On October 25, Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, seeking to protect a greater portion of consumers’ disposable income from garnishment.
New York District Court Allows Breach of Contract Claim to Proceed Based on NSF Fees
On August 16, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a summary order in favor of the plaintiff, allowing a breach of contract claim to go forward based on a bank’s assessment of non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. The ruling continues a trend of NSF fees coming under heavy scrutiny by
Banking Groups Oppose CFPB’s Proposed Changes to Credit Card Late Fee Safe Harbor
Bankers are gearing up to oppose an effort by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) to prevent an increase in allowable late charges for credit cards. In letters dated August 1, the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Credit Union National Association, and National Association of Federally‐Insured Credit Unions (Associations), as well
Another Win for Banks: Illinois Federal Court Tosses Wire Fraud Claims
A recent decision out of the Northern District of Illinois should help banks defend against increasingly common claims involving fraudulent wire transfers. In Trivedi v. Bank of America, et al., the district court granted the defendant banks’ motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s common law claims were preempted by the Illinois Uniform Commercial
California Supreme Court OKs Unlimited Fee Awards Against Holders of Credit Contracts
On May 26, California Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) “Holder Rule” does not limit the award of attorneys’ fees where a consumer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute.
The Holder Rule and Previous California Precedent
The FTC’s Holder Rule permits consumers to bring any legal claims
Texas Supreme Court Holds Administrative Wire Transfer Form Does Not Impose Contractual Duties on Bank
In Cadence Bank, N.A. v. Roy J. Elizondo III, PLLC, the Supreme Court of Texas recently held that an administrative form relied upon by a victim of a fraud scam did not impose contractual obligations on a bank to verify available funds before processing the wire transaction.
A Texas lawyer maintained an IOLTA deposit
Another California Court of Appeals Weighs In On Availability of Attorneys’ Fees under the FTC’s Holder Rule
On March 22, California’s Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals issued a decision on the availability of attorneys’ fees under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Holder Rule. This case follows recent FTC guidance and two decisions from California’s Second Appellate District Court of Appeals holding that the Holder Rule does not bar recovery of attorneys’
2021 Consumer Financial Services Year in Review & A Look Ahead
2021 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigate an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Pepper is uniquely positioned to help its clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the curve.
In this report, we share developments on auto finance, background screening, bankruptcy, consumer class actions, consumer
Second Circuit Rules That Allegations of Statutory Damages and Risk of Future Harm Are Insufficient to Establish Article III Standing For Putative Class Action Against RMBS Trustee
On November 18, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a trial court decision that had denied a motion to dismiss on Article III standing grounds. Applying recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Second Circuit ruled that allegations of a state statutory violation and risk of future harm are insufficient to establish Article
Maryland Appellate Court Rules Plaintiffs Asserting CLEC Claims Must Allege Facts Showing Damages or Show Equitable Relief Is Proper
On July 1, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part a trial court’s dismissal of claims brought under Maryland’s Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC) due to the plaintiff’s lack of damages. Specifically, the court ruled that a plaintiff could, in theory, state a CLEC claim without having paid more than the