Good. § 16-17-2, given that both the defendants, such as-county lenders, were not similarly centered with no-of-county banks appointed in the O (Code 1981, §16-17-dos, enacted of the Ga. L. 2004, p. sixty, § 3; Ga. L. 2005, p. 60, § 16/HB 95; Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 9/SB 462.) – Demo legal didn’t err when you look at the rejecting the defendants’ equal safeguards and vagueness challenges so you’re able to O.C.Grams.A good. § 16-17-step 1 mais aussi seq., following the defendants was indeed faced with violating O.C.Grams.C.G.A. § 16-17-2(a)(3), thus was in fact at the mercy of state regulation limiting high interest levels into the money, while the newest away-of-condition banking companies were not; the fresh Georgia legislature got a rational reason behind undertaking a category according to those in-county pay day loan providers who were at the mercy of condition control, and furthermore the fresh new ban facing payday loan inside the whichever function transacted is good enough specified in order to satisfy owed techniques conditions. Glenn v. County, 282 Ga. twenty-seven, 644 S.Elizabeth.2d 826 (2007). Area courtroom accurately found that discussion board selection clauses inside group borrowers’ pay day financing arrangements had been unenforceable once […]