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 April 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) entered a consent order against BloomTech, a for-profit vocational school, and its CEO, Austen Allred, for deceptive marketing practices related to income-share agreements (ISAs). The CFPB found that BloomTech and Allred misled students about the nature and cost of their ISAs and made false claims about job-placement rates for graduates. The CFPB’s action highlights the Bureau’s ongoing scrutiny of ISAs, including the Bureau’s classification of ISAs as loans, and the Bureau’s concern that consumers may not fully understand the true cost of their educations if they use ISAs.

In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim that the defendant violated § 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to report a debt as disputed. Specifically, the court determined it could disregard the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff had disputed the debt during a telephone call, because the defendant attached the transcript of the call to the motion to dismiss that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a procedural rule streamlining the designation proceedings for nonbank supervision based on a particular entity posing “risks to consumers.” As discussed in “Our Take” below, the changes are designed to encourage nonbanks to volunteer to be supervised, while making it easier for the CFPB to impose supervisory oversight when companies do not consent.

In March, a district court in the Eastern District of California followed other courts holding that an undated, model form debt validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff’s barebones allegations about purported financial, reputational, and emotional harm did not confer Article III standing.

The California Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee is currently considering Senate Bill (SB) 1286, which would expand the scope of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) to also prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of small business debts.

On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order effectively reversing the district court’s decision to transfer the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule from the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C), finding that the Texas district court lacked jurisdiction to issue its order because the plaintiffs’ appeal of the effective denial of their motion for preliminary injunction was already pending before the appellate court.

On April 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the district court’s decision to transfer the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) credit card late fee rule from the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C). As discussed here, on March 28, 2024, the district court had transferred the case to D.D.C. finding an “attenuated nexus” to the Fort Worth Division since, according to the district court, only one of the six plaintiffs had even a remote tie to the division. The Fifth Circuit’s stay is in effect until 5:00 pm on Friday, April 5, 2024.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.).

In Scott v. Collecto, Inc., the plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and common law negligence based on the defendant’s use of a letter vendor to send the plaintiff a demand. The County Court of Florida found that the plaintiff failed to allege an injury sufficient to establish standing.

A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida recently granted a motion for summary judgment filed by debt collector, I.C. Systems, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of an inadequate investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).