CFPB Investigations and Tribal Online Lenders

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has played a central role in examining how certain online small-dollar lenders operate, including Great Plains Lending LLC, MobiLoans LLC, and Plain Green LLC. These companies, which are associated with Native American tribes and offer high-cost online loans, became the subject of civil investigative demands (CIDs) that tested the outer limits of the CFPB’s investigatory authority and raised complex issues about tribal lending and federal consumer protection law.

This article explains what a CID is, why these three lenders challenged the CFPB’s investigation, how courts responded, and what these developments mean for consumers, tribal lenders, and regulators.

Background: Who Are Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green?

Each of the three lenders is structured as a business entity tied to a federally recognized tribe and operates primarily online, offering small-dollar or installment loans to consumers across state lines. Tribal ownership is important because federally recognized tribes are sovereign governments, and entities deemed an “arm of the tribe” may assert tribal sovereign immunity in certain legal contexts.

• Great Plains Lending LLC – Affiliated with the Otoe–Missouria Tribe and known for offering online installment loans with high annual percentage rates (APRs).
• Plain Green LLC – Linked to the Chippewa Cree Tribe and similarly engaged in internet-based consumer lending with high-cost loan products.
• MobiLoans LLC – Tied to the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana and operated a revolving line-of-credit product marketed as a cash-advance style loan.

According to the CFPB, these lenders were part of a broader set of businesses collectively managed by Think Finance, LLC, a non-tribal company that provided infrastructure, marketing, and servicing support for tribal lending programs. The Bureau later alleged that this arrangement allowed the entities to extend loans in states where the products would otherwise violate state usury, licensing, or other consumer-protection laws.

What Is a Civil Investigative Demand (CID)?

A civil investigative demand is a powerful administrative tool that allows the CFPB to demand documents, written responses, reports, or testimony from entities that may possess information relevant to a potential violation of federal consumer financial law. Congress authorized CIDs under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which grants the Bureau investigative authority similar to that of other federal enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

TRENDING

Mass Deportation and the Erosion of Civil Liberties

A comprehensive look at the shift in U.S. immigration policy, highlighting executive overreach, civil rights concer...

Rethinking School Safety: The Impact of Police on Students

Explore the profound effects of police in schools, the criminalization of adolescent behavior, and the urgent push ...

The Erosion of the American Welcome: U.S. Refugee Caps

Explore the systemic dismantling of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the humanitarian toll of historically low ...

Read More

The Future of AI: Preventing a Big Tech Monopoly >

In practice, a CID functions like a combination of subpoena and discovery request, but it is issued during an investigation before any formal lawsuit is filed. A typical CID might require a company to:

• Produce internal communications, contracts, and policy manuals
• Provide data about loan terms, fees, and consumer outcomes
• Answer interrogatories about how products are designed and marketed
• Make corporate representatives available for sworn testimony

The CFPA allows recipients to petition the Bureau’s Director to modify or set aside a CID if they believe it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or legally improper. Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green made use of this process in response to the CIDs they received.

Why the CFPB Investigated These Lenders

The CFPB opened an investigation into the lenders’ small-dollar loan operations after concerns emerged regarding high interest rates, state licensing, and debt-collection practices. In its later enforcement action against Think Finance and related entities, the Bureau alleged that the enterprise:

• Serviced and collected on loans that were void or uncollectable under state law in at least 17 states
• Engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by misrepresenting the legality and enforceability of those loans
• Violated state licensing and usury laws by partnering with tribal entities to avoid state restrictions

Although the CIDs at issue in the petition preceded the full public enforcement case, they were part of a broader effort to obtain documents, data, and testimony about:

• How the loans were marketed to consumers
• What interest rates and fees were charged
• How defaults were handled and debts collected
• Who ultimately bore the economic risk and received the profits

The Joint Petition to Modify or Set Aside the CIDs

After receiving CIDs, Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green filed a joint petition asking the CFPB to set aside or significantly modify the demands. The petition relied on several core arguments, which can be summarized as follows:

