Photo of Chris Willis

Chris Willis

Subscribe to Chris Willis's Posts

Chris is the co-leader of the Consumer Financial Services Regulatory practice at the firm. He advises financial services institutions facing state and federal government investigations and examinations, counseling them on compliance issues including UDAP/UDAAP, credit reporting, debt collection, and fair lending, and defending them in individual and class action lawsuits brought by consumers and enforcement actions brought by government agencies.

Follow:Read more about Chris WillisChris's Linkedin Profile

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Consumer Financial Services Practice Group leadership Michael Lacy and Simon Fleischmann to preview the firm’s annual Consumer Financial Services Year in Review and Look Ahead publication. They describe how the publication provides concise summaries of the past year’s key trends, cases, and regulatory developments — along with informed predictions for 2026 and beyond — across areas such as consumer class actions, bankruptcy, credit reporting, digital assets, mass arbitration, mortgage and auto finance, payment processing, and privacy and data security. They also introduce an upcoming companion podcast series featuring several of the publication’s section authors.

On February 23, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a proposed new Part 423 to Title 3 of the NYCRR to implement New York Banking Law Article 14‑B for Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) lenders. The proposal would move BNPL firmly into New York’s credit system, imposing licensing, supervision, disclosure, data privacy, and underwriting requirements on both interest‑free and interest‑bearing BNPL products offered to New York consumers. If adopted, the rule would take effect 180 days after the notice of adoption is published in the State Register, with a short transitional period for existing BNPL providers. DFS is accepting pre-proposal comments through March 5, 2026, after which the proposed rule will be published in the New York state register for a formal 60-day comment period.

Colorado lawmakers are considering legislation that would significantly expand consumer protections around motor vehicle finance and sales. House Bill 26‑1261, introduced on February 19, 2026 and currently pending before the House Business Affairs & Labor Committee, would overhaul repossession timelines for certain “qualified motor vehicles,” restrict use of vehicle-disabling technology, and create a three‑business‑day right to return certain vehicles purchased from dealers.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis examines signs that the CFPB is reactivating its supervisory and enforcement functions after a period of relative inactivity. The discussion notes reports that the CFPB plans to restart supervisory exams — likely remote, less burdensome, and focused on large banks — and raises questions about whether those exams will address debanking, despite the CFPB’s limited jurisdiction over nonconsumer banking relationships. The conversation also underscores that some previously dormant enforcement investigations are being revived, indicating a return to a more active CFPB.

On January 27, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Status of Reorganization Efforts (GAO‑26‑108448), that offers a detailed snapshot of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) ongoing downsizing and restructuring. This is the first of two GAO reports that focus on the CFPB’s reorganization and its ability to fulfill its statutory functions going forward.

In December 2023, we blogged about lawsuits filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and later the State of Texas against Colony Ridge and related entities. The complaints alleged that Colony Ridge targeted Hispanic borrowers with deceptive Spanish‑language marketing, sold largely undeveloped and flood‑prone land, and engaged in predatory financing by steering borrowers into high‑rate, seller‑financed mortgage loans with extremely high foreclosure rates.

In 2025, the U.S. digital asset landscape evolved more dramatically than in any year since the industry’s inception. A pro‑innovation White House, an active Congress, and key regulators — including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Department of…

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Regulatory Oversight, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Matthew Berns to discuss New Jersey’s sweeping new disparate impact regulations under the Law Against Discrimination. They break down one of the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact rules in the U.S., the contrasts with traditional federal standards, and implications for enforcement in financial services. The discussion dives into credit scores, underwriting models, AI and automated decision-making tools, and the difference between New Jersey’s approach and the Trump administration’s effort to scale back disparate impact at the federal level, offering practical takeaways for lenders and other covered entities navigating this shifting landscape.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by his colleague Lou Manetti from the firm’s Chicago office to unpack a significant new Illinois Supreme Court decision on standing in consumer cases based on federal statutes. Chris and Lou walk through the court’s FCRA “receipt truncation” ruling, explaining how Illinois — long thought to have more generous standing rules than federal court — has now imported a “concrete injury” requirement for common-law standing where the statute does not expressly confer a right to sue. The discussion compares Illinois’ approach to federal Article III jurisprudence and explores how the court distinguished between statutory and common-law standing, why FCRA did not qualify for statutory standing, and what counts (and doesn’t count) as a concrete injury. Lou also outlines the practical implications for FCRA, FDCPA, TILA, and RESPA litigation in Illinois state courts, including the reduced payoff from forum shopping after federal standing dismissals and new avenues for defense motions challenging bare procedural violation cases that lack real-world harm.

On January 14, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a proposed rule that would repeal its Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act) “discriminatory effects” (disparate impact) regulations and leave the development and application of disparate impact standards entirely to the courts. Comments are due February 13, 2026.