LendingClub deceived borrowers by advertising “no hidden fees” while secretly deducting origination fees of $1,000 or more directly from loan proceeds, leaving borrowers with less cash than promised. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and federal prosecutors took action against this practice, resulting in an $18 million settlement in July 2021—one of the largest lending fraud cases in recent years.
The settlement brought real compensation to consumers: the FTC distributed over $9.7 million to nearly 62,000 affected borrowers in August 2022, with individual refunds averaging around $284 each. For example, a borrower who applied for a $5,000 personal loan at LendingClub might have been told they qualified with “no hidden fees,” but only $3,500 to $4,000 would actually arrive in their bank account after the company quietly deducted its origination fee. This gap between advertised and actual loan amounts caused real financial harm, forcing borrowers to borrow more than intended or scramble for additional funds to cover expenses they thought the loan would cover.
Table of Contents
- What Deceptive Practices Did LendingClub Use?
- How the FTC Discovered and Pursued the Case
- Who Was Eligible for Refunds?
- What Should Borrowers Know About Settlement Deadlines and Claim Filing?
- What Protections Did the Settlement Require Going Forward?
- How Does This Case Compare to Other Lending Settlements?
- What Changed in the Lending Industry After This Settlement?
What Deceptive Practices Did LendingClub Use?
LendingClub hid its origination fees from consumers through deliberately obscured disclosures. On desktop computers, borrowers had to click a question mark icon to see fee information. On mobile devices, they had to tap the interest rate itself to reveal the origination fee details.
Most borrowers never discovered these fees until after they had already accepted the loan, when they noticed their actual loan proceeds were thousands of dollars less than expected. The company’s marketing materials and loan advertisements prominently featured the phrase “no hidden fees,” which directly contradicted its actual business practices. Borrowers saw this messaging when evaluating LendingClub against competitors and made decisions based on this false claim. The FTC determined that LendingClub violated the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act through these deceptive advertising and disclosure practices.
How the FTC Discovered and Pursued the Case
The FTC filed formal charges against LendingClub in April 2018, alleging that the company had systematically misrepresented its fee structure and loan terms. This investigation took three years to resolve, demonstrating the complexity of pursuing cases against fintech companies and the legal resources required to prove deception at scale. The case also involved coordination with federal prosecutors and multiple state attorneys general, reflecting the national scope of the harm.
One important limitation of this settlement is that it only addressed past misconduct. The $18 million agreement included provisions requiring LendingClub to change its disclosures going forward, but it did not force the company to shut down, change its fundamental business model, or admit wrongdoing (settlement agreements rarely include such admissions). For borrowers who took out loans from 2012 to 2018—the period covered by the FTC’s investigation—being aware of the settlement deadline was critical, as claims typically expire after a fixed window.
Who Was Eligible for Refunds?
consumers who took out personal loans from LendingClub between 2012 and 2018 and paid origination fees were eligible for refunds. The FTC’s distribution process identified approximately 61,990 eligible borrowers based on company records. These refunds were issued directly to consumers’ bank accounts or mailed as checks, depending on available contact information.
Some consumers received full refunds of their origination fees, while others received partial refunds if they had already recovered fees through other means. The average refund of approximately $284 per person reflected the fact that origination fees varied based on loan size and terms, ranging from just a few hundred dollars for smaller loans to over $1,000 for larger personal loans. A borrower who took out a $10,000 loan would have paid a significantly larger origination fee than someone borrowing $2,000, so refund amounts varied considerably. The FTC released multiple notices to past borrowers to inform them of their eligibility, though some consumers never learned about the settlement simply because their contact information had changed since they closed their loans.
What Should Borrowers Know About Settlement Deadlines and Claim Filing?
This settlement has passed its public claim period, meaning eligible consumers who received refunds have already been paid. If you borrowed from LendingClub during the 2012–2018 period and never received a refund notice, the claims window has closed, and you would have limited options for recovering funds unless you file a separate lawsuit. The FTC retained the right to return unclaimed settlement funds to LendingClub, so delay in filing claims resulted in lost recovery opportunities.
For comparison, other lending settlements with competitors have had similar or longer claim periods, typically ranging from six months to two years after settlement approval. The key distinction is that the LendingClub settlement was administered directly by the FTC, making it relatively straightforward compared to class action settlements where borrowers must file individual claim forms. Future borrowers should monitor FTC press releases and settlement notices if they believe they were harmed by another lending company, as the FTC regularly pursues similar cases against fintech lenders.
What Protections Did the Settlement Require Going Forward?
As part of the settlement, LendingClub was required to clearly disclose origination fees and the actual amount of loan proceeds borrowers would receive before they accepted the loan. These changes included placing fee information in prominent, easy-to-read formats on both desktop and mobile platforms—eliminating the need to click question marks or tap hidden icons. The settlement also required the company to provide accurate information about the loan amount actually disbursed to borrowers.
A critical warning: even with these new disclosure requirements, borrowers should carefully review loan terms before accepting any personal loan, as origination fees remain a standard practice across the lending industry. LendingClub still charges origination fees; the difference is they must now disclose them clearly upfront. Other lenders use different marketing language (“no prepayment penalties” or “flexible terms”) while still charging origination fees, so consumers can’t assume that clear fee disclosures mean fees don’t exist—only that they’re now transparent.
How Does This Case Compare to Other Lending Settlements?
The LendingClub settlement represented one of the largest actions against a digital lending platform for deceptive fee practices. Similar cases have targeted other online lenders and fintech companies for similar conduct—hiding fees, misrepresenting loan terms, or failing to disclose key information.
The $18 million settlement amount reflected both the scope of harm (affecting tens of thousands of consumers) and LendingClub’s revenue scale as a major online lender. The settlement also set a precedent for FTC enforcement against digital lending platforms, signaling that the agency would actively pursue cases where companies obscure fee information through user interface design (burying disclosures behind clicks or taps). Since this settlement, the FTC has pursued similar cases against other fintech lenders, payment platforms, and financial services companies using comparable deceptive practices.
What Changed in the Lending Industry After This Settlement?
The LendingClub case accelerated a broader trend toward clearer fee disclosure in online lending. Following this settlement, many fintech lenders redesigned their loan application processes to display fees and actual loan disbursement amounts more prominently. However, regulation in the lending industry remains fragmented, and not all lenders face the same enforcement scrutiny, so consumer protections vary widely.
Going forward, the lending landscape continues to evolve with new players entering the market and existing companies launching new products. The FTC has indicated it will continue monitoring lending companies for deceptive practices, particularly around fee disclosures and misleading advertising. Borrowers should remain vigilant about reviewing loan terms and asking questions about any fees before accepting offers, as this settlement illustrates how easily deceptive practices can go unnoticed by individual consumers.
You Might Also Like
- eBay Payment Processing Fee Class Action
- Stripe Payment Processing Fee Class Action
- Layla Sleep Mattress Warranty Deception Class Action
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: