Photo of Chris Willis

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.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has recently issued a revised Unemployment Insurance Program Letter to clarify how state workforce agencies should deliver unemployment benefits payments to consumers. This new guidance integrates recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) research on so-called “junk fees” and other consumer risks associated with public benefits and prepaid cards.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report on the state of negative equity in auto lending. The CFPB says it found that financing negative equity creates increased risks for consumers, and states that the CFPB will be putting negative equity under scrutiny.

On June 6, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking public input on the uses, opportunities, and risks presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the financial sector. Notably, the Treasury’s RFI comes three years after the issuance of a similar RFI by the federal banking agencies (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and National Credit Union Administration on financial institutions’ use of AI, discussed here.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by partner Glen Trudel to discuss a recent appellate court decision affirming that a group of securitization trusts “engaged” in a known “consumer financial product or service”, and therefore are subject as covered persons to the enforcement authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This decision could potentially expose similarly situated securitization trusts to the jurisdiction and enforcement authority of the CFPB. Chris and Glen discuss the court’s rationale for the holding and delve into the implications of this ruling, including the potential for increased regulatory scrutiny and the need for trusts to ensure compliance with consumer laws relating to the loan assets they hold. They also discuss potential changes in the terms of future securitization documentation and the importance of due diligence and monitoring of service providers. The episode concludes with a discussion on the significance of this ruling in the legal landscape for securitization trusts and whole loan owners.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Partner Lori Sommerfield to discuss the new guidance issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on targeted advertising for housing and housing-related ads. The conversation delves into the implications of the guidance, which was motivated by HUD’s original charge of discrimination against Facebook in 2019 and President Biden’s 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI. They explore how the guidance shifts the focus from disparate treatment to disparate impact, and the challenges advertisers and advertising platforms may face in complying with the new guidelines. The episode concludes with a discussion on the potential for regulatory overreach and the possibility of litigation.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Sheri Adler to discuss the implications of the upcoming change in securities law that shortens the settlement period for broker-dealer transactions from T+2 (two business days after the trade date) to T+1 (one business day after the trade date). This change, effective May 28, 2024, has significant implications for employers who offer equity-based compensation to their employees. Adler provides an overview of the history of the settlement cycle, the reasons behind the shift to T+1, and the impact on tax withholding obligations for equity awards. She also offers practical advice for companies to prepare for this change, including potential adjustments to the calculation of fair market value for withholding purposes.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an “interpretive rule,” subjecting “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) transactions to provisions of Regulation Z applicable to “credit cards.” Among other things, this classification would require BNPL and other lenders to extend many of the same legal protections and rights to consumers that apply to traditional credit cards, including the rights to dispute charges and demand refunds for returned products, and, potentially, receive periodic statements. The Bureau claims its authority to issue this interpretive rule — in lieu of a formal rulemaking — stems from the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, and its general authority to issue guidance as set forth in § 1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.