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

As discussed here, earlier this month the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its credit card late fee rule (Final Rule). The Final Rule sets a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminates the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers, among other changes. The announcement of the Final Rule on credit card late fees sparked immediate reaction. As discussed here, a collective of trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business (collectively, the trade groups) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the Final Rule and arguing that it should be invalidated because the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, the trade groups argue that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act for various reasons. Concurrently with the complaint, the trade groups filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that the court enjoin the Bureau from implementing the Final Rule against their members until the conclusion of the case.

As discussed here, earlier this week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its credit card late fee rule (Final Rule). The Final Rule sets a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminates the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. The timing of the Final Rule’s announcement, just days before the State of Union address, did not go unnoticed. President Biden highlighted this development in his speech, emphasizing his administration’s commitment to eliminating so-called hidden fees.

We discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee proposed rule here 13 months ago, and today, the Bureau announced that it has finalized the rule (Final Rule) setting a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminating the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. Notably, due to industry pushback during the comment period, the Final Rule does not codify the proposal that late fees must not exceed 25% of the minimum payment. The Final Rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Can digital comparison-shopping operators or lead generators violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by preferencing products or services based on financial benefit? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes. Specifically, according to the CFPB, operators of digital comparison-shopping tools can violate the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices by steering consumers to certain products or services based on remuneration. Lead generators can also violate the CFPA if they steer consumers to one financial services provider over another based on compensation received. As is typical for the CFPB today, the Bureau has couched this guidance on its “abusive” authority under Dodd-Frank.

Join us for an enlightening episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, where we dissect the intricate world of debt collection, reflecting on the past year and forecasting future trends. This episode, hosted by Chris Willis, features insightful discussions with Stefanie Jackman and Jonathan Floyd, both well-versed in the field of debt collection. We explore significant Supreme Court cases that could reshape the collections landscape, the impact of Regulation F on validation notices, and the complexities surrounding credit reporting and medical debt. Stefanie and Jonathan share their perspectives on emerging trends and potential challenges in the collections industry. This episode is a must-listen for creditors, servicers, and collectors seeking to understand the ever-evolving landscape of debt collection. Stay tuned for the next and final episode of our Year in Review and a Look Ahead series on The Consumer Finance Podcast, providing valuable insights for anyone involved in consumer finance.

We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. With active federal and state legislatures, consumer financial services providers faced a challenging 2023. Courts across the country issued rulings that will have immediate and lasting impacts on the industry. Our team of more than 140 professionals has prepared this concise, yet thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2023, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.

The debt purchaser in In re McIntosh argued that because it was enforcing a debt that was not listed correctly on the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules, it was entitled to assume the debt had not been discharged. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida disagreed and entered an award of sanctions in the total amount of $64,686.93 — including $10,000 for emotional distress and over $21,000 in punitive damages.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to prohibit covered financial institutions from charging nonsufficient funds fees (NSF) for payment transactions that are instantaneously declined. The proposed rule would treat fees for transactions declined in real time to be unlawful under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

This article was republished on insideARM on February 6, 2024.

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Smith v. Spizzirri, which presents the question of whether § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to issue a stay pending arbitration or allows courts the discretion to dismiss the suit when all claims are subject to arbitration.