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

On July 14, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Bulletin 2025-16, announcing the removal of references to disparate impact liability from the “Fair Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and instructing examiners to cease examining banks for disparate impact liability. This change aligns with Executive Order (EO) 14281, issued by President Trump (discussed here), which aims to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts at both the federal and state level.

On June 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the joint motion by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender, calling the CFPB’s attempt to refund Townstone’s civil money penalty for alleged redlining practices “breathtaking.” This decision comes after allegations by the current CFPB of misconduct related to the case under former CFPB leadership.

Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” This order aims to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts, emphasizing the importance of treating all citizens equally under the law and promoting a merit-based, colorblind society.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Lane Page to dissect two unexpected fair lending developments under the new Trump administration. First, we unpack the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) surprising move to vacate its own redlining consent order with Townstone Financial, Inc. We then analyze the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) dramatic policy shift requiring two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs, namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to terminate special purpose credit programs (SPCPs), as well as the broader implications for mortgage lenders. Join us for the twists and turns of this evolving fair lending regulatory landscape and learn what steps institutions should consider taking to mitigate risks.

In a surprising turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. (Townstone) have jointly moved to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender alleging redlining practices. This motion, filed on March 26, 2025, comes after significant allegations by the CFPB regarding the Bureau’s own handling of the case, which began in 2020 under the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration.

In a significant policy shift under the Trump administration, the new Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte issued an order on March 25, 2025 terminating special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) supported by the government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together, the GSEs). This directive, effective immediately, will significantly impact banks with mortgage-based SPCPs.

In this special joint edition of the Consumer Finance Podcast and the Regulatory Oversight Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Stephen Piepgrass, James Kim, Jesse Silverman, and Lane Page to discuss the ongoing changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and predict how state regulators and legislatures will react to fill the void. This episode explores the anticipated responses from state attorneys general, financial service regulators, and legislatures, and offers strategic insights for industry players to navigate this complex regulatory environment. Tune in to understand the proactive measures your organization can take to stay compliant and ahead of potential state enforcement actions.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, focusing on the use of advanced technologies in credit scoring models. This edition of Supervisory Highlights concerns select examinations of institutions that use credit scoring models, including models built with advanced technology commonly marketed as AI/ML technology, when making credit decisions. The report repeated the CFPB’s previous statements that there is “no ‘advanced technology’ exception” to federal consumer protection laws (which, to our knowledge, no industry participant has suggested to exist) and asserted that financial institutions will need to improve their practices to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. This includes actively searching for less discriminatory alternatives, critically evaluating the use of alternative data, and rigorously testing and validating adverse action reasons.

On October 29, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and the state’s Division on Civil Rights (DCR) released a report detailing the findings of a multi-year investigation into Republic First Bank (Republic) and its alleged mortgage redlining practices. According to the report, the investigation revealed that Republic engaged in a pattern or practice of redlining against Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities in New Jersey, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

On September 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published Circular 2024-05 (Circular) addressing whether a financial institution violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E by charging overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions without proof of the consumer’s affirmative consent to enrollment in covered overdraft services. (According to the CFPB’s press release, the Bureau considers this to be a “phantom opt-in.”) The Bureau’s response is clear: Yes, charging fees in these circumstances can indeed constitute a violation of EFTA and Regulation E.