In response to a petition filed last week by a number of consumer advocacy groups, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that it will be seeking public input on a possible rule that would curtail mandatory pre-dispute arbitration provisions.
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Finance Services industry over the past week:
On September 14, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Kentucky became the second court to issue an order granting, in part, a plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) from enforcing its final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) against the plaintiffs and their members. (A discussion of the first injunction issued by a Texas federal court can be found here.) The injunction in The Monticello Banking Company v. CFPB will dissolve if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit in the Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB case, which found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and, therefore, rules promulgated by the Bureau invalid.
As U.S. consumer solar energy use increases, so does potential exposure under state consumer protection statutes. A recent decision by the California Court of Appeals in the case of Hagey v. Solar Service Experts, LLC highlights the potential pitfalls for solar energy providers and their collections agents.
On September 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report on Tuition Payment Plans in Higher Education. Ninety-eight percent of colleges now allow students to pay for their education in installments using tuition payment plans. Tuition payment plans have a wide range of structures and may be managed by the schools or administered by third-party payment processors. Typically, tuition payment plans are interest-free, but, according to the CFPB, many charge enrollment fees, late fees and returned payment fees. The Bureau asserts that these fees can create a high cost of credit. Specifically, the CFPB states that when the amount borrowed is low and the enrollment fee is high, students can face annual percentage rates as high as 237%.
On September 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor finding that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
Join us for the second episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB’s intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, Ron Raether, and Ethan Ostroff discuss the regulation of credit header data and the potential impact on
Join us for the second episode in a special three-part series covering the CFPB’s intention to propose new rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis, Dave Gettings, Kim Phan, Ron Raether, and Ethan Ostroff discuss the regulation of credit header data and the potential impact on the FCRA and consumer reporting agencies, as well as users and data brokers.
On September 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an issue spotlight focusing on the role that mobile device operating systems play in determining consumer’s payment options. According to the CFPB, “[g]iven the continued shift toward the use of contactless payments on mobile devices like smartphones and wearables, there is now readily available technology for consumers to securely make [point-of-sale (POS)] payments through different apps and services … Any restrictions imposed by the dominant operating systems … will have an outsized effect on access to payments systems and may hinder the development of a truly open ecosystem.”
On September 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it issued a consent order against Tempoe, LLC, a nonbank consumer finance company, for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Consumer Leasing Act, and Regulation M. That same day, it was announced that Tempoe also entered into a parallel settlement with 41 states and the District of Columbia resolving a multi-state investigation into the same alleged misconduct. Under the terms of the CFPB consent order, Tempoe was banned from consumer leasing activity and must pay $1 million to the CFPB and $1 million to the states and jurisdictions participating in the settlement.