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

Deceptive advertisements, market manipulation, misappropriation of customer funds, and “Ask Me Anything (AMA)” sessions served as the catalysts of a civil enforcement action the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed against bankrupt digital asset services provider Celsius Network LLC (Celsius) and its co-founders on July 13. This is a groundbreaking move by the FTC for two reasons. First, it marks the first time that the agency has filed suit against a digital asset-based company. Second, the FTC’s request for civil money penalties is predicated on a novel theory under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Alongside the FTC, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against ex-CEO Alexander Mashinsky, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have filed separate civil enforcement actions against Celsius.

In a long-awaited decision in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York held that Ripple Labs, Inc.’s (Ripple) XRP token is not, in and of itself, a security requiring registration. Although the decision is being regarded by many as a victory for both Ripple and the crypto industry, the nuances in the decision may result in an appeal from both sides.

On July 12, U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) reintroduced legislation, titled the Responsible Financial Innovation Act that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets. This proposed bill expands on the bill the senators introduced in 2022 by adding new consumer protections and safeguards to further strengthen the industry against fraud and bad actors, among other additions.

In Frazier v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion affirming summary judgement in favor of the defendant data furnisher in a suit brought by a consumer under § 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requiring data furnishers upon notice of a dispute to “investigate the disputed data” and “correct or verify the information by returning the ACDV form to the credit reporting agency [CRA] with any amended or verified data inserted next to the old data.” The appellate court rejected the consumer’s argument that the information provided by the furnisher on an ACDV response to a CRA was materially misleading, even though the CRA’s inaccurate interpretation of the ACDV response led the CRA to report that the consumer was currently delinquent on a settled debt.

This edition of Payments Pros spotlights an episode from The Crypto Exchange podcast where Ethan Ostroff sat down with Payments Pros hosts Keith Barnett and Carlin McCrory to discuss recent developments with convenience fees in the payments industry. With both of their practices focusing on payments-related issues, Keith and Carlin take a deep dive into…

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiffs challenging Nevada Senate Bill 248 (S.B. 248), which places new restrictions on the collection of consumer medical debt. In doing so, the court found the bill neither ran afoul of the First Amendment, nor was preempted by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Read on for further analysis.

By way of background, S.B. 248 amended chapter 649 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing debt collection agencies. Passed in response to the uptick in needed medical care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, S.B. 248 was designed to protect Nevada consumers from potential financial ruin caused by medical debt by imposing new restrictions on the collection of such debt. Among other provisions of the bill, § 7 requires debt collection agencies to send written notification to medical debtors 60 days before taking any action to collect such debt (Section 7 Notice). The Section 7 Notice must inform the debtor that the “medical debt has been assigned to the collection agency” for collection or that the “collection agency has otherwise obtained the medical debt for collection.” During the 60-day period following the notice, a collection agency cannot take “any action to collect a medical debt.” Voluntary payments during the 60-day period are permitted, but a debt collector must disclose to the debtor that “payment is not demanded or due,” and that the “medical debt will not be reported to any credit reporting agency during the 60-day notification period.” Implementing regulations define “action to collect a medical debt” as “any attempt by a collection agency or its manager or agents to collect a medical debt from a medical debtor” and provide examples of what are, and are not, “attempts” to collect such debt.

Do companies that use workplace surveillance tools to make hiring and firing decisions risk violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)? According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) in a recent comment, the answer to that question is yes. The Bureau’s official comment comes in response to a request for information…