• Tribal sovereign immunity – The lenders contended that, as arms of sovereign tribes, they could not be subjected to the CFPB’s investigatory authority in the same way as non-tribal entities, or at least that the Bureau should proceed differently out of respect for tribal sovereignty.
• Jurisdictional limits – They argued that the CFPA did not clearly authorize the Bureau to compel tribal entities to respond to CIDs, claiming that Congress had not unequivocally abrogated tribal sovereign immunity in this context.
• Scope and burden – The petition challenged the CIDs as overly broad and burdensome, asserting that the information requested exceeded what was reasonably relevant to any legitimate inquiry.
• Confidentiality concerns – The companies also requested confidential treatment for parts of their petition and for certain materials, arguing that disclosure could harm tribal economic interests or reveal proprietary business information.

The CFPB’s rules require that such petitions be decided by the Director (or a delegated official). As part of that process, the Bureau separately considered which parts of the petition and associated documents would receive confidential treatment, resulting in a public decision on confidentiality and a separate decision on the petition to set aside the CIDs.

CFPB’s Response and Decision on the Petition

The CFPB ultimately denied the lenders’ petition to set aside the CIDs and required them to comply, with limited modifications. In doing so, the Bureau concluded that:

• Its investigative authority extends to any “covered person” or service provider under the CFPA, which includes entities offering or providing consumer financial products or services, regardless of tribal affiliation.
• Nothing in the statute excluded tribal entities from oversight, and the Bureau interpreted its mandate broadly to protect consumers nationwide.
• The information sought in the CIDs was reasonably relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry focused on potential violations of federal consumer financial law.

The Director also issued a separate decision on the request for confidential treatment, determining which portions of the petition and supporting materials could be withheld from public disclosure. The Bureau applied its regulations on confidential supervisory information and public access, balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality interests.

Court Challenges: CFPB v. Great Plains Lending and Others

The dispute did not end with the CFPB’s administrative decision. Great Plains Lending, Plain Green, and MobiLoans challenged the CIDs in federal court, leading to a significant appellate decision on the CFPB’s authority to investigate tribal lenders.

In CFPB v. Great Plains Lending, LLC, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether the CFPB could enforce CIDs against entities that are arms of sovereign tribes. The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that the Bureau could compel compliance, relying on prior circuit precedent that federal statutes of general applicability apply to tribal entities unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.

Later, Great Plains Lending and Plain Green sought Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, arguing that the ruling conflicted with principles of tribal sovereign immunity; they noted that MobiLoans had eventually complied with a revised CID and no longer had an interest in the case. The petition to the Supreme Court further underscored the broader stakes for tribal lending programs and federal enforcement authority.

Connection to the Think Finance Enforcement Actions

The investigation into Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green formed part of a larger enforcement landscape surrounding Think Finance, LLC and its role in designing and administering high-cost loan programs. In 2017, the CFPB brought an enforcement action against Think Finance and several subsidiaries, alleging that they:

• Helped create and service loans that were void or uncollectable under state law in multiple states
• Received payments from consumers on debts that should not have been legally enforceable
• Aided two debt-collection companies in illegally collecting on these loans

That enforcement action, together with class-action litigation brought by private plaintiffs, led to large-scale settlements providing debt cancellation and monetary relief for borrowers who took out loans from Great Plains, Plain Green, and MobiLoans in certain time periods. For example, in one series of settlements, courts approved relief approaching $1 billion in combined monetary payments and debt cancellation related to the Think Finance tribal-lending structure.

Implications for Borrowers and Tribal Lenders

The CFPB’s handling of CIDs to Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green carries several key lessons.

For Consumers

• Federal protection applies broadly – The Ninth Circuit’s decision and the CFPB’s approach reinforce that federal consumer financial laws can protect borrowers even when the creditor is a tribal-affiliated lender.
• High-cost loans may be void or limited by state law – In the Think Finance case, loans in at least 17 states were treated as illegal, void, or uncollectable under state usury or licensing rules, despite contractual choice-of-law provisions favoring tribal law.
• Debt relief may be available – Settlement structures often include cancellation of remaining balances, refunds of certain interest or fees, and removal of negative credit reporting for affected consumers.

