Photo of Brooke Conkle

Brooke Conkle

Subscribe to Brooke Conkle's Posts

Brooke Conkle offers consumer-facing companies compliance counseling and litigation services to help them address federal and state consumer protection laws. Recognizing the challenges facing financial services companies, she provides in-depth analysis of complex issues related to consumer protection and compliance.

Follow:Read more about Brooke ConkleBrooke's Linkedin Profile

On August 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a policy statement announcing that it will no longer pursue claims based on disparate impact or “unfair discrimination” theories under any statute it enforces. The FTC’s action is the latest in a series of coordinated federal agency moves away from disparate impact enforcement. As we previously reported here, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed to repeal its Fair Housing Act disparate impact regulations in January 2026, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized its rewrite of Subpart A of Regulation B under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in April 2026, eliminating the disparate impact “effects test” from ECOA enforcement and reframing ECOA as an intent-only statute (see here). Together with the FTC’s action, these developments signal a sweeping realignment of federal fair lending and consumer protection enforcement away from outcome-based theories and toward intentional discrimination as the operative standard.

On July 30, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a “lease here, pay here” dealership operating across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia agreed to pay over $137,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The case is a useful reminder of what the SCRA actually requires from auto dealers and finance companies in leasing and repossessions, and what can go wrong when those obligations are not met.

In this episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso break down a recent New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) enforcement action against a Bronx dealership, covering the violations that led to nearly $130,000 in civil penalties and consumer restitution, the compliance and litigation takeaways for dealers and lenders, and what the appointment of a former FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection director to lead the DCWP signals for the future of city and state-level auto finance enforcement.

On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a $500,000 jury verdict against a debt collection furnisher, holding that a consumer cannot prevail on a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) unreasonable investigation claim without first demonstrating that the disputed information was “objectively and readily verifiable” as inaccurate. In Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc., the court joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits in adopting this standard, resolving a previously open question in the Tenth Circuit and delivering an important victory for furnishers facing FCRA claims rooted in identity theft allegations.

In this mid-year roundup episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso recap the biggest developments shaping the auto finance industry in the first half of 2026, including the FTC’s widely unexpected “Notorious 97” warning letters to nearly 100 dealers, a wave of state-level UDAP enforcement actions, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s data requests targeting repossession and service member lending practices, Kentucky’s new legislative framework for GAP and vehicle financial protection products, a significant New Jersey dealer enforcement action under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, and the growing compliance risks around fraud detection and AI use in the sales and financing process — wrapping up with a look ahead at what the second half of the year may bring.

On July 1, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a proposed policy statement addressing whether AI companies that steer their systems’ outputs toward undisclosed ideological objectives, rather than toward the objectives that consumers request or reasonably expect, may be engaging in deceptive acts or practices in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act. The public comment period closes July 31, 2026.

In this episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso break down two significant state-level regulatory responses to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) March 2026 wave of 97 warning letters targeting auto dealers — examining how Louisiana’s Motor Vehicle Commission is formally updating its advertising regulations to align with FTC guidance on total price transparency, and how the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office issued a sweeping advisory putting dealers on notice that hidden documentation fees violate state law, with potential double exposure under both motor vehicle dealer regulations and the Massachusetts UDAP statute.

Louisiana and Massachusetts have each recently issued guidance addressing motor vehicle dealer advertising practices, particularly around the disclosure of fees in advertised vehicle prices. Both actions follow the Federal Trade Commission’s March 13, 2026 “Notorious 97” warning letters to auto dealership groups nationwide (discussed here) and reflect ongoing efforts at the state and federal level to ensure that advertised prices accurately reflect the total cost consumers will be required to pay.

In this episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso break down a New Jersey enforcement action against a dealer group that began with a 2018 consent order and escalated into a 2023 complaint packed with Consumer Fraud Act allegations — from gray market disclosures and duplicative add-ons to odometer violations and improper warranty sales. The trial court initially imposed over $10 million in penalties before two rounds of reconsideration brought the final figure down to $155,000, offering a striking look at how courts balance deterrence, proportionality, and ability to pay. Tune in for a practical breakdown of what this case means for dealers navigating compliance in an era where state enforcement is quickly becoming the front line.