Photo of Alice Hodsden

Chris Willis, co-chair of the CFS Regulatory Practice, Announces the Publication of the 2022 CFS Year in Review and a Look Ahead

Troutman Pepper’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group consists of more than 120 attorneys and professionals nationwide, who bring extensive experience in litigation, regulatory enforcement, and compliance. Our trial attorneys have litigated thousands of individual and class-action lawsuits involving cutting-edge issues across the country, and our regulatory and compliance attorneys have handled numerous 50-state investigations and nationwide compliance analyses.

We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. Our team has prepared this organized and thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2022, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.

2021 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigate an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Pepper is uniquely positioned to help its clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the curve.

In this report, we share developments on auto finance, background screening, bankruptcy, consumer class actions, consumer

In a noteworthy decision refining application of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), the Ninth Circuit recently held that SLUSA did not bar a state law class action for alleged breach of fiduciary duties brought by investors against a financial advisory firm. In Anderson v. Edward D. Jones & Col, L.P, decided in

2020 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigate an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Pepper is uniquely positioned to help its clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the compliance curve.

In this report, we share developments in 2020 on consumer class actions, background screening, bankruptcy,

On March 13, two days after the World Health Organization announced that the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak could be characterized as a pandemic, the White House declared the outbreak a national emergency.

In response, the Consumer Data Industry Association (“CDIA”) provided guidance for lenders and creditors who report information about consumers whose accounts are

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho in Dorfman v. Albertson’s, LLC recently granted a Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant’s motion to deny class certification – not once, but twice – based on the emergency purposes exception to TCPA liability. This exception does not require prior consent to receive autodialed calls or

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit in the United Stated District Court for the District of Maryland against FCO Holding, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as well as Michael E. Sobota, the chief executive officer and 100% owner of FCO Holding, Inc. The Maryland debt collector entities operate collectively under the name Fair Collections

The District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently awarded a defendant summary judgment because the defendant’s call records directly contradicted the plaintiff’s vague recollection of events.  The Plaintiff in Young v. Medicredit Inc., No. H-17-3701, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71020 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019), asserted claims against Defendant Medicredit Inc. (“Medicredit”)

The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied defendant JTM Capital Management, LLC’s motion to dismiss consumer plaintiff Carolyn Holloway’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint in Holloway v. JTM by ruling that JTM’s inquiry into Holloway’s consumer credit report qualifies as an attempt to collect a debt because JTM sought information for

The District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of defendant debt collector ProCollect, Inc. in Jennifer Fox v. ProCollect, Inc. by ruling that ProCollect did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by making two phone calls to a wrong number after first learning the number was not