Photo of Stefanie Jackman

Stefanie Jackman

Subscribe to Stefanie Jackman's Posts

Stefanie takes a holistic approach to working with clients both through compliance counseling and assessment relating to consumer products and services, as well as serving as a zealous advocate in government inquiries, investigations, and consumer litigation.

Follow:Read more about Stefanie JackmanStefanie's Linkedin Profile

In this special joint episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, guest host Taylor Gess talks to Troutman Pepper Locke colleagues Stefanie Jackman, Caleb Rosenberg, and Jeremy Sairsingh about student lending and income share agreements (ISAs). They highlight the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and its sweeping overhaul of federal student loan repayment options and borrowing caps, break down differences between ISAs and traditional loans, and explain why state lawmakers and regulators are increasingly focused on these products. The episode also includes practical takeaways on licensing, servicing, and the potential future of credit reporting for private student loans and ISAs, offering industry participants a roadmap for navigating both federal and state-level changes.

On January 12, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a second invitation for comments on potential regulations under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) that would require registration and reporting by firms engaged in consumer reporting and related data activities. Comments are due by February 26.

On January 12, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department of Justice formally withdrew their October 2023 joint statement on creditors’ consideration of immigration status under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). As we previewed in our December 23, 2025 blog post (available here), the agencies state that the CFPB’s prior statement may have created the misimpression that ECOA or Regulation B impose additional limits on the consideration of immigration or citizenship status beyond the existing regulatory text. The agencies also state that additional guidance on this topic goes beyond Regulation B, so it is unnecessary and appropriate for rescission.

On January 9, the defendants in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Vought filed a notice and exhibit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirming that the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has now requested funding from the Federal Reserve Board (Federal Reserve), as required by Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s December 30, 2025 order.

On January 6, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order further extending the effective date of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) “revoke-all” requirement in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10) to January 31, 2027. That provision would require callers to treat a revocation of consent made in response to one type of informational call or text message as applying to all future calls and text messages from that caller on unrelated matters. The Bureau found good cause to continue the waiver while the FCC reviews comments filed in response to its 2025 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which specifically asks whether the revoke-all rule should be modified or replaced to give consumers more tailored control over unwanted calls. The FCC also noted that requiring companies to implement costly, enterprise-wide changes now could result in unnecessary compliance expenditures if the rule is later revised.

On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act. The FAIR Act, which was proposed by Attorney General (AG) Tish James, represents the first major update to the state’s primary consumer protection law in 45 years and significantly broadens the statute’s reach.

Today, another significant decision was issued in the ongoing battle over the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). In National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Vought, the D.C. federal district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the existing preliminary injunction and squarely rejected the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) interpretation of the CFPB’s funding statute. In so holding, the ruling makes clear that the CFPB cannot justify noncompliance with the court’s existing preliminary injunction by declining to request funds from the Federal Reserve.

On December 19, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S1353A creating a new General Business Law article on “actions involving coerced debts.” The law is aimed squarely at survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and other forms of economic abuse who find themselves saddled with credit card balances, loans, or other consumer debts they never truly agreed to incur. Once effective (90 days after signing), it will prohibit creditors from enforcing certain coerced consumer debts against victims, create a structured process for disputing those debts, and establish robust private rights of action and defenses against collection. New York becomes the eighth state to enact protections of this kind.

As we discussed in our prior post on National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on August 15 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had previously restricted the CFPB’s actions to halt the Bureau’s operations and terminate its employees. The court of appeals held that most of the employees’ claims belonged in the Civil Service Reform Act regime and that the remaining claims did not target reviewable final agency action or equitable claims.