Photo of David N. Anthony

David N. Anthony

Subscribe to David N. Anthony's Posts

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.

Follow:Read more about David N. AnthonyDavid N.'s Linkedin Profile

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a retailer’s motion to compel individual arbitration of a claim brought in a putative class action lawsuit. The complaint alleges that the retailer used deceptive sales tactics to induce the plaintiff to make an unnecessary online purchase. The court denied the retailer’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a unilateral modification provision in its terms and conditions rendered the arbitration agreement illusory.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently dismissed an appeal in the case of Lewis v. Becerra, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The appellants sought to challenge the district court’s denial of class certification despite having won their individual claims for Medicare reimbursement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing, emphasizing that the appellants did not demonstrate a concrete, individual injury from the denial of class certification.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it has filed proposed orders against the owners and operators of Financial Education Services (FES), a credit repair operation accused of running a pyramid scheme and violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA). The proposed orders call for permanent bans and substantial monetary penalties for the defendants.

This week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion and a research report addressing contract-for-deed home financing, also known as a “land contract,” “land installment contract,” “land sales contract,” “bond for deed,” “agreement for deed,” or “buying on contract.” The advisory opinion concludes that form of seller financing, where the seller retains the deed until the buyer completes the payments, generally is “consumer credit” under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z and, therefore, that many providers of the financing must comply with the Ability to Repay and other rules in Regulation Z governing consumer mortgages. The CFPB also asserts that contract-for-deed home financing can trap buyers in unlivable homes and financial hardship.

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), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month of June. Still, year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023.

As discussed here, on February 3, 2023, an Illinois federal court dismissed a case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) in 2020 against Townstone Financial, Inc., a Chicago mortgage lender, for alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The CFPB had accused Townstone of discouraging prospective African American applicants in the Chicago metropolitan area from applying for mortgages.

On July 5, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Data Broker Registration pursuant to Senate Bill 362 (the Delete Act). The Delete Act requires the CPPA to establish an accessible deletion mechanism. This mechanism allows a consumer, through a single verifiable consumer request, to request that every data broker delete any personal information related to that consumer held by the data broker or associated service provider or contractor. The stated aim of the proposed rulemaking is to clarify and enhance the registration process for data brokers.

Both houses of the New Jersey Legislature recently passed Assembly Bill No. 3861 (AB 3861), known as the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. The legislation’s stated aims are to prevent undue financial hardship and protect patients from aggressive debt collection practices. Medical debt in general and how and whether it can be included in consumer reports has been a hot topic at the state and federal level. We have written on recent developments regarding medical debt here, here, here, and here.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruling the Chevron doctrine. This decision marks a watershed moment in administrative law, fundamentally altering the landscape for judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently issued a decision in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case highlighting the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in debt collection practices and the need for debt collectors to have robust procedures in place to handle disputes.