I. Introduction

Online lending applications have become a common source of quick credit in the Philippines. They promise fast approval, minimal paperwork, and instant disbursement, often appealing to borrowers who cannot easily access banks, credit cards, or formal financing. However, the rapid growth of online lending has also produced serious legal and consumer protection issues.

Many complaints involve harassment, public shaming, threats, unauthorized access to phone contacts, abusive collection practices, misleading loan terms, hidden charges, excessive interest, and repeated deductions or rollovers that trap borrowers in debt. These practices raise issues under Philippine laws on lending, consumer protection, data privacy, cybercrime, harassment, unfair collection, and possible criminal liability.

This article discusses the Philippine legal framework governing online lending apps, the rights of borrowers, the obligations of lenders and financing companies, the legality of high interest and charges, remedies available to victims, and practical steps for borrowers facing harassment.

II. Nature of Online Lending Apps

Online lending apps are digital platforms that offer short-term loans through mobile applications or websites. In the Philippines, these platforms may be operated by lending companies, financing companies, or entities claiming to act as loan facilitators.

A legitimate lending or financing company must generally be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the entity is a lending company, it must comply with the Lending Company Regulation Act. If it is a financing company, it must comply with the Financing Company Act. Online operation does not exempt the lender from registration, disclosure, fair collection, data privacy, and consumer protection rules.

A lender cannot avoid Philippine law merely by operating through an app, using foreign servers, outsourcing collection to third parties, or describing its charges as “service fees,” “processing fees,” “platform fees,” “membership fees,” or “penalties.”

III. Common Abusive Practices by Online Lending Apps

Borrower complaints usually involve one or more of the following practices:

Contact harassment The app or its collectors call, text, or message the borrower repeatedly, sometimes within a single day, including at unreasonable hours.
Contacting third parties Collectors contact the borrower’s family, friends, employer, co-workers, or phone contacts even if those persons are not guarantors or co-makers.
Public shaming Some collectors send messages accusing the borrower of fraud, theft, or estafa, or post threats that the borrower will be exposed on social media.
Threats of arrest or criminal prosecution Borrowers are told that they will be arrested, imprisoned, charged with estafa, or visited by police if they fail to pay.
Misuse of personal data Apps may access contacts, photos, messages, device information, or social media accounts beyond what is necessary for the loan.
Hidden or excessive charges Borrowers may receive less than the stated loan amount because deductions are taken upfront, then are required to repay the full principal plus interest, penalties, service fees, and extension fees.
Automatic rollovers and repeated refinancing Borrowers are encouraged or forced to take another loan to pay the first loan, creating a cycle of debt.
Deceptive loan terms The app may advertise low rates but impose short payment periods and high daily charges that make the effective rate extremely high.
Use of shame, fear, and intimidation as collection strategy Some collectors use threats, insults, profanity, false legal claims, and reputational harm to compel payment.

These practices may violate several Philippine laws and regulations.

IV. Regulatory Framework in the Philippines

A. Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation

The SEC supervises lending companies and financing companies. Online lending operators must be properly registered and must comply with rules on disclosure, collection practices, corporate registration, and consumer protection.

Operating an online lending business without proper authority may expose the operators to administrative sanctions, penalties, revocation, suspension, or possible criminal liability depending on the facts.

The SEC has also issued rules and advisories against unfair debt collection practices by financing and lending companies, including practices involving threats, obscenity, misrepresentation, unauthorized disclosure of borrower information, and abusive communication.

B. Lending Company Regulation Act

The Lending Company Regulation Act governs lending companies in the Philippines. It requires lending companies to be duly organized and authorized. It also gives regulators power to supervise lending activities and impose penalties for violations.

An online lender that is actually engaged in lending money to the public cannot simply claim to be a technology company to avoid lending regulations.

C. Financing Company Act

Financing companies are also regulated. If an entity provides credit facilities, financing, or similar services, it may fall under laws and regulations governing financing companies. Like lending companies, financing companies must comply with registration, disclosure, and fair dealing obligations.

D. Truth in Lending Act

The Truth in Lending Act requires creditors to disclose the true cost of credit. Borrowers must be informed of finance charges, interest, fees, deductions, repayment terms, and the total amount payable.

