Home → Press

Press

Two findings below came out of verifying payday lending law in all 52 US jurisdictions against primary sources. Both are documented, both are checkable, and neither has been widely reported.

Finding one

Six states require lenders to give borrowers more time. Almost nobody asks.

Florida, Washington, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana and Indiana each require payday lenders to offer an extended payment plan, usually at no additional charge. Florida’s statute goes further and expressly forbids lenders from discouraging borrowers from using it — which tells you what the legislature expected to happen.

0.71%Florida transactions using the grace period

37.6%Florida borrowers taking 10+ loans a year

Both figures come from the Florida Legislature’s own staff analysis. Utah’s regulator separately reports 7.86% take-up alongside an average APR of 522.56%.

Read it →

Finding two

The bank-partnership structure appeared only in states that banned payday lending

From the North Carolina Attorney General’s testimony to the US Senate Committee on Banking: payday lenders used rent-a-bank schemes only in states like North Carolina that prohibited payday lending. In states that allowed high-rate loans, they lent in their own names.

The industry has always defended these partnerships as bringing efficiency and funding access. If that were the reason, they would appear everywhere. They do not.

Georgia wrote the “predominant economic interest” test into a criminal statute in 2004 — seventeen years before Illinois, New Mexico, Connecticut and Minnesota adopted the same language, and it is almost never cited.

Read it →

Other things that surfaced

Missouri’s regulator describes a 1,950% ceiling as a consumer safeguard. The Division of Finance’s own page frames its 75%-of-principal cap that way. On a 14-day loan that annualises to roughly 1,950%.
Utah publishes its own average APR: 522.56%, in a statutory report to the legislature. So does Oregon, which states that its “36% cap” permits a maximum all-in APR of 153.77%.
A government legislative compilation is now wrong about three of the ten states it covers — Colorado, Ohio and Nebraska — purely because those states changed their laws after it was published. A 30% error rate from age alone.
Published state guides contradict each other badly. Connecticut appears at 30.3% and 12%; Georgia at 16% and 60%; Nevada with a 36% cap that the Nevada Supreme Court says does not exist.

How the site is sourced

Every figure on every jurisdiction page links to a regulator, a statute or a court — 105 citations across 97 distinct government sources. Those sources are monitored automatically; when a page moves or its wording changes, the affected page says so.

Corrections are published with dates on a public page, including four of our own errors.

Funding: flat-fee credit union referrals, data licensing and reader support. No money from payday, title or other high-cost lenders, in any form. Set out in full on the methodology page.

Using this material

Quote it, check it, take it apart. Where you use a figure, the underlying regulator or statute is one click from it and we would rather you cited that.

Data, methodology detail, or a specific state breakdown: [email protected].

Published by Resultex Media Group LLC, 112 Main St., Suite 210, East Rockaway, NY 11518.