Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the agencies) filed an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding a furnisher’s investigation of a consumer’s dispute and subsequent furnishing of the disputed information to be reasonable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were back up for the month of July. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also up for the month.
On September 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion holding instead that a bank levy against the plaintiff served as a basis for standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today outlined a plan for rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that could significantly impact the entire consumer data ecosystem. The proposed rulemaking could redefine “data brokers” and “data aggregators” and extend FCRA regulation to businesses that do not currently meet the FCRA’s definition of “consumer reporting agency.” The CFPB’s plan could also impose stricter rules for obtaining consumer consent and increase compliance requirements and risks for both new and existing members of the FCRA-regulated consumer data ecosystem.
When using artificial intelligence (AI) or complex credit models, can lenders rely on the checklist of reasons provided in Regulation B sample forms for adverse action notices? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is, in many circumstances, no.
In response to a petition filed last week by a number of consumer advocacy groups, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that it will be seeking public input on a possible rule that would curtail mandatory pre-dispute arbitration provisions.
On September 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor finding that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
As discussed here, on July 7th the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Treasury (collectively, the agencies) jointly issued a Request for Information (Request) seeking public comment on medical credit cards, loans, and other financial products used to pay for health care. On September 11, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a response letter to the agencies specifically addressing the Request’s questions regarding health equity concerns, consumer confusion, best practices for medical providers who offer medical payment products, and consumer protection. According to AG Bonta, “California is uniquely qualified to comment on the [Request] because it has enacted strong consumer protections to guard against patient harms from these products.”
On September 8, a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and several other trade associations, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) “March 2022 manual update is beyond the agency’s constitutional authority based on an Appropriations Clause violation
In Hansen v. Mountain America Federal Credit Union, the plaintiff became delinquent on a credit card account with her credit union. The credit union then assigned the debt to a third-party collection agency. Following the assignment, the collection agency opened its own tradeline for the debt, while the credit union also continued to report the debt. Although the credit union’s tradeline was updated to reflect that the account was “closed” and in collections, and the collection agency’s tradeline indicated that the credit union was the original creditor, both tradelines showed a balance, albeit for different amounts — $18,340 for the credit union and $20,875 for the collection agency.