Photo of Glen Trudel

A former bank in-house counsel, Glen brings real-world experience to financial institutions, marketplace lenders, fintechs, and other companies grappling with both regulatory and transactional issues.

On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order effectively reversing the district court’s decision to transfer the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule from the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C), finding that the Texas district court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order because the plaintiffs’ appeal of the effective denial of their motion for preliminary injunction was already pending before the appellate court.

On April 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the district court’s decision to transfer the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) credit card late fee rule from the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C). As discussed here, on March 28, 2024, the district court had transferred the case to D.D.C. finding an “attenuated nexus” to the Fort Worth Division since, according to the district court, only one of the six plaintiffs had even a remote tie to the division. The Fifth Circuit’s stay is in effect until 5:00 pm on Friday, April 5, 2024.

Can remittance transfer providers be held liable under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when marketing about the speed and cost of their services? According to a March 27 Circular issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes, if the marketing is deceptive. Specifically, according to the CFPB, providers may be liable under the CFPA for deceptive marketing practices if they market: remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame when transfers actually take longer; remittance transfers as “no fee” when in fact the provider charges fees; promotional fees or promotional exchange rates for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying when an offer is temporary; and remittance transfers as “free” if they are not in fact free.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.).

In this special crossover edition of The Consumer Finance Podcast and the Payments Pros podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Josh McBeain and Glen Trudel. They discuss the recent final credit card late fee rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the industry’s reaction to it. The rule lowers the safe harbor provision dollar amount for late fees to $8 for large credit card issuers and increases it for small issuers. The team also discusses the legal challenge filed against the rule by a collective of trade groups. They speculate on potential industry responses if the rule survives legal challenges, such as increasing APRs, creating new fees, raising minimum payments, and tightening credit.

In this special crossover edition of Payments Pros and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Josh McBeain and Glen Trudel. They discuss the recent final credit card late fee rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the industry’s reaction to it. The rule lowers the safe harbor provision dollar amount for late fees to $8 for large credit card issuers and increases it for small issuers. The team also discusses the legal challenge filed against the rule by a collective of trade groups. They speculate on potential industry responses if the rule survives legal challenges, such as increasing APRs, creating new fees, raising minimum payments, and tightening credit.

As discussed here, earlier this month the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its credit card late fee rule (Final Rule). The Final Rule sets a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminates the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers, among other changes. The announcement of the Final Rule on credit card late fees sparked immediate reaction. As discussed here, a collective of trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business (collectively, the trade groups) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the Final Rule and arguing that it should be invalidated because the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, the trade groups argue that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act for various reasons. Concurrently with the complaint, the trade groups filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that the court enjoin the Bureau from implementing the Final Rule against their members until the conclusion of the case.

As discussed here, earlier this week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its credit card late fee rule (Final Rule). The Final Rule sets a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminates the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. The timing of the Final Rule’s announcement, just days before the State of Union address, did not go unnoticed. President Biden highlighted this development in his speech, emphasizing his administration’s commitment to eliminating so-called hidden fees.

We discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee proposed rule here 13 months ago, and today, the Bureau announced that it has finalized the rule (Final Rule) setting a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminating the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. Notably, due to industry pushback during the comment period, the Final Rule does not codify the proposal that late fees must not exceed 25% of the minimum payment. The Final Rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Can digital comparison-shopping operators or lead generators violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by preferencing products or services based on financial benefit? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes. Specifically, according to the CFPB, operators of digital comparison-shopping tools can violate the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices by steering consumers to certain products or services based on remuneration. Lead generators can also violate the CFPA if they steer consumers to one financial services provider over another based on compensation received. As is typical for the CFPB today, the Bureau has couched this guidance on its “abusive” authority under Dodd-Frank.