According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of July. Year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.
On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.
On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.
On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Only Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filings were down for May.
WebRecon reports the overall statistics for
On June 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released an update to its 2015 report on Americans who did not have a credit record (credit invisibles) or who had insufficient credit history to have a credit score (“stale unscored” and “insufficient unscored”). The CFPB provided this update, driven by methodological corrections and enhanced data sources, in an effort to offer a more accurate depiction of the number of Americans with limited credit histories and highlight significant changes over the past decade.
In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.
This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.
On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted several regulatory proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Among the rules under consideration are those related to loan originator (LO) compensation and discretionary mortgage servicing, governed by the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X). Additionally, the CFPB is reviewing its “larger participant” rules, which define the scope of its supervisory authority over major players in the debt collection and consumer credit reporting sectors. These rules, currently in “prerule” status, are under scrutiny by the OMB.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the expectations for furnishers when investigating consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, No. 23-721 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Second Circuit emphasized that the FCRA requires furnishers to conduct reasonable, not perfect, investigations into disputed accounts. The opinion also cements the fact that summary judgment is possible — and appropriate — when a furnisher conducts a reasonable investigation of a credit dispute.