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

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros Podcast, Chris Willis and Josh McBeain interview two colleagues who delve into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recent interpretive rule that classifies buy now, pay later (BNPL) transactions as credit cards. Mark Furletti and Jason Cover explore the implications of this rule under Regulation Z, including the introduction of the term “digital user account” and its impact on BNPL providers. The discussion covers the regulatory requirements, potential challenges for compliance, and the broader legal context, including the possible effects of the Loper Bright case on administrative interpretations. With a July 30 compliance deadline looming, the episode provides critical insights for industry stakeholders navigating this significant regulatory shift.

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros Podcast, Chris Willis and Josh McBeain interview two colleagues who delve into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recent interpretive rule that classifies buy now, pay later (BNPL) transactions as credit cards. Mark Furletti and Jason Cover explore the implications of this rule under Regulation Z, including the introduction of the term “digital user account” and its impact on BNPL providers. The discussion covers the regulatory requirements, potential challenges for compliance, and the broader legal context, including the possible effects of the Loper Bright case on administrative interpretations. With a July 30 compliance deadline looming, the episode provides critical insights for industry stakeholders navigating this significant regulatory shift.

The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has once again modified its proposed rulemaking on earned wage access (EWA) products. As discussed here, this spring the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) rejected the proposed regulations for failure to comply with the clarity standard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and failure to follow the required APA procedures. These new modifications attempt to address those concerns.

On July 1, amendments to Florida’s Consumer Finance Act took effect. Among other things, the amendments raise the maximum tiered interest rates on consumer finance loans, increase the grace period before late fees can be imposed from 10 to 12 days, require licensees to offer free credit education courses to borrowers at the time a loan is made, provide for the suspension of certain collection activities in the event of a disaster, and require branches of businesses making consumer finance loans to obtain a license.

On June 18, a Colorado federal court granted the plaintiff trade groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction, effectively halting the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 with respect to loans made by out-of-state state-chartered banks.

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.

Over the course of the last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has increased its scrutiny of medical financing products, such as medical credit cards and installment loans. In July 2023, the CFPB and other federal agencies launched an inquiry into medical payment products, discussed here. Last week, when the CFPB announced its proposed rule to ban the reporting of medical debt on consumer reports, discussed here, it stated it was considering action related to medical financing products. Then this week, the CFPB published a blog examining how financial institutions market their products to healthcare providers in an effort to ensure “consumers aren’t pushed into medical payment products.” The CFPB’s ongoing discourse on this topic signals a potential regulatory crackdown may be coming.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that its so-called “Payday, Vehicle Title and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” rule (Rule) will go into effect on March 30, 2025. While ostensibly aimed at higher-APR lending (e.g., loans with an APR above 36%), it also applies to most creditors, including banks, offering loans: (1) that are substantially repayable within 45 days or less; or (2) that have a bullet or balloon payment feature. It applies by its plain terms to a number of mainstream financial products and products marketed to high-net worth individuals, none of which the CFPB seems to have considered when promulgating the rule.

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.