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 July 25, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released an Issue Spotlight focusing on the fees associated with electronic payment platforms used by school districts to process school lunch payments. In its report, the CFPB emphasized the costs of electronic payments in K-12 schools and the potential financial strain these fees could place on lower income families.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed interpretive rule opining that earned wage access (EWA) products — whether provided through employer partnerships or marketed directly to borrowers — are subject to Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z requirements. The proposed rule’s broad definitions and aggressive stance on fees and tips as finance charges conflict with many state laws and could lead to litigation.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in support of its motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that has stayed the implementation of its credit card late fee rule. Concurrently, the Bureau also filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss or transfer on the grounds that the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce does not have associational standing to bring the suit. Within hours, the court issued an order requiring further briefing on the issue of associational standing.

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).

On June 18, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandamus, effectively halting the transfer of the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule from a Texas federal district court to the District of Columbia. This decision marks another pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over the CFPB’s Final Rule, which has seen a complex procedural history unfold over the past few months.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by partner Glen Trudel to discuss a recent appellate court decision affirming that a group of securitization trusts “engaged” in a known “consumer financial product or service”, and therefore are subject as covered persons to the enforcement authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This decision could potentially expose similarly situated securitization trusts to the jurisdiction and enforcement authority of the CFPB. Chris and Glen discuss the court’s rationale for the holding and delve into the implications of this ruling, including the potential for increased regulatory scrutiny and the need for trusts to ensure compliance with consumer laws relating to the loan assets they hold. They also discuss potential changes in the terms of future securitization documentation and the importance of due diligence and monitoring of service providers. The episode concludes with a discussion on the significance of this ruling in the legal landscape for securitization trusts and whole loan owners.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be 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.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an “interpretive rule,” subjecting “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) transactions to provisions of Regulation Z applicable to “credit cards.” Among other things, this classification would require BNPL and other lenders to extend many of the same legal protections and rights to consumers that apply to traditional credit cards, including the rights to dispute charges and demand refunds for returned products, and, potentially, receive periodic statements. The Bureau claims its authority to issue this interpretive rule — in lieu of a formal rulemaking — stems from the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, and its general authority to issue guidance as set forth in § 1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.

On May 10, a Texas federal court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) from implementing the credit card late fee rule, most recently discussed here. The court found the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success based on their reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. finding that the CFPB’s “double-insulated funding scheme is unconstitutional.” The court further found that the balance of interest test weighed in the plaintiffs’ favor because if the court denied the injunction, “[p]laintiffs face an enormous undertaking based upon a potentially unconstitutional rule,” whereas if the court granted the injunction “the CFPB is relatively unaffected because the Final Rule has not yet gone into effect.”