On July 30, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a “lease here, pay here” dealership operating across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia agreed to pay over $137,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The case is a useful reminder of what the SCRA actually requires from auto dealers and finance companies in leasing and repossessions, and what can go wrong when those obligations are not met.
On July 8, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Diana, delivering a decisive and long-awaited victory for debt buyers operating in New Jersey. The court’s ruling — affirming the dismissal of a putative class action brought by a borrower seeking to void his credit card debt — definitively closes the door on a theory of liability that has dogged the debt-buying industry in New Jersey for years.
Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the expectations for furnishers when investigating consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, No. 23-721 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Second Circuit emphasized that the FCRA requires furnishers to conduct reasonable, not perfect, investigations into disputed accounts. The opinion also cements the fact that summary judgment is possible — and appropriate — when a furnisher conducts a reasonable investigation of a credit dispute.
On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision holding a credit union liable for a wire transfer in a business email compromise scam case where the credit union lacked “actual knowledge” of the mismatch between the account number and beneficiary.
On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling addressing the obligations of furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information, whether the disputed information be legal or factual in nature. The issue of whether the distinction between “legal” and “factual” disputes is relevant under the FCRA has been hotly contested in recent years. The Fourth Circuit’s new decision follows in the footsteps of the Eleventh and Second Circuits by replacing a “legal vs. factual” test with a “readily and objectively verifiable” test.
On February 27, Texas State Senator José Menéndez (D) introduced Senate Bill 1736, a piece of legislation aimed at regulating convenience fees associated with electronic payments for motor vehicles. SB 1736 would allow such fees to be imposed to offset electronic payment processing costs as long as certain restrictions are met and disclosures are made.
In a move that could significantly impact the auto retail industry, California has introduced Senate Bill 766, known as the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. Introduced by Senator Benjamin Allen (D) on February 21, this bill aims to impose stringent new regulations on auto dealers in the state, many of which echo back to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) own CARS Rule.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The decision came in response to a petition filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), challenging the procedural validity of the rule. The petitioners argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS Rule. They also contended that the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.
We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. With active federal and state legislatures, consumer financial services providers faced a challenging 2023. Courts across the country issued rulings that will have immediate and lasting impacts on the industry. Our team of more than 140 professionals has prepared this concise, yet thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2023, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.