In online lending, this means the lender should clearly disclose the following before the borrower accepts the loan:

the principal loan amount;
the amount actually disbursed to the borrower;
all interest, fees, and charges;
the payment due date;
penalties for late payment;
the total amount payable;
the effective cost of borrowing.

Failure to disclose material loan terms may be a violation. Disguising interest as “service fees” or hiding deductions may also raise legal issues.

E. Consumer Protection Laws

Borrowers are consumers of financial services. They are entitled to fair treatment, transparent disclosure, reasonable collection practices, and protection from deceptive, unfair, or abusive acts.

Unfair or deceptive lending practices may include misleading advertisements, false promises of low interest, hidden charges, unclear loan terms, coercive debt collection, and false threats of criminal prosecution.

F. Data Privacy Act of 2012

The Data Privacy Act is one of the most important laws applicable to online lending app harassment. Online lending apps collect personal information, such as names, phone numbers, addresses, IDs, employment details, bank or e-wallet information, selfies, and device data.

Some apps also request access to phone contacts, photos, messages, location, or social media information. The collection and use of this data must comply with the principles of transparency, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.

This means:

the borrower must be informed what data is collected and why;
the data must be used only for lawful and declared purposes;
the data collected must be limited to what is necessary;
the lender cannot freely disclose borrower information to third parties;
contacting people in the borrower’s phonebook may be unlawful if there is no valid legal basis;
shaming the borrower by disclosing loan information may violate privacy rights.

Unauthorized use, processing, or disclosure of personal information may lead to complaints before the National Privacy Commission and may also carry administrative, civil, or criminal consequences.

G. Cybercrime Prevention Act

If harassment is done through text messages, calls, online messages, social media posts, emails, or digital platforms, the conduct may involve cyber-related offenses.

Depending on the facts, abusive conduct may overlap with cyberlibel, unjust vexation committed through electronic means, identity misuse, threats, or other punishable conduct. A collector who posts defamatory statements online or sends false accusations to third parties may expose both the collector and the lending entity to liability.

H. Revised Penal Code

Certain collection methods may amount to criminal acts under the Revised Penal Code or related laws. Possible offenses may include:

grave threats;
light threats;
grave coercion;
unjust vexation;
slander or oral defamation;
libel, if defamatory statements are written or published;
incriminating innocent persons, depending on facts;
other offenses involving intimidation, false statements, or reputational harm.

Not every collection message automatically becomes a crime, but threats, false accusations, public shaming, and repeated intimidation may cross the line from civil debt collection into criminal misconduct.

V. Is Nonpayment of an Online Loan a Criminal Case?

As a general rule, failure to pay a debt is not a crime in the Philippines. A debt is usually a civil obligation. The creditor’s remedy is generally to collect through lawful means, send demand letters, negotiate payment, restructure the loan, or file a civil action.

A borrower cannot be imprisoned merely for inability to pay a debt. The Philippine Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt.

However, criminal liability may arise if there is a separate criminal act, such as fraud from the beginning, falsification, use of fake identity, issuance of worthless checks under applicable law, or deceit amounting to estafa. Mere inability or failure to pay, without more, is not automatically estafa.

Collectors who tell borrowers that they will be arrested simply because they failed to pay are often making misleading or abusive threats. Such statements may themselves be evidence of unfair or abusive collection practices.

VI. Harassment by Online Lending Apps

A. What Constitutes Harassment?

Harassment may include repeated, abusive, threatening, humiliating, or coercive acts intended to pressure a borrower into payment. Examples include:

calling or messaging nonstop;
using insults, profanity, or degrading language;
threatening to contact all phone contacts;
threatening to post the borrower’s photo online;
threatening arrest without legal basis;
falsely claiming that a criminal case has already been filed;
sending fake subpoenas, warrants, or legal documents;
contacting employers to embarrass the borrower;
telling relatives or friends that the borrower is a scammer or criminal;
disclosing the borrower’s loan details to unauthorized persons;
creating group chats to shame the borrower;
using edited photos, memes, or defamatory captions.

Debt collection must be lawful, proportionate, and respectful of privacy and dignity. Creditors may demand payment, but they may not harass, threaten, shame, or deceive the borrower.

B. Contacting the Borrower’s Contacts

One of the most controversial practices of online lending apps is accessing and contacting the borrower’s phone contacts.

