Photo of Jason Cover

Jason Cover

Subscribe to Jason Cover's Posts

Jason’s in-depth experience advising on consumer lending matters both as in-house counsel and outside advisor provides extensive industry knowledge for his financial services clients.

Follow:Read more about Jason CoverJason's Linkedin Profile

On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a Compliance Aid to clarify the requirements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E. Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs) are defined as “any transfer of funds that is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, computer, or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer’s account.” The Compliance Aid, presented in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) format, addresses various aspects of EFTs, including coverage, financial institutions’ obligations, and error resolution processes.

As part of a flurry of last minute regulatory activity by the Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on January 15, the CFPB published an advisory opinion in the Federal Register rescinding a previous advisory opinion which the Bureau issued during the first Trump administration in November 2020. The 2020 advisory opinion had described how a specific type of “earned wage” product did not constitute the offering or extension of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The new advisory opinion is effective immediately.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 23, 2025, in their newsletter on January 27, 2025, and was mentioned in this insideARM article on February 3, 2025.

As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates a shift in its leadership with the incoming administration of President Trump, the Bureau has released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections.” This report appears to be a strategic move by the CFPB to influence state-level consumer protection laws before the anticipated shift in federal regulatory policy, and the Bureau’s recommendations appear to be items that would need to be the subject of legislation, if they are to occur. As detailed below, the changes advocated by the CFPB would strengthen the position of both state regulators and private plaintiffs in actions against industry participants.

On January 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report providing its analysis of the growth and impact of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) loans in the United States since 2019. BNPL loans, typically zero-interest loans repaid in four or fewer installments, have not been widely reported to nationwide consumer reporting companies, creating a lack of data, according to the CFPB. (Most consumer reporting agencies do not offer a readily available mechanism to report BNPL loans.) The stated purpose of the CFPB’s study was to bridge that gap by using a matched sample of BNPL applications and originations from six major BNPL firms along with corresponding de-identified credit records.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) proposed a new rule aimed at banning certain contractual provisions in agreements for consumer financial products or services. The CFPB’s proposal targets certain terms and conditions sometimes found in so-called contracts of adhesion or standard-form contracts, including waivers of legal rights and protections, contract terms that limit free expression, and other terms that the CFPB believes undermine consumers’ rights and protections. The proposed rule also seeks to codify certain prohibitions under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Credit Practices Rule.

This week, New York became the latest state to introduce legislation aimed at regulating Earned Wage Access (EWA) services. Assembly Bill 258 titled — “An Act to Amend the Banking Law, in Relation to Providing for Income Access Services in the State” — contains several significant provisions that, if passed, will significantly impact EWA providers in New York.

On December 18, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a circular to “other law enforcement agencies,” urging them to take action against certain credit card practices. The CFPB highlights alleged legal violations by some credit card companies, particularly in relation to the devaluation of rewards points and the clarity of terms and conditions for earning and redeeming rewards.

In a significant development in the ongoing litigation over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Final Rule on credit card late fees, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the CFPB’s motions to dismiss the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, transfer the case to the District of Columbia, and dissolve the preliminary injunction. This ruling follows the court’s earlier request for further briefing on the issue of associational standing, as discussed in our prior blog post, here.

In a shocking development yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a per-curiam, single-sentence order purporting to “clarify” its prior stay of the compliance date for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) payday loan rule. The new order provides that the rule will go into effect on March 30, 2025, 286 days after the Supreme Court entered its judgment in the CFSA lawsuit and not 286 days after the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent decision not to rehear the case en banc. The new order does not even attempt an explanation on how it conforms with the earlier order that the rule would be stayed “until 286 days after resolution of the appeal.”

On November 18, the plaintiff trade groups in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd.(CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an Opposed Motion for Clarification of Stay Pending Appeal asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to clarify that its stay of the compliance date for the CFPB’s payday loan rule extends until the time for filing a new petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has expired or, if the petition is filed, until the Supreme Court finally disposes of the case. At a minimum, the trade groups ask the Fifth Circuit to clarify that its existing stay expires 286 days after the court’s recent issuance of its mandate (that is, August 25, 2025) and not on March 30, 2025.