The stipulation of dismissal is here. Here’s some of what the Bureau had said earlier about the case:
The Bureau alleges that SoLo’s advertisements and loan disclosures tout no-interest loans when, in fact, virtually all loans on the SoLo Platform include a lender “tip” that goes to the lender, a SoLo “donation” that goes to SoLo, or both. The complaint, which the Bureau amended on August 20, 2024, alleges that SoLo also misrepresented key terms about the total cost of credit in its promissory notes and disclosures. The Bureau also alleges that SoLo materially interfered with consumers’ ability to understand what fees they were required to pay by obscuring consumer’s ability to opt out of a SoLo “donation.” Further, the Bureau alleges that SoLo engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive conduct by servicing and collecting on loans that are void and uncollectible because they were either made without a required state license or in excess of state usury caps in the state where the borrower resides. When collecting on debt, the Bureau alleges that SoLo has also misrepresented to consumers that it will furnish negative information to credit bureaus when, in fact, it never did. The Bureau alleges this conduct violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The Bureau further alleges that SoLo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not implementing reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of its proprietary credit score, “SoLo Score,” which it provided to lenders to evaluate prospective borrowers, as well as information regarding the number of loans a borrower repaid.
As far as I know, that’s the only case the Bureau has dismissed. I wonder if at some point we will hear the reasons the case was dismissed. I also wonder if the Bureau has reviewed other cases and decided against dismissing them or if other dismissals are in the works.