Even if the borrower gave app permissions, this does not automatically mean the lender can freely use all contacts for debt collection. Consent under data privacy law must be informed, specific, and freely given. It must also be proportionate to a legitimate purpose.

A borrower’s contacts are third parties. They usually did not consent to being contacted about the borrower’s debt. If the lender discloses the borrower’s loan status to them, this may be an unauthorized disclosure of personal information.

Contacting third parties may be allowed only in limited and lawful circumstances, such as verifying contact information or communicating with a guarantor, co-maker, or reference who knowingly provided consent. Even then, disclosure must be limited and respectful.

C. Public Shaming and Defamation

Public shaming is legally risky for lenders and collectors. Calling a borrower a “scammer,” “thief,” “fraudster,” or “estafador” in messages sent to others may be defamatory if false, malicious, or unnecessary.

If the statement is published online or sent electronically, it may give rise to cyberlibel or other legal claims, depending on the facts. Even private messages to third parties may support complaints for defamation, unjust vexation, harassment, or privacy violations.

The borrower may also have a civil claim for damages if the harassment causes reputational harm, emotional distress, loss of employment, family conflict, or other injury.

VII. Excessive Charges and Interest

A. Are High Interest Rates Automatically Illegal?

Philippine law does not always set a single fixed maximum interest rate for all private loans. However, interest and charges may be struck down, reduced, or treated as unenforceable if they are unconscionable, iniquitous, excessive, or contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Courts have authority to reduce unconscionable interest, penalties, and charges. Even if the borrower clicked “I agree,” the lender cannot rely on oppressive terms that violate law or public policy.

B. Hidden Charges

Online lending apps often advertise a loan amount but deduct fees upfront. For example, a borrower may apply for ₱5,000, receive only ₱3,500, and be required to pay ₱5,000 plus interest or penalties within seven days. The hidden cost may be extremely high.

This raises issues under disclosure laws and consumer protection rules. The borrower should know the true cost of the loan before accepting it. If the app misrepresents the amount, rate, maturity, deductions, or total repayment obligation, the lender may be liable for deceptive or unfair practices.

C. Penalties and Late Fees

Lenders may impose penalties if these are lawful, disclosed, and reasonable. However, excessive daily penalties, compounding penalties, and charges that rapidly exceed the principal may be challenged.

Courts may reduce penalty charges that are unconscionable or inequitable. Regulators may also examine whether the lender’s fee structure is abusive or deceptive.

D. Service Fees, Processing Fees, and Platform Fees

A lender may charge legitimate fees if they are properly disclosed and not used to conceal usurious or oppressive interest. However, if the fees are excessive, unexplained, or deducted in a way that misleads the borrower, they may be questioned.

Labels do not control legality. A charge called a “processing fee” may still be treated as part of the cost of credit.

VIII. Borrower Rights

A borrower dealing with an online lending app has the following rights:

Right to clear disclosure The borrower has the right to know the amount borrowed, amount received, interest, fees, penalties, due date, and total amount payable.
Right to privacy The borrower’s personal data cannot be collected, used, shared, or disclosed without lawful basis.
Right to humane collection practices The borrower may be asked to pay, but may not be threatened, insulted, shamed, or harassed.
Right against false criminal threats The borrower cannot be threatened with arrest merely for nonpayment of debt.
Right to dispute charges The borrower may question excessive, undisclosed, or unlawful charges.
Right to file complaints The borrower may complain to regulators, law enforcement, or courts.
Right to damages If the borrower suffers injury due to unlawful acts, the borrower may seek civil damages.

IX. Obligations of Online Lending Companies

Online lending companies must:

be properly registered and authorized;
disclose loan terms clearly;
avoid false or misleading advertisements;
process personal data lawfully;
limit app permissions to what is necessary;
avoid unauthorized disclosure of borrower information;
use fair and lawful debt collection methods;
supervise third-party collectors;
maintain records of borrower consent and loan terms;
respond to complaints;
comply with SEC and privacy regulations.

A lending company may be liable for the acts of its collectors, agents, employees, or third-party collection agencies if those acts are connected with the company’s collection activities.

