Josh McBeain

Subscribe to Josh McBeain's Posts

Yesterday, three trade organizations filed a complaint in Colorado federal court challenging H.B. 1229, Colorado’s effort to limit interest charges by out-of-state financial institutions, which is set to take effect on July 1, 2024. As discussed here, in June 2023, Colorado passed H.B. 1229, limiting certain charges on consumer loans and simultaneously opting Colorado out of §§ 521-523 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA empower state banks, insured state and federal savings associations and state credit unions to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting state law (i.e., “export” their home state’s interest-rate authority). However, § 525 of DIDMCA enables states to opt out of this rate authority with respect to loans made in the opt-out state.

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.

In a recent speech at the Financial Data Exchange Global Summit, Rohit Chopra, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), discussed the current state of open banking in the United States and emphasized the importance of standard-setting organizations in the transition. He noted that these organizations play a crucial role in ensuring that the system is open and interoperable but warned against the potential of standard-setting to be used in an anti-competitive manner to benefit dominant firms.

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.

On March 1, Senate Bill (SB) 335 was introduced, which, if passed, would impose certain requirements on “commercial financing transactions.” Recently, multiple states have enacted disclosure regulations for commercial financing transactions (see discussions on California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New York, Virginia, and Utah).

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.