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.
Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its first report on the results of its updated Terms of Credit Card Plans survey. The report found that for the first half of 2023, small banks and credit unions often offered lower interest rates than the largest 25 credit card companies across all credit score tiers. The CFPB’s survey included data on 643 credit cards from 156 issuers (84 banks and 72 credit unions), as offered during the first half of 2023.
Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking public comment on its proposal to amend the Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses (Impersonation Rule or Rule), that is being finalized by the FTC today, to add a prohibition on the impersonation of individuals. The amendment would also extend liability for violations of the Impersonation Rule to parties who provide goods and services with knowledge or reason to know that those goods or services will be used in illegal impersonations. The FTC stated the impetus for the amendment is the surging number of complaints it has received around impersonation fraud, including “deepfakes” generated using artificial intelligence (AI).
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to prohibit covered financial institutions from charging nonsufficient funds fees (NSF) for payment transactions that are instantaneously declined. The proposed rule would treat fees for transactions declined in real time to be unlawful under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.