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.
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Partners Virginia Flynn and Chad Fuller for the first edition of a special year-in-review series. Together, they provide a comprehensive analysis of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) developments from 2024 and offer predictions for 2025. The discussion covers key changes, including the upcoming one-to-one consent rule, the impact of key cases, and other significant TCPA trends. This episode is essential for staying ahead in the evolving landscape of TCPA compliance. Stay tuned for more year-in-review content!
As part of a flurry of last minute regulatory activity by the Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on January 15, the CFPB published an advisory opinion in the Federal Register rescinding a previous advisory opinion which the Bureau issued during the first Trump administration in November 2020. The 2020 advisory opinion had described how a specific type of “earned wage” product did not constitute the offering or extension of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The new advisory opinion is effective immediately.
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, focusing on the use of advanced technologies in credit scoring models. This edition of Supervisory Highlights concerns select examinations of institutions that use credit scoring models, including models built with advanced technology commonly marketed as AI/ML technology, when making credit decisions. The report repeated the CFPB’s previous statements that there is “no ‘advanced technology’ exception” to federal consumer protection laws (which, to our knowledge, no industry participant has suggested to exist) and asserted that financial institutions will need to improve their practices to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. This includes actively searching for less discriminatory alternatives, critically evaluating the use of alternative data, and rigorously testing and validating adverse action reasons.
On January 7, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) released its supervisory priorities for 2025, outlining the key areas of focus for federally insured credit unions. This guidance is crucial for credit unions as it highlights the areas posing the highest risk to members, the industry, and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Florida affirmed a trial court’s holding that claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) cannot not be assigned. In KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Mary T. Matuskah Irrevocable Trust, the plaintiff was an assignee of a tenant who leased property from the defendant trust. The tenant failed to make her monthly payments for four months and the defendant posted an “8-Day Notice” on her front door, which stated the amount due and demanded payment of the rent or possession of the property. The tenant alleged the notice faced outward so it could be seen by anyone and was specifically seen by the FedEx driver who dropped off a package, embarrassing her.
On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a blog post highlighting the growing efforts by financial institutions to serve consumers with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, according to the Bureau, despite these advancements, significant barriers remain for LEP individuals in accessing fair and competitive financial services.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis and guest Joe Reilly delve into recent CFPB consent orders that penalize financial services companies for allegedly launching products before they were fully ready. They discuss the implications of these orders, the importance of thorough product testing and risk management, and the potential financial consequences of premature product launches. Tune in to learn valuable insights and best practices to avoid similar pitfalls in your organization.