Photo of Colin Wilson

Colin Wilson

Subscribe to Colin Wilson's Posts

Colin advises clients in the consumer finance sector on all aspects of compliance, applying insights from his role as an attorney-advisor at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition to serving in the Bureau’s Legal Division, he worked in the Office of the Director collaborating with senior advisors on a variety of regulatory and policy initiatives.

Follow:Read more about Colin WilsonColin's Linkedin Profile

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.

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.