. Craft v Three Sticks Lending
The case moved fast. On February 8, 2024, Judge Clifton R. Jessup Jr. ordered the parties to brief whether tribal sovereign immunity shielded Three Sticks Lending from the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. Four days later, the plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, and the court vacated its deadlines. On May 17, 2024, the court approved the compromise under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and awarded $9,000 in attorney fees to Larsen. The amount paid to Craft was not disclosed on the public docket. The proceeding formally closed on March 21, 2025.1PACER Monitor. Craft v Three Sticks Lending
The sequence matters. Three Sticks Lending settled almost immediately after the court asked for briefing on immunity, which meant the company avoided a ruling on the merits. That ruling would have been difficult to win. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin that the Bankruptcy Code “unequivocally abrogated the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes.” Coughlin involved a tribal payday lender that continued collecting after a Chapter 13 filing, circumstances closely paralleling Craft.2American Bar Association. Recent Developments Tribal Court Litigation
How Sovereign Immunity Shapes Any Suit Against Three Sticks Lending
Three Sticks Lending is operated by AFS CS, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rosebud Economic Development Corporation (REDCO), the economic arm of the federally recognized Rosebud Sioux Tribe. On that basis, the company claims it is governed by the tribe’s Tribal Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Code and federal law rather than state lending statutes, and that it needs no state license and is not bound by state usury caps.3USA Inquirer. Three Sticks Lending Reviews4Three Sticks Lending. Privacy Policy
The loan agreement channels disputes accordingly. It requires binding arbitration administered by JAMS in Dallas, Texas, includes a class-action waiver, and directs any non-arbitrated court action to a federal court in South Dakota. Borrowers have a 30-day window to reject arbitration by mailing a signed notice to the company’s address in Mission, South Dakota.5Three Sticks Lending. Terms and Conditions
Those provisions explain why individual lawsuits are rare and why Craft is the exception rather than the pattern: bankruptcy court is one of the few forums where tribal immunity has been clearly abrogated by federal statute, and the class-action waiver in the loan agreement forecloses the vehicle plaintiffs have used most successfully against other tribal lenders.
Lawsuits Against Related Rosebud Sioux Lending Brands
While Three Sticks Lending itself has not been the target of a class action, other lending operations connected to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe have been sued repeatedly. In December 2019, plaintiffs filed Epperson et al. v. Bordeaux et al. (Case No. 3:19-cv-00939), a class action alleging that Rosebud Lending was a “rent-a-tribe” arrangement in which the tribe’s name shielded non-tribal operators from state usury laws. The complaint alleged that most profits flowed to Fintech Financial, LLC, a non-tribal entity, that most operations were conducted off-reservation, and that interest rates reached 790%. It asserted RICO violations.6ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Rosebud Lending Used Tribal Connection to Thwart State Usury Laws
Huntley v. Rosebud Economic Development Corporation (Case No. 22-cv-1172) alleged that Fintech Financial, Tactical Marketing Partners, and 777 Partners provided the capital for loans issued under the Rosebud Lending brand doing business as ZocaLoans, while the tribal entities had no actual access to or control over the loan accounts.7Native American Rights Fund. Huntley v Rosebud Economic Development Corporation In a related case, Al-Nahhas v. 777 Partners LLC, a borrower alleged that ZocaLoans was a front for Miami-based private equity firms using the tribe to evade Illinois usury laws. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by litigating for over 14 months.8FindLaw. Al-Nahhas v 777 Partners LLC
A caveat matters here. Those cases targeted ZocaLoans and its non-tribal partners. Public records do not establish that Fintech Financial, 777 Partners, or Tactical Marketing Partners are connected to AFS CS, the operator of Three Sticks Lending. Three Sticks Lending’s privacy policy identifies affiliates only as “other business entities of REDCO” and references unnamed “service providers and data processors.”4Three Sticks Lending. Privacy Policy Whether the same kind of non-tribal control alleged in the ZocaLoans cases exists at Three Sticks Lending is not something public records answer.
State and Federal Enforcement Against Tribal Lenders
Three Sticks Lending operates in a contested regulatory environment. Since 2019, class-action settlements against tribal lenders have produced at least $2.9 billion in canceled loans and more than $360 million in restitution, according to a ProPublica investigation.9ProPublica. States Tribal Lenders High Interest Rates In August 2024, the Lac du Flambeau Band agreed to a settlement involving $1.4 billion in debt relief and $37.4 million in restitution. In 2024, the Minnesota attorney general secured agreements requiring tribal-affiliated lenders to comply with the state’s 36% interest rate cap and to cancel outstanding loan balances beyond the original principal.10Minnesota Attorney General. Online Lenders Settlement
Courts have generally held that even where states cannot collect fines directly from sovereign tribal entities, they can obtain injunctions to halt collections and block future lending in the state. Several jurisdictions have declared loans exceeding state rate caps void and unenforceable, meaning the lender has no legal basis to collect.11Center for Responsible Lending. State Enforcement Issue Brief Georgia does not recognize tribal immunity as a defense against its prohibition on payday lending for loans under $3,000.12Georgia Consumer Protection. Payday Loans The Washington State Department of Financial Institutions has issued a consumer alert identifying Three Sticks Lending as unlicensed in that state.3USA Inquirer. Three Sticks Lending Reviews
Federal regulators retain authority over tribal lenders regardless of immunity. The FTC and CFPB can enforce the Truth in Lending Act and rules against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.13American Financial Services Association. Tribal Lending Issue Brief The bankruptcy path, under Coughlin, remains open.
What Borrowers with a Dispute Can Actually Do
If you have a dispute with Three Sticks Lending, your options are shaped by the loan agreement and by where you live. Individual court claims face the arbitration clause and class-action waiver unless you rejected arbitration in writing within 30 days of signing.5Three Sticks Lending. Terms and Conditions Borrowers who file for bankruptcy have a clearer route: under Coughlin, tribal immunity does not shield lenders from the automatic stay, and the Craft settlement shows Three Sticks Lending will resolve rather than litigate those claims.2American Bar Association. Recent Developments Tribal Court Litigation
State enforcement is worth checking. Three Sticks Lending lists itself as unavailable in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, and federal law prohibits its loans to active-duty military, spouses, and dependents.14Finder. Three Sticks Lending Review Borrowers in states where the lender is unlicensed or where rate caps make the loan void may have grounds to stop collections through their state attorney general or financial regulator, regardless of what the loan agreement says.
As of 2026, no class action, state attorney general enforcement action, or federal regulatory proceeding has been publicly filed against Three Sticks Lending itself. The Craft settlement, the litigation record of Rosebud Sioux-affiliated lending brands, and the pattern of state and federal action against similar lenders describe the ground the company stands on.