Photo of Caleb Rosenberg

Caleb Rosenberg

Subscribe to Caleb Rosenberg's Posts

Caleb is counsel in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group. He focuses his practice on helping federal and state-chartered banks, fintech companies, finance companies, and licensed lenders navigate regulatory risks posed by state and federal laws aimed at protecting consumers and small businesses in the credit and alternative finance products industry.

Contact:Read more about Caleb Rosenberg

New York City is moving aggressively into consumer protection territory that federal regulators have largely stepped back from. In January 2026, Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed two executive orders directing the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to crack down on hidden fees and subscription tricks and traps. DCWP has now followed through, finalizing a first-of-its-kind municipal click-to-cancel rule (previously discussed here and here) and publishing a proposed citywide “junk fee” ban.

On June 25, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed into law the Buy-Now-Pay-Later Loan Consumer Protection Act, establishing a licensing and regulatory framework for buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) lenders operating in Illinois. The Act, which the legislature passed unanimously, took effect immediately upon becoming law, though compliance is not required until January 1, 2028.

On June 16, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed H.648, a wide‑ranging financial services bill that, among other changes, brings sales‑based financing and certain factoring arrangements squarely within the state’s regulated financial services framework. The sales‑based financing provisions were added late in the process, borrowing heavily from the most controversial elements of Texas’s 2025 HB 700 (discussed here) and other state commercial financing disclosure laws, and layering Vermont‑specific requirements on top of existing licensed lender rules. The commercial financing portions of the law are to take effect July 1, 2027.

On June 15, three major financial services trade associations filed suit in federal court to block Oregon’s HB 4116 from applying its 36% interest rate cap to consumer finance loans made by out-of-state, state-chartered banks. The lawsuit follows a similar challenge to Colorado’s opt-out, which remains pending before the Tenth Circuit on rehearing en banc.

On June 4, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit’s en banc rehearing of National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, supporting industry plaintiffs and arguing that the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) § 525’s phrase “loans made in such State” refers to the state where the bank is located and performs key lending functions, not where the borrower resides. The filing confirms the FDIC’s historical position on the DIDMCA opt out and directly bears on the limited applicability of Colorado’s opt out and UCCC rate caps.

On May 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized two closely linked rules on mortgage escrow accounts that respond directly to the issues we discussed in our recent post, Second Circuit on Remand in Cantero: New York Escrow-Interest Law Is Preempted, Over a Vigorous Dissent. In that decision, the Second Circuit held that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute is preempted as applied to national banks under the Barnett Bank standard, deepening a circuit split with the First and Ninth Circuits. The OCC’s new rules both adopt the Second Circuit’s view of the underlying bank powers and attempt to bring regulatory clarity to the interest‑on‑escrow preemption question for OCC‑regulated institutions nationwide.

Marking the latest development in the trend toward increased regulation of automatically renewing subscription offers, on April 8, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) proposed what would be the nation’s first municipal “Click to Cancel” rule. This proposed regulation would mirror existing state law requirements providing for consumer rights and protections concerning automatic renewal or continuous service offers. In doing so, the DCWP takes aim at so-called “subscription traps” that it claims unfairly prevent consumers from discontinuing services they no longer wish to pay for. Specifically, the rule would make failure to offer consumers streamlined cancellation methods for continuous service offers a deceptive and unconscionable practice in violation of the New York City Administrative Code. This proposal marks the latest development in New York City’s efforts to prioritize consumer protection initiatives across economic sectors. Important elements of the proposed rule are summarized below.

Yesterday, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of Rohit Chopra, former Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner, as Secretary of the state’s new Business and Consumer Services Agency (BCSA). The new cabinet‑level agency, which formally launches on July 1, 2026, is designed to consolidate and elevate state‑level consumer and market oversight at a moment when federal enforcement is being scaled back. Governor Newsom framed the move as bringing “one of the nation’s most prominent consumer protection leaders” into state government to crack down on corporate abuse, curb junk fees, and lower costs for Californians.

On April 28, Governor Wes Moore (D) signed Senate Bill 94 into law, significantly revising Maryland’s earned wage access (EWA) framework and tightening restrictions on tipping practices in both EWA programs and certain consumer loans. The new law amends multiple provisions of the Commercial Law Article and adds new sections governing advertising, anti‑discrimination, and regulatory safe harbors.

On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long‑awaited decision on remand in Cantero, again holding that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute (General Obligations Law § 5‑601) is preempted as applied to national banks. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2024 opinion (discussed here), which vacated the Second Circuit’s earlier decision and instructed the court to apply the Barnett Bank “prevents or significantly interferes” standard through a “nuanced comparative analysis” of prior preemption precedents.