California has more small businesses carrying MCA debt than any other state. It also has more legal tools to challenge that debt than most business owners realize.

The merchant cash advance industry targets California businesses aggressively because the market is large, the industries are capital-intensive, and the demand for fast funding is constant. Restaurants, contractors, retailers, trucking companies, medical practices, and service businesses across the state have signed MCA agreements under financial pressure and are now managing daily withdrawals that consume the cash flow the advance was supposed to support.

California’s legal framework offers several avenues for relief that are not available in every state. The combination of state lending laws, consumer protection statutes, and disclosure requirements creates a legal environment that is more favorable to MCA borrowers than the national average.

The Legal Landscape in California

California enacted SB 1235 in 2018, which requires commercial financing providers — including MCA companies — to disclose the total cost of the financing, the total amount of payments, the term, the payment amounts, and the annualized rate. The disclosure must be provided before the business owner signs the agreement. The law was implemented through regulations adopted by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which became effective in 2022.

The disclosure requirement matters because it creates a record. If the funder failed to provide the required disclosures, or if the disclosures were inaccurate or misleading, the failure is a violation of California law that can be used as leverage in a dispute. The disclosure also provides the business owner with the information needed to calculate the effective cost of the advance and compare it to the cost of alternative financing — a comparison the MCA industry has historically prevented.

California’s Unfair Competition Law, codified in Business and Professions Code Section 17200, prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. The statute is broad. It encompasses violations of other laws — including lending laws, disclosure requirements, and debt collection statutes — and provides for injunctive relief and restitution. A business owner who can demonstrate that the MCA funder’s conduct was unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent has a cause of action under Section 17200.

Recharacterization Under California Law

California courts apply the same risk-based analysis used in other jurisdictions to determine whether an MCA is a loan. If the funder bore no genuine risk of loss — if the daily payments were fixed, the personal guarantee eliminated the business risk, and the reconciliation clause was never honored — the transaction may be recharacterized as a loan.

California’s usury protections are embedded in the state constitution, Article XV. The constitutional usury limit is 10% per annum for loans not made by exempt lenders. However, the California Finance Lenders Law provides an exemption for licensed lenders, and many MCA companies are not licensed under this framework. If the MCA is recharacterized as a loan made by an unlicensed lender, the constitutional usury cap applies. An effective APR of 150% on a recharacterized loan made by an unlicensed lender exceeds the constitutional cap by a factor of fifteen.

The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation has also been active in examining MCA practices. The DFPI’s complaint intake process allows business owners to file complaints about MCA companies, and the department has the authority to investigate and take enforcement action against companies that violate California’s financial protection laws.

Your Relief Options

Settlement negotiation. Many MCA disputes in California are resolved through negotiated settlement. The funder agrees to reduce the balance, modify the payment terms, or accept a lump sum payment at a discount. Settlement is most effective when the business owner has legal representation and the funder faces genuine legal exposure — usury, disclosure violations, deceptive practices — that makes a favorable settlement more rational than litigation.

Legal challenge to the agreement. If the MCA is recharacterized as a usurious loan, the agreement is void under California’s constitutional usury provisions. If the funder failed to comply with SB 1235 disclosure requirements, the failure creates additional claims. If the funder engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, the business owner has claims under the UCL, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Reconciliation enforcement. If your revenue has decreased and the funder has refused to reconcile payments, a legal demand to enforce the reconciliation clause — followed by litigation if the demand is ignored — can reduce your daily payment to the contractually specified percentage of actual revenue. The enforcement of reconciliation also supports the recharacterization argument: a funder that refuses to reconcile has eliminated the risk that distinguishes a purchase from a loan.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted
Multi-State Licensed
Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

UCC lien removal. If the MCA has been satisfied or the underlying agreement is unenforceable, the UCC-1 filing can be challenged and terminated. California’s Commercial Code provides the framework for demanding termination and pursuing remedies if the funder fails to comply.

Practical Steps

Gather your documents. The MCA agreement, the personal guarantee, the payment history, the bank statements showing daily withdrawals, and any correspondence with the funder or broker. These documents are the foundation of every legal analysis and every negotiation strategy.

Calculate the effective cost. Using the funded amount, the repayment amount, the daily payment, and the term, calculate the effective annual percentage rate. If the rate exceeds California’s usury cap for unlicensed lenders, you have a constitutional argument. If it exceeds the rate disclosed under SB 1235, you have a disclosure violation.

Consult an attorney who practices MCA law in California. The attorney can assess your agreement, calculate your exposure, identify your claims, and recommend the most efficient path to relief — whether that is negotiation, reconciliation enforcement, legal challenge, or a combination of all three. The legal tools available in California are substantial. The question is which tools apply to your specific agreement and your specific facts.