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

Hours before a scheduled hearing yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed an “Emergency Notice” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the ongoing litigation challenging the CFPB’s Small Business Lending Data Collection final rule under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the 1071 Rule), discussed here. The notice announced that, with the removal of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra over the weekend, “Counsel for the CFPB has been instructed not to make any appearances in litigation except to seek a pause in proceedings.” The notice is in line with an email that went to all CFPB staff yesterday, directing staff to halt most all of the CFPB’s activities in connection with the appointment of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to serve as the agency’s Acting Director (as discussed here). The CFPB is also seeking a “pause” in other litigation and, presumably, is halting non-public enforcement proceedings as well.

In a significant and highly anticipated move, President Donald Trump has fired Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Rohit Chopra, who had been serving as the Director of the CFPB since 2021, confirmed his departure in a letter to President Trump dated February 1, 2025. Chopra’s tenure was characterized by aggressive efforts to curb what he termed as “junk” fees and regulate Big Tech’s financial services.

On January 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report analyzing the auto lending market’s impact on servicemembers. This report indicates that servicemembers face heightened financial challenges in the auto lending market, including higher loan amounts, interest rates, and monthly payments. Despite these challenges, servicemembers were less likely to experience vehicle repossessions.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing a summary judgment order in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant debt collector knew or should have known that the plaintiff disputed the debt, and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in reporting the debt.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The decision came in response to a petition filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), challenging the procedural validity of the rule. The petitioners argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS Rule. They also contended that the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.

In a previous post, we discussed the oral arguments held on December 18, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenged the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which aimed to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole” and requiring “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.

As discussed here, in February 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) launched the auto finance data pilot and issued nine market monitoring orders to three banks, three finance companies, and three captive lenders. This initiative aimed to gather comprehensive data on auto lending portfolios. Yesterday, the CFPB issued a Repossession in Auto Finance report using the dataset to show that repossession assignments increased for certain consumers post-2020, but many consumers avoided repossession in parts of 2021 and 2022. The data also indicates that repossession forwarders were increasingly involved in repossession activity, potentially resulting in increased repossession costs passed on to consumers.

Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued new policy statements regarding its Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) and No-Action Letters (NAL) programs. These policies ostensibly aim to promote innovation, competition, ethics, and transparency in the consumer financial products and services market. However, the policies also introduce significant restrictions, particularly concerning applications from firms with prior federal or state enforcement actions and those represented by former CFPB attorneys.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 28, 2025.

In our previous post, we discussed the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s (NYC DCWP) decision to delay the enforcement of the amended debt collection rules from December 1, 2024, to April 1, 2025. This postponement was in response to industry concerns and a legal challenge filed by ACA International, Inc. and Independent, Inc. NYC DCWP then announced it would delay the effective date for the amended rules to April 1, 2025, to align with the enforcement date.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 23, 2025, in their newsletter on January 27, 2025, and was mentioned in this insideARM article on February 3, 2025.

As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates a shift in its leadership with the incoming administration of President Trump, the Bureau has released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections.” This report appears to be a strategic move by the CFPB to influence state-level consumer protection laws before the anticipated shift in federal regulatory policy, and the Bureau’s recommendations appear to be items that would need to be the subject of legislation, if they are to occur. As detailed below, the changes advocated by the CFPB would strengthen the position of both state regulators and private plaintiffs in actions against industry participants.