Cal. Codes » Financial Code / DIVISION 9. CALIFORNIA FINANCING LAW / CHAPTER 2. Consumer Loans / ARTICLE 3. Loan Regulations
California Codes

Cal. Financial Code § 22302 (2026)

Loan Regulations

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Section 1670.5 of the Civil Code applies to the provisions of a loan contract that is subject to this division.

(b)A loan found to be unconscionable pursuant to Section 1670.5 of the Civil Code shall be deemed to be in violation of this division and subject to the remedies specified in this division.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 422 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 422 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2018). · cites it 5× “( Fin. Code, § 22302, subd. (a) [" Section 1670.”
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 4× “(b) Cal. Fin.Code § 22302 and Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.”
Reyes v. Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n, FA, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “SIXTH CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW PREDICATED ON VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL CODE § 22302 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in unfair competition within the meaning of the UCL by violating California Financial Code § 22302 (“ § 22302”).”
Black v. Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 92 Cal. App. 4th 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “Code, § 22161), and provides that unconscionable loans violate the statute (Fin. Code, § 22302). When Congress enacted the Parity Act, it was surely aware that such forms of state regulation then existed or, at least, could come into existence in the future because it had no…”
Biggins v. Wells Fargo & Co., 266 F.R.D. 399 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Cal. Fin. Code § 22302 (a). Section 22302(b) further provides that “[a] loan found to be unconscionable pursuant to Section 1670.”
de la Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “CashCall also moves for summary judgment as to the Fourth Cause of Action for violation of the UCL based on unconscionable loan terms pursuant to California Financial Code section 22302. B.”
De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “Plaintiffs allege that CashCall’s loans were unconscionable, in violation of California Financial Code section 22302, and California Civil Code section 1670.”
Eduardo De La Torre v. Cashcall, Inc., 854 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2017). “Cal. Fin. Code § 22302 . 1 The current version of the relevant FLL provisions resulted from the enactment of Senate Bill No.”
Delisle v. Speedy Cash, No. 3:18-cv-02042 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020). “The California 3 Financial Code, Section 22302(b) may “suppl[y] the requisite ‘violations of other laws’ 4 by making ‘[a] loan found to be unconscionable’ a violation of the California Financing 5 Law.”
Amanda Susanne Donohue, No. 19-41271 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020). “5; Cal. Fin. Code § 22302 ; De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc.”
Cal. Financial Code § 22302(a): 1 case
O'Donovan v. CashCall, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 479 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “(b) Cal. Fin.Code § 22302 and Cal. Civ.Code § 1670.”
Cal. Financial Code § 22302(b): 1 case
Delisle v. Speedy Cash, No. 3:18-cv-02042 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020). “The California 3 Financial Code, Section 22302(b) may “suppl[y] the requisite ‘violations of other laws’ 4 by making ‘[a] loan found to be unconscionable’ a violation of the California Financing 5 Law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.