In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit in R.R. v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, affirmed the insurer and administrator’s denial of benefits for a dependent’s residential mental health treatment under an ERISA‑governed plan. The court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluded that the denial was supported by the plan’s medical‑necessity criteria and the administrative record. The dissent, however, argued that the majority failed to meaningfully account for a structural conflict of interest and for the administrator’s handling of treating‑provider evidence and prior failed lower levels of care.

On January 26, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the Calendar Year 2027 Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for Medicare Advantage (MA) capitation rates and Medicare Part D payment policies. CMS projects a net average year‑over‑year MA payment change of just 0.09% — roughly a flat environment once medical trend, utilization, and other pressures are considered. CMS frames the proposal as improving “payment accuracy and sustainability,” with a focus on aligning payments more closely with actual beneficiary risk and care rather than documentation intensity.

On January 28, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Investment Management, and Division of Trading and Markets issued a joint statement explaining how existing federal securities laws apply when traditional securities are “tokenized” on blockchain or other crypto networks.

In this special joint episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, guest host Taylor Gess talks to Troutman Pepper Locke colleagues Stefanie Jackman, Caleb Rosenberg, and Jeremy Sairsingh about student lending and income share agreements (ISAs). They highlight the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and its sweeping overhaul of federal student loan repayment options and borrowing caps, break down differences between ISAs and traditional loans, and explain why state lawmakers and regulators are increasingly focused on these products. The episode also includes practical takeaways on licensing, servicing, and the potential future of credit reporting for private student loans and ISAs, offering industry participants a roadmap for navigating both federal and state-level changes.

In 2025, the U.S. digital asset landscape evolved more dramatically than in any year since the industry’s inception. A pro‑innovation White House, an active Congress, and key regulators — including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Department of…

On January 29, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael S. Selig and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul S. Atkins held a joint “Harmonization: U.S. Financial Leadership in the Crypto Era” event at CFTC headquarters in Washington, D.C. Billed as an opportunity to align the agencies’ approaches to digital assets and to advance President Trump’s goal of making the U.S. “the crypto capital of the world,” the event marked a clear pivot away from the fragmented, enforcement‑driven posture of prior years toward coordinated rulemaking and market‑structure reform.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) all increased in 2025 compared to 2024. December 2025 filings also rose in every category except TCPA, which declined by only two cases.

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Regulatory Oversight, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Lori Sommerfield and Matthew Berns to discuss New Jersey’s sweeping new disparate impact regulations under the Law Against Discrimination. They break down one of the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact rules in the U.S., the contrasts with traditional federal standards, and implications for enforcement in financial services. The discussion dives into credit scores, underwriting models, AI and automated decision-making tools, and the difference between New Jersey’s approach and the Trump administration’s effort to scale back disparate impact at the federal level, offering practical takeaways for lenders and other covered entities navigating this shifting landscape.