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 October 4, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. This case will address a critical question that has been a point of contention among various circuit courts: whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.

On September 19, USTelecom — The Broadband Association (USTelecom), a major telecommunications trade organization, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing its concerns about the proposed enhancements to anti-robocall regulations. USTelecom’s primary contention is that the proposed rules, which aim to extend the do-not-originate (DNO) requirement, could inadvertently block legitimate calls, including emergency communications. The association argues that the current industry practices already effectively block calls from invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers on the DNO list managed by the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group (ITG).

In Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York certified aa Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action for all persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) but who received more than one telemarketing call from the defendant based on alleged consent given to a third-party website.

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Moving the Metal, Troutman Pepper attorneys Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new report on negative equity in auto lending. This report, the first of its kind, utilizes data from the CFPB’s 2023 Auto Finance Data Pilot, which was issued to major banks, finance companies, and captive lenders. Brooke and Chris analyze the impact of the report, including what the report may indicate for the CFPB’s upcoming priorities.

On September 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published Circular 2024-05 (Circular) addressing whether a financial institution violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E by charging overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions without proof of the consumer’s affirmative consent to enrollment in covered overdraft services. (According to the CFPB’s press release, the Bureau considers this to be a “phantom opt-in.”) The Bureau’s response is clear: Yes, charging fees in these circumstances can indeed constitute a violation of EFTA and Regulation E.

In this episode, Chris Carlson, an associate in the Regulatory, Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, joins Brooke and Chris to discuss how federal and state regulators are collaborating on consumer protection investigations. The team discusses a recent order and action against an Arizona-based auto dealer for multiple Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) violations. While contemplating whether this is a growing trend, the trio meanders into discussions about the CARS Rule and the potential impact of November’s election on the industry.

On September 9, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a case involving alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on phone calls the plaintiff received related to her medical debt.

On October 9, 2024, at 4 p.m. CT, the Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the ongoing litigation challenging the FTC’s Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) have raised significant procedural and data-based objections to the rule, which purportedly aims to curb deceptive sales practices and eliminate “junk fees” in the car-buying process.

This article was republished on Westlaw Today on September 25, 2024.

Any business involved in motor vehicle installment financing in New Hampshire needs to assess the multiple and significant changes to a key law that have been enacted with immediate effect.