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.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) proposed a new rule aimed at banning certain contractual provisions in agreements for consumer financial products or services. The CFPB’s proposal targets certain terms and conditions sometimes found in so-called contracts of adhesion or standard-form contracts, including waivers of legal rights and protections, contract terms that limit free expression, and other terms that the CFPB believes undermine consumers’ rights and protections. The proposed rule also seeks to codify certain prohibitions under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Credit Practices Rule.
As discussed here, yesterday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized a rule aimed at removing an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the consumer reports of approximately 15 million Americans. This rule amends Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), to eliminate the exception that previously allowed lenders to use certain medical information in making lending decisions. The rule also prohibits consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from including medical debt information on consumer reports and credit scores sent to lenders. We anticipated that legal challenges would follow, asserting that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This article was republished on insideARM on January 9, 2025.
On January 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its rule aimed at removing an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the consumer reports of approximately 15 million Americans. Specifically, the Bureau’s rulemaking as finalized removes an existing exception in Regulation V that permitted lenders to obtain and use information on medical debts. The final rule is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. However, the upcoming change in administration may very well impact its implementation.