Paycheck today say they do not have to be licensed in AZ

Tell them to contact NM AG's office, I contacted them and their own AG will tell them they HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BORROWERS STATE LAWS and mosting importantly be licensed in the borrowers state! Never dealt with that company but one in NM that told me the same thing, they changed their story when I told them I also filed a complaint with their own AG.

In case, you don't have the address of Paycheck today, this is at the bottom in their letter.

Paychecktoday.com | 515 G SE | Miami | OK | 74354-8224

Paycheck Today is an online lender. With that said, they are required to be licensed in your state and must follow the usury laws of your state. Don't get fall on the wrong info given to you. Report this to the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions

http://azbanking.gov/

You've had a different experience with the New Mexico AG's office than I have, Steelers. I've dealt with them on behalf of a couple of lenders I used to represent and all they did was pass the complaint to the Regulation and Licensing Department. RLD's position has always been that while they won't go to war against another state, their only concern is whether New Mexico laws have been broken. If those haven't been broken they consider it a dispute between the borrower and the lender and none of their business. Real Pontius Pilate stuff.

Frankly, there's this big misconception on the board that somehow the state AG acts as their private attorney in these things. The AG's consumer affairs division usually just sends out a form letter. Sometimes the lender responds, but usually they just ignore it. And nothing ever happens to them.

mcranberra's on the right track at least in practical terms. The ballgame is at your state's banking department (or equivalent). They're the office that oversees licensing and lending regulations. The AG comes in for enforcement actions if the banking folks find a "systemic" problem, i.e., a lot of complaints from a lot of people with evidence to back it up. Payday lenders need to worry about complaints to them, because those are the offices building up files because they do the investigations that lead to cease-and-desist letters, lawsuits, etc. The AG is just their attorney.

I do disagree with the idea that they have to be licensed in the borrower's state. That issue's far from settled in the courts, no matter what anyone - on either side - tells you. There are constitutional issues at stake that go far beyond a fringe financial product and the court's are very cautious about unintended consequences. But that's a question of legal theory. In reality these are still small, controversial loans and the lenders aren't in any hurry to be the test case. (Except for QuikPayday, but that's another story.) I have no argument with mcranberra's advice in terms of practical application.

Marcia Brady's Lovechile
I dont agree with you because why do some of them state they can not loan in certain states.

You're reading too much into that, in my opinion. I'm sure you've noticed that it's never the same list.

Lenders give up states based on cost-benefit analysis, not because they're scared of the state's law. If state's are more aggressive in pursuing these cases (like New York) some lenders decide they would rather lose that business than pay hundreds of thousands in attorney fees to prove the point.

But that's changing and the lenders are starting to challenge states that overreach their constitutional authority. Quik Payday (a Utah lender) is suing the Kansas Bank Commissioner in federal court for an injunction against their attempt to enforce Kansas laws. Pioneer Military Lending (not a pdl, but which follows an identical legal model) is doing the same against California. And there's a private suit in Pennsylvania (can't give too much detail because I'm involved) where the issue is likely to arise, too.

My personal opinion is that the pdl's are going to win this fight. The laws and judicial decisions on interstate commerce were designed to run an entire national economy, not to control a minor fringe product. Very few of the key cases and statutes even involved payday loans, although the principles they created certainly apply. I just don't think the courts are going to be cavalier about overturning precedent and suddenly deliver decisions which could subject trillions of dollars in commerce to 50 different sets of rules over payday lending. Instead, I think they'll take a much more cautious approach and nibble around the edges.

Marcia Brady's Lovechile,

So why do some PDLs mark off accounts as paid in full, stop lending in states after the AG registers complaints against them as well as some PDL even give refunds.