1
00:00:00.535 --> 00:00:03.325
Let's talk about the lawsuit in California,

2
00:00:03.385 --> 00:00:05.005
the disclosure lawsuit in California.

3
00:00:05.225 --> 00:00:08.165
If you did not know, the Small Business Finance Association

4
00:00:09.085 --> 00:00:12.725
recently sued the California State regulator, the DFPI.

5
00:00:13.245 --> 00:00:15.285
Alleging that the disclosure law

6
00:00:15.875 --> 00:00:17.405
ones people have been talking about forever

7
00:00:18.685 --> 00:00:19.885
violated the First Amendment

8
00:00:19.995 --> 00:00:24.405
because they claim it forced small business finance

9
00:00:24.925 --> 00:00:28.165
companies to give misleading information

10
00:00:28.745 --> 00:00:30.725
to customers by law.

11
00:00:31.115 --> 00:00:33.725
That by law they were being forced to give incorrect

12
00:00:34.185 --> 00:00:37.005
and misleading information to their customers.

13
00:00:37.955 --> 00:00:40.845
Whoa, imagine that a law that forces you

14
00:00:40.845 --> 00:00:42.645
to tell something incorrect to a customer.

15
00:00:42.955 --> 00:00:44.405
Well, that's what they alleged happened,

16
00:00:44.825 --> 00:00:47.565
and in the beginning, the judge seemed to agree with

17
00:00:47.565 --> 00:00:51.245
that take because the state moved to dismiss those claims

18
00:00:51.265 --> 00:00:53.485
and the judge says, no, they have a point here.

19
00:00:53.515 --> 00:00:54.645
They may be beyond something

20
00:00:55.145 --> 00:00:57.005
and allowed the case to move forward.

21
00:00:57.005 --> 00:01:00.285
However, upon further evidence, I suppose

22
00:01:00.945 --> 00:01:02.765
the court said, Hmm, you know what?

23
00:01:02.815 --> 00:01:04.165
After reviewing the facts

24
00:01:04.505 --> 00:01:07.725
and more information, it turned out the state might be

25
00:01:07.725 --> 00:01:10.725
right, it might not be actually, uh,

26
00:01:10.725 --> 00:01:12.005
violating their First Amendment rights.

27
00:01:12.005 --> 00:01:14.685
So what happened recently? Only in the last week,

28
00:01:15.585 --> 00:01:19.365
the judge granted summary judgment to the state,

29
00:01:19.465 --> 00:01:20.565
to the state regulator

30
00:01:20.565 --> 00:01:23.165
and said, this does not violate the First Amendment.

31
00:01:23.545 --> 00:01:25.725
The disclosure law can continue on as normal.

32
00:01:25.905 --> 00:01:26.965
And what does this mean for you?

33
00:01:27.225 --> 00:01:30.085
It just means that you can continue to comply

34
00:01:30.275 --> 00:01:34.205
with California's disclosure law, just as you were before.

35
00:01:34.905 --> 00:01:36.485
So it is impactful,

36
00:01:36.865 --> 00:01:38.365
but in terms of what does it change,

37
00:01:38.545 --> 00:01:41.325
it doesn't really change anything for the moment.

38
00:01:41.905 --> 00:01:44.125
Now I'm told there could be a possible appeal,

39
00:01:44.265 --> 00:01:45.605
but we will find out if that happens.