On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a significant update regarding the involvement of national banks and federal savings associations in cryptocurrency activities. Interpretive Letter 1183 reaffirms the permissibility of various crypto-asset activities and aims to streamline the regulatory process for banks engaging in these activities.
On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Blackrock Services, Inc. and its associated entities and individuals. The court order aims to halt the defendants’ alleged deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.
In this episode of Moving the Metal, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso from Troutman Pepper Locke’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group discuss the rise and fall of the Junk Fee Rule and the CARS Rule. They delve into the initial broad scope of the Junk Fee Rule, its eventual limitation to specific industries
This podcast was republished on insideARM on March 11, 2025.
In this final episode of our Year in Review series, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues David Anthony, Stefanie Jackman, and Jonathan Floyd to discuss the year in review and look ahead for debt collection. They provide crucial updates on significant developments in 2024, including the heightened regulatory focus on medical debt at both federal and state levels, and the implications of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) uncertain future. The team also explores the impact of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision on agency interpretations and the increasing trend of debt collection litigation moving to state courts. Gain insights into the current legal landscape, potential future developments, and practical advice for navigating these complex issues in 2025. Don’t miss this essential discussion for anyone in the consumer financial services industry.
On February 27, Texas State Senator José Menéndez (D) introduced Senate Bill 1736, a piece of legislation aimed at regulating convenience fees associated with electronic payments for motor vehicles. SB 1736 would allow such fees to be imposed to offset electronic payment processing costs as long as certain restrictions are met and disclosures are made.
This article was republished on insideARM on March 18, 2025.
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who responded to a debtor’s letter disputing and refusing to pay a debt by providing validation of the debt. The court found that the debt collector’s actions did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In the latest episode of Payments Pros, host Carlin McCrory welcomes Kim Phan to discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recent inquiries into enhancing privacy protections.
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.
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate. The consolidation of numerous identical filings by JAMS pursuant to its own rules did not present a gateway question of arbitrability. Furthermore, the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to raise unconscionability as a basis to compel individual arbitration. The decision distinguishes Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. and provides further guidance to parties seeking to control mass arbitration risk.
In a stated effort to provide greater clarity on the application of federal securities laws to “crypto assets,” the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance has released its views on “meme coins.” In sum, while the offer and sale of meme coins may not be subject to federal securities laws, fraudulent conduct related to meme coins could still be subject to enforcement actions.