For Tribal Lenders

• CFPB oversight reaches tribal entities – Federal courts have signaled that tribal affiliation does not place lenders beyond the reach of the CFPB’s investigative powers where consumer financial products are concerned.
• Program design and partnerships matter – Arrangements with non-tribal partners, such as fintech companies or servicers, are closely examined to determine who truly controls and benefits from the lending program.
• Compliance infrastructure is critical – Tribal lenders that wish to avoid enforcement risk must align their practices with both federal protections and applicable state laws, particularly state interest-rate caps and licensing requirements.

For Regulators and Policymakers

• CIDs are central to modern financial enforcement – The case illustrates how administrative investigative tools allow regulators to gather facts before deciding whether to bring formal charges.
• Federal–tribal jurisdiction remains contested – Even though courts upheld the CFPB’s authority in this context, the litigation and certiorari petition emphasize ongoing debates about the scope of tribal sovereign immunity in the financial-services sector.
• Multi-layered enforcement – Federal agencies, state attorneys general, and private class-action lawyers each played roles in responding to alleged harms from the same lending structure, leading to large-scale consumer relief.

Key Takeaways in Bullet Form

• The CFPB issued CIDs to Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green as part of a broader investigation into high-cost tribal lending linked to Think Finance.
• The lenders filed a joint petition to modify or set aside the CIDs, arguing tribal sovereign immunity, jurisdictional limits, and excessive burden.
• The CFPB denied the petition (with limited modifications), concluding its authority extends to tribal entities offering consumer financial products.
• The Ninth Circuit later upheld enforcement of the CIDs, holding that the CFPA is a statute of general applicability that reaches tribal arms.
• Subsequent enforcement and private litigation produced substantial debt cancellation and refunds for borrowers of Great Plains, Plain Green, and MobiLoans.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the main purpose of a CFPB civil investigative demand?

A CFPB civil investigative demand (CID) is designed to collect information relevant to a potential violation of federal consumer financial law before the Bureau decides whether to bring an enforcement action. It allows the CFPB to obtain documents, data, and testimony from entities believed to have information about possible misconduct.

Q2: Why did Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green challenge the CIDs?

The lenders challenged the CIDs mainly on the grounds of tribal sovereign immunity, claimed limits on the CFPB’s jurisdiction over tribal entities, and objections that the demands were overly broad and burdensome. They argued that Congress had not clearly authorized the Bureau to compel tribal arms to respond.

Q3: Did the courts agree that the CFPB could investigate tribal lenders?

No. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, rejected the lenders’ immunity-based objections and held that the CFPB could enforce the CIDs. The courts treated the CFPA as a generally applicable federal statute that reaches tribal entities engaged in consumer financial activities.

Q4: How did the investigation connect to later consumer relief?

Information obtained through investigations into Great Plains Lending, MobiLoans, and Plain Green informed broader actions against Think Finance and related entities. Those actions, together with private class-action settlements, produced substantial debt cancellation and refunds for affected borrowers.

Q5: If I had a loan from one of these lenders, does this automatically mean my debt is cancelled?

No. Eligibility for debt cancellation or refunds depends on the specific terms of court-approved settlements, including loan dates, states of residence, and whether your loan falls within defined settlement classes. Consumers typically must review official settlement notices or claims information to confirm their status.

Similar Articles

The Battle Over Banned Books in Military K-12 Schools

Mass Deportation and the Erosion of Civil Liberties

Rethinking School Safety: The Impact of Police on Students

The Erosion of the American Welcome: U.S. Refugee Caps

The Future of AI: Preventing a Big Tech Monopoly

The Shift to Probabilistic Computing: The End of Logic

Author

medha deb

 

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts.

Read full bio of medha deb