Photo of David N. Anthony

David Anthony handles litigation against consumer financial services businesses and other highly regulated companies across the United States. He is a strategic thinker who balances his extensive litigation experience with practical business advice to solve companies’ hardest problems.

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) recently published new compliance resources for its amended debt collection regulations, known as the SHIELD Rule, which are scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2026.

Virginia is implementing a new Business Screening Services (BSS) program that will significantly change how private background screening companies handle Virginia criminal and traffic history records.

On April 8, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed HB 444, the Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act, into law. The Act establishes pleading and notice requirements in certain consumer debt collection actions that must be met for a creditor to obtain a default judgment against a consumer. This Act is based on a model drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, similar versions of which have been enacted in Washington and introduced in Pennsylvania. HB 444 will take effect on July 1, 2027.

Statistics for April consumer litigation filings are in, and, for the first time in over a year, all three of the top consumer protection statutes moved up month-over-month. According to a report by WebRecon, court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) all increased in April compared to March. This is the first time since March 2025 that all three statutes have been up in the same month. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint volume dipped in April, but is still up year-over-year.

On May 19, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) indicated that she intends to veto SB 229, a pending bill which would have created a Virginia state court class action mechanism and would have modified the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) in critical ways. Governor Spanberger initially noted that she “approve[d] the general purpose of this bill,” but returned it to the legislature with proposed amendments.

On April 8, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed SB 227, the Arbitration Fairness Act, into law. The Act not only regulates how high-volume arbitration providers select and oversee arbitrators, but also reshapes the rules for challenging an arbitration award after it has been issued. Designed to make consumer and employment arbitrations more transparent and balanced when administered by high‑volume arbitration service providers, SB 227 will take effect on July 1, 2026, and will apply to all arbitration agreements entered into on or after that date.

New York has now enacted a statewide ban that, with limited exceptions, prohibits employers from using consumer credit history in hiring and other employment decisions. Effective April 18, 2026, the law amends the state’s General Business Law to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for most employers to request or rely on an applicant’s or employee’s credit information when making employment decisions.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were way up for the month. On the other hand, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) filings as well as complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down. Nonetheless, everything is still up YTD.

In a decision of first impression, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo, defined what “evident partiality” means under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA). The court held that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would conclude the arbitrator’s conduct signifies obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the court affirmed confirmation of a FINRA arbitration award and declined to vacate based on an arbitrator’s undisclosed, attenuated prior connections to one side.