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

On March 7, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the President’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. The petitioners argue that this standard is unreasonably burdensome and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen.

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.

On March 10, Christopher Mufarrige, the newly-appointed Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), published a blog explaining the significance of Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) for businesses and the ramifications for failing to respond. The Director warns that “[i]f your business receives such a demand for information, we expect you to respond in a reasonable and timely manner or face legal consequences.” The blog also provides the following primer about CIDs:

In a significant development in the credit card late fee rule litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a status report indicating that it is actively working towards a resolution. This update follows last month’s court’s order, which required the CFPB to explain its plans for proceeding with the case.

On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Blackrock Services, Inc. and its associated entities and individuals. The court order aims to halt the defendants’ alleged deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.

This podcast was republished on insideARM on March 11, 2025.

In this final episode of our Year in Review series, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues David Anthony, Stefanie Jackman, and Jonathan Floyd to discuss the year in review and look ahead for debt collection. They provide crucial updates on significant developments in 2024, including the heightened regulatory focus on medical debt at both federal and state levels, and the implications of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) uncertain future. The team also explores the impact of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision on agency interpretations and the increasing trend of debt collection litigation moving to state courts. Gain insights into the current legal landscape, potential future developments, and practical advice for navigating these complex issues in 2025. Don’t miss this essential discussion for anyone in the consumer financial services industry.

This article was republished in insideARM on February 20, 2025.

As discussed here, on February 9, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which includes members employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenges the actions of Acting Director Russell Vought, arguing that his efforts to “shut down” the CFPB are unconstitutional and violate the Congressional mandate outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act. Since then, President Trump has nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the CFPB (discussed here). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting Director Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of federal claims brought by a mortgagee against Trinity Financial Services, LLC (Trinity) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). While the appellate court agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing, its holding was rooted in different grounds, namely that the plaintiff’s injuries were not traceable to any independent FDCPA violation.

On February 11, President Donald Trump nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget. McKernan was reportedly on the Trump administration’s short list of potential candidates to lead the CFPB and is considered an ally of the financial services industry.

In a dramatic series of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has undergone leadership changes, signaling a significant shift in its regulatory approach. These changes began with the firing of Director Rohit Chopra by President Donald Trump and have continued with the resignation of General Counsel Seth Frotman and the appointment of Russell Vought as Acting Director.