Photo of Glen Trudel

Glen Trudel

Subscribe to Glen Trudel's Posts

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.

Follow:Read more about Glen TrudelGlen's Linkedin Profile

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.”

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published an Issue Spotlight focusing on consumer complaints relating to credit card rewards programs. The report notes that credit card companies often focus marketing efforts on rewards, like cash back and travel, instead of on interest rates and fees. However, the CFPB has previously reported that consumers who carry debt from month to month earn just 27% of rewards at major credit card companies, while paying 94% of the interest and fees that those companies charged. In its analysis of several hundred complaints relating to these rewards programs, the Bureau identified four recurring themes: 1) vague or hidden promotional conditions; 2) devalued rewards; 3) customer service issues that delay or block reward redemption; and 4) issuers unilaterally revoking reward balances.

On May 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order denying the CFPB’s (CFPB) petition for a panel rehearing and effectively setting the stage for a long-awaited ruling on a preliminary injunction in the ongoing lawsuit challenging the CFPB credit card late fee rule. The petition was filed by the CFPB to reconsider the panel’s order vacating the district court’s order that transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and issuing a writ of mandamus directing the district court to reopen the case.

On April 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order vacating the district court’s effective denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by several trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business (collectively, the trade groups). The trade groups are challenging the credit card late fee rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as unconstitutional and violative of the Administrative Procedures Act and seek a preliminary injunction while the case is pending.

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.