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

Late last year, we discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) proposed rule aimed at supervising larger technology companies offering digital wallets and payment apps. On November 21, the CFPB finalized this rule, which will bring significant changes to the oversight of nonbank digital payment companies. This final rule is set to take effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

On December 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule for public comment aimed at amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The proposed rule seeks to redefine (and, in some cases, rewrite) key terms and provisions within the FCRA, particularly focusing on the activities of purported “data brokers.”

In this episode, Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso, attorneys in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, are joined by Partner Ethan Ostroff to discuss the recent Supreme Court of California decision in Rodriguez vs. FCA US. They explore recent cases from the court that impact auto finance, this case’s background, the court’s reasoning, and the significant impact this ruling may have on manufacturers, dealers, and auto finance companies. The discussion also touches on the broader implications for consumer protection laws in California and the potential shift in legal strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants in the auto finance industry.

Earlier this month, we discussed the lawsuit filed by ACA International, LLC and Collection Bureau Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Director Rohit Chopra. The lawsuit challenges the CFPB’s October 1, 2024 advisory opinion on medical debt collection practices. The plaintiffs are seeking an order vacating the advisory opinion and a stay of the effective date pending the conclusion of the case.

Late last year, we discussed the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) new rule aimed at closing the “lead generator” loophole by requiring telemarketers to obtain one-to-one consent from consumers for robocalls and robotexts. This rule mandates that consent must be provided for each individual seller or brand, rather than allowing a single consent to apply to multiple telemarketers. The rule also includes requirements for clear and conspicuous disclosures and ensures that robocalls and robotexts are logically and topically related to the interaction that prompted the consent. The new rule also permits blocking “red flagged” robotexting numbers, codifies do-not-call rules for texting, and encourages an opt-in approach for delivering email-to-text messages.

On November 13, Representative Gary J. Palmer (R-AL) introduced House Joint Resolution 220, which seeks congressional disapproval of an advisory opinion published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) relating to medical debt collection practices.