Photo of Lane Page

Lane Page

Subscribe to Lane Page's Posts

Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.

Contact:Read more about Lane Page

In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Regulatory Oversight, Taylor Gess is joined by colleagues Michael Yaghi and Lane Page from Troutman Pepper Locke’s State AG and Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement practice groups to discuss the hottest areas of state regulatory activity in the point-of-sale space. With federal consumer protection enforcement pulling back in certain areas under the current administration, state regulatory agencies are stepping into the spotlight to take an industrywide approach to point-of-sale finance. The conversation covers regulatory scrutiny around buy now, pay later (BNPL) products following the CFPB’s withdrawal of its interpretive rule, a coordinated seven-state inquiry into the U.S.’s largest BNPL providers, and what providers should be doing now to assess their own compliance posture. They also dig into the solar and home improvement finance sector, where states are challenging fee disclosures and targeting finance provider-merchant relationships, as well as the growing rent-to-own enforcement landscape. The episode closes with a look at what Rohit Chopra’s new role leading California’s consolidated consumer protection agency could mean for the financial services industry, with both California and New York positioning themselves as state-level successors to the CFPB’s prior enforcement mission.

Yesterday, the federal banking regulators issued new interagency guidance directing supervised financial institutions to take a closer look at credit risk when lending to individuals who are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. The guidance, issued jointly by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), follows a May 2026 Executive Order (discussed here) aimed at addressing perceived risks to the financial system arising from the extension of credit to the non-work authorized population.

On June 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its December 2020 advisory opinion on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) under Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The rescission aligns with the Bureau’s recent views on SPCPs, including those expressed in the Bureau’s April 2026 final rule amending the SPCP provisions of Regulation B (the Final Rule) (discussed here).

As we have previously reported, the litigation over the attempted shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has continued to move quickly through the courts. By way of background, the D.C. district court had granted a preliminary injunction requiring the CFPB to reverse its shutdown efforts, reinstate its workforce, and continue performing its statutory duties, finding that Acting Director Russell Vought’s actions were inconsistent with the Bureau’s statutory obligations under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act. In our August 2025 post, we covered the D.C. Circuit panel’s decision vacating that preliminary injunction, holding that most of the National Treasury Employees Union’s (NTEU) claims belonged in the Civil Service Reform Act regime and that the remaining claims did not target reviewable final agency action. In our December 2025 post, we reported on the full court’s decision to grant rehearing en banc, vacate the panel’s judgment, and set an expedited briefing schedule. With the panel decision vacated, the en banc court took up the case with the partial stay continuing to govern the parties’ conduct in the interim.

Federal regulators recently took two coordinated steps that significantly shift expectations for how lenders and banks treat non‑work authorized individuals and their employers. On June 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a formal statement on how immigration status should factor into ability‑to‑repay determinations under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. On the same day, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), jointly with the federal banking agencies and in coordination with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), released a detailed advisory on fraud, payroll schemes, and money laundering risks associated with the unlawful employment of non-work authorized persons, including specific guidance regarding the use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).

On June 2, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Reserve Board (FRB) jointly announced another step in their effort to eliminate “reputation risk” from the federal banking supervisory framework, an effort prompted by Executive Order 14331 (Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans). The agencies updated a broad set of interagency documents to remove references to “reputation risk” and, in some cases, “reputation,” reinforcing their earlier decision to stop using reputation risk as a basis for examination findings or exerting supervisory pressure on financial institutions to avoid or exit certain banking relationships.

This post was cited on July 13, 2026 in Briefs Finance, CNBC, and Mortgage Professional.

On May 19, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14406, “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System,” which establishes a new policy to safeguard financial institutions against structural credit risks and deter fraud and abuse. The order links illicit finance, immigration enforcement, and consumer credit risk, and directs federal financial regulators to tighten risk-based controls around non-work authorized populations and their employers. It reflects a policy view that even basic financial services, when offered without robust know-your-customer and due diligence, can facilitate terrorist financing, narcotics and human trafficking, and large-scale money laundering. At the same time, it expresses concern that lending to borrowers who lack work authorization or face a high risk of deportation may undermine safety and soundness because of heightened “ability-to-repay” concerns.

On May 27, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), Rise Economy (formerly known as the California Reinvestment Coalition), and two fair lending compliance companies (BLDS, LLC, and SolasAI) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Regulation B (Subpart A) final rule, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and was issued on April 22, 2026. The case, National Fair Housing Alliance et al. v. CFPB et al., is notable not only for challenging the CFPB’s significant rewrite of longstanding Reg B, but also because the NFHA and Rise Economy are the first consumer advocacy organizations to sue the CFPB over the final rule.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis, Lori Sommerfield, Taylor Gess, and Lane Page discuss the CFPB’s sweeping final amendments to Subpart A of Regulation B. The group unpacks the elimination of the disparate impact legal theory from ECOA, the narrowing of the discouragement standard (including what it means for targeted advertising), and the significant new limits on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs). They also explore expected litigation challenges, the continuing role of the Fair Housing Act and state laws in bringing cases under the disparate impact theory, and the practical steps lenders should be taking now to reassess fair lending testing, SPCP design, and redlining risk in light of the final rule.

On May 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized two closely linked rules on mortgage escrow accounts that respond directly to the issues we discussed in our recent post, Second Circuit on Remand in Cantero: New York Escrow-Interest Law Is Preempted, Over a Vigorous Dissent. In that decision, the Second Circuit held that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute is preempted as applied to national banks under the Barnett Bank standard, deepening a circuit split with the First and Ninth Circuits. The OCC’s new rules both adopt the Second Circuit’s view of the underlying bank powers and attempt to bring regulatory clarity to the interest‑on‑escrow preemption question for OCC‑regulated institutions nationwide.