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

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.

On June 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a proposed rule amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), concerning medical debt. The proposed rule would remove a regulatory exception that currently allows creditors to obtain and use information on medical debts for credit eligibility determinations. Additionally, the proposed rule would generally prohibit consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from furnishing consumer reports containing medical debt information to creditors. Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted until August 12, 2024. The Bureau aims to finalize the rule by early 2025.

On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of April. Only court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were slightly down. Still, year-to-date everything is up by double digits compared to 2023.