X. Liability of Collection Agents

Collection agents may be personally liable if they commit unlawful acts. They cannot defend themselves by saying they were only following instructions if the conduct involved threats, defamation, coercion, unauthorized disclosure, or harassment.

Possible consequences include:

criminal complaints;
civil damages;
administrative complaints;
employment consequences;
inclusion in regulatory investigation.

The lending company may also be held accountable if it authorized, tolerated, benefited from, or failed to prevent abusive collection practices.

XI. Evidence Borrowers Should Preserve

A borrower experiencing harassment should preserve evidence immediately. Useful evidence includes:

screenshots of text messages, chat messages, and app notifications;
call logs showing repeated calls;
recordings, if lawfully obtained;
names and numbers used by collectors;
screenshots of social media posts;
messages sent to relatives, friends, employers, or co-workers;
proof that contacts were accessed or messaged;
copies of loan agreements, disclosure statements, and app terms;
screenshots of the amount borrowed and amount received;
proof of payments;
receipts from e-wallets, banks, or payment centers;
app name, developer name, company name, website, and SEC registration details;
demand letters or fake legal documents;
affidavits or statements from contacted third parties.

Evidence is critical because abusive lenders may change numbers, delete posts, rename apps, or shift operations.

XII. Where to File Complaints

Victims may consider complaints before the following offices, depending on the issue:

A. Securities and Exchange Commission

Complaints involving lending companies, financing companies, unfair debt collection, lack of registration, abusive collection, and excessive or hidden charges may be brought to the SEC.

The SEC may investigate, issue orders, impose penalties, revoke or suspend registrations, or take other regulatory action.

B. National Privacy Commission

Complaints involving unauthorized access to contacts, misuse of personal data, disclosure of loan information, public shaming, and excessive app permissions may be filed with the National Privacy Commission.

The NPC may investigate data privacy violations and impose sanctions.

C. Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division

If the harassment involves online threats, cyberlibel, identity misuse, fake posts, or digital intimidation, the borrower may report the matter to cybercrime authorities.

D. Local Prosecutor’s Office

If facts support criminal charges such as threats, coercion, unjust vexation, libel, or other offenses, a complaint-affidavit may be filed for preliminary investigation.

E. Courts

Civil actions may be filed for damages, injunction, reduction of unconscionable interest, or other relief. Court action may be appropriate when the borrower has suffered serious reputational, emotional, financial, or employment harm.

F. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

If the lender is connected with a BSP-supervised financial institution, e-wallet, payment system, or financial service provider, a complaint may also be relevant to BSP channels.

XIII. Possible Claims and Causes of Action

Depending on the facts, a borrower may raise the following:

Violation of data privacy rights Unauthorized collection, processing, sharing, or disclosure of personal information.
Unfair debt collection Harassment, threats, abusive language, unauthorized disclosure, and deceptive collection tactics.
Defamation or cyberlibel False statements damaging the borrower’s reputation.
Unjust vexation Conduct that annoys, irritates, torments, or disturbs the borrower without lawful justification.
Grave threats or coercion Threats of harm, unlawful pressure, or intimidation.
Civil damages Compensation for moral damages, nominal damages, actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, where justified.
Challenge to unconscionable interest or penalties Reduction or invalidation of oppressive charges.
Regulatory sanctions Suspension, revocation, penalties, or cease-and-desist action against the lender.

XIV. Demand Letters and Cease-and-Desist Notices

A borrower may send a written notice to the lending company demanding that it stop harassment and communicate only through lawful channels. The letter may state:

the borrower does not refuse to settle lawful obligations;
the borrower disputes unlawful, excessive, or undisclosed charges;
the lender and collectors must stop contacting third parties;
the lender must stop disclosing personal information;
all communications should be in writing;
the borrower reserves the right to file complaints with the SEC, NPC, law enforcement, and courts.

Sending a written notice helps establish that the lender was warned and continued the conduct.

XV. Effect of Borrower Consent in the App

Many lending apps rely on app permissions and terms of service. However, consent is not unlimited.

Consent may be invalid or legally insufficient if:

it was hidden in long, unclear terms;
it was bundled with unrelated permissions;
the borrower had no real choice;
the permission was excessive;
the data use was not explained;
contacts were used for shaming or harassment;
the lender processed data beyond the declared purpose.

