On October 12, in its monthly bulletin the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced that final regulations to implement the Student Loan Servicing Act and the Student Loans Borrower Rights Law have been approved and will become effective Jan. 1, 2024. Among other things, the rules clarify that all education financing products, including income share agreements (ISAs) and installment contracts, are student loans, and servicers of all such products are covered by the Student Loan Servicing Act and must be licensed.

On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion regarding § 1034(c) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which requires large banks and credit unions to comply in a timely manner with consumer requests for information concerning their accounts. This advisory opinion follows a June 2022 request for information where the CFPB asked for public input on customer service obstacles encountered when interacting with large financial institutions. According to the CFPB, this initiative is in response to large financial institutions moving away from “relationship banking.”

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, the agencies) issued a joint statement on the subject of creditors’ use of immigration status for eligibility for credit transactions, an issue that has been kicking around in private litigation for years, but as to which the federal regulators have been silent. The joint statement warns lenders that “unnecessary or overbroad” reliance on immigration status in the credit decisioning process may violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other federal laws. According to the agencies, the joint statement was issued in response to consumers reportedly being rejected for credit cards and loans because of their immigration status, even when they have strong credit histories and are otherwise qualified to receive the loans.

The Middle District of Tennessee denied a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, clearing the way for a lawsuit claiming that the defendant was secondarily liable under an agency theory for calls made by a third-party call service even though a principal-agent relationship was disclaimed by contract.

On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights report. This report serves as a “victory lap” for the Bureau, which highlights the relief it has obtained for consumers since the release of its March 2023 Special Fees Edition, discussed here. According to the Bureau, its supervisory efforts have led to institutions refunding over $140 million to consumers, including $120 million in overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees.

Join Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis and Sheri Adler as they dive into the new requirement for publicly traded companies (including financial services companies) to adopt a clawback policy requiring the recoupment of erroneously awarded incentive compensation by December 1, 2023. Chris and Sheri discuss many facets of the rules and what steps companies can take to ensure compliance, including:

The Connecticut Banking Commissioner (Commissioner), acting through the Consumer Credit Division of the Department of Banking (the Division), conducted an investigation into the Law Offices of David M. Katz, discovering that in 2018 and 2019 the firm had engaged in in unlicensed collection activity involving about 10,000 Connecticut accounts with a total balance of $1.4…

In Moore v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corp., Inc., the plaintiff initiated litigation in state court alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the defendant’s use of a letter vendor to send the plaintiff a demand. After removal, the U.S. district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that the plaintiff failed to allege a harm sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to the original Pennsylvania state court.