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.
Monitoring the financial services industry to help companies navigate through regulatory compliance, enforcement, and litigation issues
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 today’s episode of Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast, hosts Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso discuss TransUnion’s study on fraud-related charge-off losses in auto lending, exploring how bad actors enter the car-buying journey through tactics such as application phishing, synthetic identities, trade-in data exposure, and “digital warming.” They examine why auto fraud can have outsized impacts compared to other products, the surprising concentration of losses among higher credit tiers, and the risks posed by credit washing, which can inflate perceived creditworthiness and distort underwriting decisions. The episode closes with a festive holiday movie countdown and a friendly nod to the eternal “Is Die Hard a Christmas movie?” debate.
Colorado House Bill 25-1002, effective January 1, 2026, amends Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-16-104(5.5) to require health benefit plans to use nationally recognized, not-for-profit clinical criteria when making coverage and utilization review determinations for behavioral health, mental health, and substance use disorder treatment. The statute establishes a uniform approach to coverage and utilization review and tightens state-level expectations for compliance with the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).
On December 11, the White House issued an Executive Order (EO) titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The EO states a federal policy to sustain and enhance U.S. AI leadership through a minimally burdensome national policy framework and to limit conflicting state requirements. It directs rapid actions by multiple federal entities to evaluate, challenge, or preempt state AI laws viewed as inconsistent with that policy and to use federal funding and standard-setting to influence state approaches.
On December 10, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of “debanking” activities at the nine largest national banks. The objective of the review was to determine whether the banks debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. The review, which was required to be completed by the OCC and other federal banking agencies by December 5 pursuant to Executive Order 14331 (Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans), covers the period 2020–2025.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rose by double digits while litigation under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) trended down. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also down. Yet, everything is up YTD and looks like it will end that way.
On November 20, U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R‑AR) and Senator Cory Booker (D‑NJ) released a new bipartisan discussion draft to create a federal spot‑market regime for “digital commodities” under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The proposal, which expands upon the CLARITY Act approved by the House in July, would give the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over cash and spot trading in covered non‑security crypto tokens, establish registration frameworks for exchanges, brokers, and dealers, impose listing and public‑information standards, require qualified custody and strict segregation of customer assets, enhance retail protections, and clarify bankruptcy treatment of customer property.
In two recent litigation status reports, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) indicated that it is working to issue interim final rules for both Section 1071 and Section 1033 in light of an opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that the Bureau cannot lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve Board at this time. Specifically, as discussed here, the OLC concluded that the Federal Reserve System presently has no “combined earnings” from which the CFPB may lawfully draw funds under the Dodd‑Frank Act, and the CFPB has publicly stated it anticipates having sufficient funds to continue normal operations through at least December 31, 2025.
In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, Jason Cover sits down with Brooke Conkle and Caleb Rosenberg to demystify the Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule and its day‑to‑day impact on point‑of‑sale (POS) finance programs. They explain why creditors and assignees inherit customers’ claims and defenses against merchants, what transactions are in scope and out of scope, how liability is generally capped at amounts paid (and why attorneys’ fees remain a live issue), and how merchant/vendor/dealer agreements can shift risk back to sellers. The conversation turns practical with a compliance toolkit: robust upfront diligence, continuous monitoring of merchant and consumer complaints (including requiring merchants to forward complaints), and a risk‑based response that separates meritless claims from those requiring redress. The panel also highlights enforcement and litigation trends and why, at 50 years old, the Holder Rule remains bedrock law that POS lenders cannot ignore, even as strong contracts and oversight materially mitigate exposure.
Three nonprofit organizations have filed a complaint in the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what they describe as a de facto shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Their suit targets Acting Director Russell Vought’s refusal to request funding for the Bureau from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), arguing that Congress designed a statutory provision that provides stable, standing appropriation to support the CFPB’s mission and that the Director’s recent interpretation of the statute — which is being used to support the refusal to request funding — unlawfully cuts off those funds. The plaintiffs ask the court to compel the CFPB to fulfill its statutory duty by requesting funding immediately.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Privacy Notice.