On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Blackrock Services, Inc. and its associated entities and individuals. The court order aims to halt the defendants’ alleged deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.
This podcast was republished on insideARM on March 11, 2025.
In this final episode of our Year in Review series, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues David Anthony, Stefanie Jackman, and Jonathan Floyd to discuss the year in review and look ahead for debt collection. They provide crucial updates on significant developments in 2024, including the heightened regulatory focus on medical debt at both federal and state levels, and the implications of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) uncertain future. The team also explores the impact of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision on agency interpretations and the increasing trend of debt collection litigation moving to state courts. Gain insights into the current legal landscape, potential future developments, and practical advice for navigating these complex issues in 2025. Don’t miss this essential discussion for anyone in the consumer financial services industry.
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate. The consolidation of numerous identical filings by JAMS pursuant to its own rules did not present a gateway question of arbitrability. Furthermore, the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to raise unconscionability as a basis to compel individual arbitration. The decision distinguishes Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. and provides further guidance to parties seeking to control mass arbitration risk.
This article was republished in insideARM on February 12, 2025.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requested and was granted a 90-day stay in the litigation involving trade associations Cornerstone Credit Union League (Cornerstone) and the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA). This case, which challenges the CFPB’s Final Rule on the prohibition of medical debt information in consumer reports, has been temporarily halted as the Bureau undergoes significant leadership changes.
On February 4, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at immediately capping credit card interest rates at 10% for a period of five years. This initiative follows a recent Forbes report indicating that the average credit card interest rate stands at 28.6%.
Join host Kim Phan and special guests David Anthony, Stefanie Jackman, and Mark Furletti as they delve into the significant Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) developments of 2024 and provide insights on what to expect in 2025. This episode covers a range of topics, including the impact of the outgoing Biden Administration and the incoming Trump Administration on FCRA regulations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s recent rulemaking activities, and the ongoing legal challenges. Tune in to understand the evolving landscape of consumer reporting laws and regulation and how it may affect your business. Don’t miss this comprehensive review and analysis from Troutman Pepper Locke’s seasoned legal professionals.
On January 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its updated list of consumer reporting companies for 2025. The list includes nationwide consumer reporting companies as well as several other companies that focus on specific market areas, consumer segments, and types of users. According to the CFPB, consumers can use the list to know about the kinds of personal financial information that is collected for credit and other consumer reports, request their consumer reporting data, dispute inaccuracies, and block access to their credit reporting data through security freezes.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing a summary judgment order in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant debt collector knew or should have known that the plaintiff disputed the debt, and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in reporting the debt.
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, focusing on the use of advanced technologies in credit scoring models. This edition of Supervisory Highlights concerns select examinations of institutions that use credit scoring models, including models built with advanced technology commonly marketed as AI/ML technology, when making credit decisions. The report repeated the CFPB’s previous statements that there is “no ‘advanced technology’ exception” to federal consumer protection laws (which, to our knowledge, no industry participant has suggested to exist) and asserted that financial institutions will need to improve their practices to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. This includes actively searching for less discriminatory alternatives, critically evaluating the use of alternative data, and rigorously testing and validating adverse action reasons.
As discussed here, yesterday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized a rule aimed at removing an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the consumer reports of approximately 15 million Americans. This rule amends Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), to eliminate the exception that previously allowed lenders to use certain medical information in making lending decisions. The rule also prohibits consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from including medical debt information on consumer reports and credit scores sent to lenders. We anticipated that legal challenges would follow, asserting that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).