Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced the withdrawal of 67 regulatory guidance documents, including interpretive rules, policy statements, and advisory opinions that have been issued since the Bureau’s inception in 2011. The withdrawn guidance documents impact most federal consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Fair
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.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a credit repair organization’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), and Massachusetts state law. The significant penalties and restitution ordered in this case highlight the severe consequences of non-compliance with federal and state regulations governing credit repair services.
On March 14, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed House Bill (HB) 418 that would have created a vehicle for class actions in Virginia state courts and would have broadened statutory damages under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA).
Consumer reporting dominates complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), according to a new report.
In Career Counseling, Inc. v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision denying class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on the basis that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23’s “implicit further requirement of ascertainability.” The Fourth Circuit also upheld summary judgment against the defendant as to the individual claim finding the defendant was indeed the “sender” of the fax at issue. Each finding is discussed more fully below.
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.
On October 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied certification of a putative class action asserting that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by allegedly misleading consumers about the accuracy and popularity of VantageScore 1.0, TransUnion’s proprietary credit scoring model. The court held that the plaintiff was an inadequate class representative due to his lack of credibility, and the asserted class claims failed both the commonality and predominance prongs of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)23.
On July 24, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the Civil Rights Council’s (the Council) proposed amendment to California’s Employment Regulations Relating to Criminal History, which are set to become effective on October 1, 2023. Among other changes, the amendment modifies the existing regulations regarding employers’ investigation of a job applicant’s criminal history. Notably, the amendment expands the definition of “employer” under those regulations in such a way that could potentially implicate a background screener conducting a background check on behalf of an employer.
The modern “Information Age” has been defined by rapidly increasing interconnectivity and dependence on the internet by consumers and businesses alike. One side effect of these technological advances has been the increasing frequency of cyberattacks and data breaches perpetrated by sophisticated cyber criminals using ever-evolving methods of infiltration. And, as can be expected, along with the increase in data breaches over the past few decades, we have seen the rise of data breach litigation, and in particular, consumer class action litigation against the companies who have been victimized by those data breaches. The Fourth Circuit has seen several high-profile data breach class actions. Such class actions often face difficult uphill battles in proving the necessary elements for class certification, particularly when it comes to defining a theory of harm that can be proven by common evidence across the class. Last month, Judge Gibney of the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed one such data breach class action case for a more basic problem: the named plaintiffs could not demonstrate they had suffered any concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing at all, let alone damages that could be proven classwide. Holmes v. Elephant Ins. Co., No. 3:22cv487, 2023 WL 4183380 (E.D. Va. June 26, 2023).