Even if a borrower granted access to contacts, it does not automatically authorize the lender to disclose the borrower’s debt to everyone in the phonebook. Data privacy law still requires legitimate purpose and proportionality.

XVI. Employer Contact and Workplace Harassment

Collectors sometimes contact the borrower’s employer or co-workers. This may be unlawful if done to shame, pressure, or damage the borrower’s employment.

A lender may not tell an employer that the borrower is a criminal, scammer, or dishonest person merely because of unpaid debt. Such conduct may lead to claims for damages, defamation, privacy violations, and unfair collection.

If the harassment affects employment, the borrower should preserve evidence and consider obtaining statements from HR, supervisors, or co-workers who received messages or calls.

XVII. Fake Legal Threats

Some collectors send messages claiming that:

a warrant of arrest has been issued;
police are on the way;
the borrower will be imprisoned within 24 hours;
a criminal case for estafa has been filed;
the borrower is blacklisted by all government agencies;
barangay officials will seize property;
the borrower’s employer will be forced to terminate employment.

Many such claims are legally misleading. Arrest generally requires lawful process. A creditor cannot simply order police to arrest a borrower for nonpayment. Filing a civil claim or sending a demand letter is different from having a criminal conviction or arrest warrant.

Fake legal documents, fake subpoenas, fake court notices, and false claims of government authority may create additional liability.

XVIII. Barangay Involvement

Some collectors threaten to report the borrower to the barangay. A barangay may assist in mediation or conciliation in proper cases, but barangay officials are not debt collectors and cannot imprison a borrower for debt.

Borrowers should attend legitimate barangay proceedings if properly summoned, but they should also be aware that a barangay proceeding is not the same as a criminal conviction or court judgment.

XIX. What Borrowers Should Do When Harassed

A borrower facing harassment should consider these steps:

Do not panic. Nonpayment of debt alone is generally civil, not criminal.
Document everything. Keep screenshots, call logs, messages, receipts, and witness statements.
Identify the lender. Record the app name, company name, website, numbers used, and registration details.
Revoke unnecessary app permissions. Remove access to contacts, photos, location, and other sensitive data where possible.
Send a written notice. Demand that the lender stop harassment and stop contacting third parties.
Pay only verified lawful obligations. Do not pay random collectors without confirming the account, amount, and official payment channel.
Ask for a statement of account. Require breakdown of principal, interest, fees, penalties, payments, and balance.
File complaints. Report harassment to the proper regulator or law enforcement agency.
Warn contacts if necessary. Inform family or friends that they may receive unlawful messages and should preserve evidence.
Seek legal assistance. Consult a lawyer, legal aid office, public attorney, or consumer protection advocate if the harassment is serious.

XX. What Borrowers Should Avoid

Borrowers should avoid:

ignoring all legitimate notices;
deleting evidence;
paying through unofficial channels;
giving more personal information to unknown collectors;
admitting to false criminal accusations;
signing new loan documents without reading;
borrowing from another abusive app to pay the first;
engaging in insults or threats against collectors;
posting sensitive personal information online;
relying solely on verbal agreements.

Borrowers should remain firm but professional in communications.

XXI. Sample Borrower Response to a Harassing Collector

A borrower may respond in writing as follows:

I am willing to discuss any lawful and properly documented obligation. However, I demand that you stop all threats, harassment, insults, and unauthorized contact with my family, employer, friends, or phone contacts. Please send a complete statement of account showing the principal, interest, fees, penalties, payments, and legal basis for the amount claimed. All further communications should be in writing and limited to lawful collection. I reserve the right to file complaints with the SEC, National Privacy Commission, law enforcement authorities, and the courts for any continued harassment, data privacy violation, defamation, or unfair collection practice.

XXII. Sample Complaint Points

A complaint may include:

name of the lending app;
company name, if known;
dates of loan transactions;
amount borrowed and amount received;
amount demanded;
screenshots of charges and repayment terms;
description of harassment;
names and numbers of collectors;
screenshots of threats;
names of third parties contacted;
evidence of disclosure of loan information;
proof of emotional, reputational, employment, or financial harm;
request for investigation, sanctions, and protection from further harassment.

