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

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.

In a change of course, the Utah court of appeals has reversed the dismissal of a plaintiffs’ suit against a debt collector based on its alleged failure to register as a collection agency prior to filing collection suits. While the Utah Collection Agency Act (UCAA) was repealed by the Utah legislature last year, discussed here, cases asserting this theory of liability remain pending before state and federal courts in the state. Late last year, in Meneses v. Salander Enterprises LLC, discussed here, the court of appeals held that a violation of the UCAA was not a deceptive or unconscionable act. The court distinguished this case from Meneses by finding that the defendant made affirmative representations in the lawsuits at issue that precluded dismissal at this stage.

On December 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the agencies) filed an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that furnishers need not investigate indirect disputes involving purely legal questions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its 14th annual report to Congress in fulfillment of its requirements under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act. For the report, the CFPB reviewed information available on college websites on the financial products offered directly to students or jointly marketed to students with third-party providers. According to the CFPB, its research showed that college-sponsored financial products have higher fees and less favorable terms and conditions compared to typical market products.