Photo of Ethan G. Ostroff

Ethan G. Ostroff

Subscribe to Ethan G. Ostroff's Posts

Ethan’s practice focuses on financial services litigation and compliance counseling, as well as digital assets and blockchain technology. With a long track record of successful litigation results across the U.S., both bank and non-bank clients rely on him for comprehensive advice throughout their business cycle.

Follow:Read more about Ethan G. OstroffEthan G.'s Linkedin Profile

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), a nationwide organization of state banking and financial regulators from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories, has raised significant concerns regarding the current draft of the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy (STABLE) Act.

Last Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the rescission of Financial Institution Letter (FIL-16-2022) and issued new guidance clarifying the process for FDIC-supervised institutions to engage in crypto-related activities. The new Financial Institution Letter (FIL-7-2025) represents a 180 degree turn from the prior Chairman’s position, which required prior notification and relevant information by banks seeking to engage in crypto-related activities.

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.

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.