XXIII. Civil Liability and Damages

A borrower may seek damages if the lender’s conduct caused harm. Potential damages may include:

Actual damages, if the borrower can prove financial loss;
Moral damages, for mental anguish, embarrassment, social humiliation, wounded feelings, or similar injury;
Nominal damages, to vindicate a legal right;
Exemplary damages, to deter abusive conduct;
Attorney’s fees, where allowed by law.

The strength of a damages claim depends on evidence. Screenshots, witnesses, medical records, employment consequences, and proof of public shaming can be important.

XXIV. The Role of Courts in Reducing Excessive Interest

Philippine courts have long recognized that stipulated interest, penalties, and charges may be reduced when they are unconscionable or excessive. This principle applies even if the borrower signed or electronically accepted the agreement.

Online lenders cannot assume that all app-based charges are automatically enforceable. Courts may look at the real transaction, including the amount released, repayment period, total charges, penalties, and bargaining position of the borrower.

A very short-term loan with large upfront deductions and high daily penalties may be vulnerable to legal challenge.

XXV. Online Lending and Small Claims

If a lender sues to collect a sum of money, the case may fall under small claims procedure depending on the amount and nature of the claim. Small claims cases are designed to be faster and simpler.

Borrowers sued in small claims should not ignore summons. They should prepare evidence of payments, excessive charges, harassment, lack of disclosure, and any disputed amounts. They may also raise defenses regarding unconscionable interest, penalties, or improper computation.

XXVI. Can a Borrower Sue First?

Yes, in appropriate cases. A borrower may initiate legal action or complaints if the lender’s conduct violates rights. The borrower does not need to wait for the lender to sue if there is harassment, data misuse, defamation, or unlawful collection.

Possible actions include regulatory complaints, privacy complaints, criminal complaints, or civil actions.

XXVII. Liability for Third-Party Collection Agencies

Many lending apps use third-party collectors. The lender may still be liable if the collector acts on its behalf. A company cannot escape responsibility by outsourcing harassment.

Borrowers should identify whether the collector is an employee, agent, contractor, or third-party agency. Messages often reveal the app name, account number, payment channel, or company being represented.

If the lender benefits from abusive collection and fails to stop it, regulators and courts may consider that fact.

XXVIII. Online Lending Apps and App Store Responsibility

Borrowers may also report abusive apps to app stores or platforms. While app stores are not substitutes for legal remedies, reporting may help prevent further harm. Evidence of privacy abuse, fake identity, harassment, or deceptive loan terms can support app removal or review.

XXIX. Practical Debt Settlement Considerations

A borrower who truly owes money may still negotiate payment while asserting legal rights. Possible options include:

requesting waiver of penalties;
paying only principal and reasonable interest;
demanding an official computation;
asking for restructuring;
requiring confirmation that payment fully settles the account;
paying only through official channels;
requesting an official receipt;
refusing to deal with abusive collectors.

Settlement should be documented. A borrower should not rely on verbal promises that an account is closed.

XXX. Important Distinctions

Debt versus Crime

A debt is generally civil. A crime requires a separate criminal act.

Collection versus Harassment

A creditor may collect. A creditor may not threaten, shame, deceive, or unlawfully disclose personal data.

Consent versus Abuse

App permission does not authorize unlimited use of personal data.

Interest versus Unconscionability

Interest may be agreed upon, but excessive or oppressive charges may be reduced or invalidated.

Demand Letter versus Arrest Warrant

A demand letter is not an arrest warrant. A collector is not a court.

XXXI. Conclusion

Online lending apps serve a real demand for fast credit in the Philippines, but convenience does not excuse illegality. Lenders must comply with registration requirements, disclosure rules, data privacy obligations, and fair collection standards. Borrowers, even when in default, retain their rights to dignity, privacy, due process, and protection from harassment.

Excessive charges, hidden fees, abusive collection, public shaming, unauthorized contact of phonebook entries, and false threats of imprisonment may expose lenders and collectors to regulatory, civil, and criminal liability.

The central rule is simple: a creditor may lawfully collect a valid debt, but it may not use fear, humiliation, deception, or privacy abuse as a collection strategy. Borrowers should document every abusive act, demand a proper accounting, preserve evidence, and seek remedies before the SEC, National Privacy Commission, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, or courts where appropriate.

Online credit may be digital, but borrower rights remain protected by Philippine law.