In the last two weeks, several amicus briefs were filed in the Tenth Circuit in the ongoing litigation concerning Colorado’s opt-out from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Troutman Pepper submitted a brief on behalf of all 50 state bankers associations (state bankers), plus Washington, D.C., supporting the district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its overly broad and unlawful interpretation of DIDMCA’s opt-out. The Republican attorneys general from a dozen states, including Texas, Utah, Georgia, and Ohio also filed an amicus brief in support of the industry plaintiffs-appellees. This litigation centers on the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 against state-chartered banks located outside of Colorado who make loans to Colorado borrowers.

On December 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule for public comment aimed at amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The proposed rule seeks to redefine (and, in some cases, rewrite) key terms and provisions within the FCRA, particularly focusing on the activities of purported “data brokers.”

In the latest episode of Payments Pros, hosts Keith Barnett and Carlin McCrory discuss a significant Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement action against Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL), issued on November 14. This action resulted in a consent order addressing chargebacks, alternate payment channel fees, and handling of inactive accounts.

In a shocking development yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a per-curiam, single-sentence order purporting to “clarify” its prior stay of the compliance date for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) payday loan rule. The new order provides that the rule will go into effect on March 30, 2025, 286 days after the Supreme Court entered its judgment in the CFSA lawsuit and not 286 days after the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent decision not to rehear the case en banc. The new order does not even attempt an explanation on how it conforms with the earlier order that the rule would be stayed “until 286 days after resolution of the appeal.”

In this episode, Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso, attorneys in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, are joined by Partner Ethan Ostroff to discuss the recent Supreme Court of California decision in Rodriguez vs. FCA US. They explore recent cases from the court that impact auto finance, this case’s background, the court’s reasoning, and the significant impact this ruling may have on manufacturers, dealers, and auto finance companies. The discussion also touches on the broader implications for consumer protection laws in California and the potential shift in legal strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants in the auto finance industry.

Last month, we discussed the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) newly approved regulations for direct-to-consumer earned wage access (EWA) products. These regulations, approved by the Office of Administrative Law, marked a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for EWA providers, classifying these products as loans under the California Financing Law and imposing new registration requirements. The regulations are set to become effective on February 15, 2025, however, if you are a financial service provider operating in California in one of the four industry categories listed below, you must complete an application and register with DFPI before Feb. 15, 2025 to continue operating legally in the state.

Earlier this month, we discussed the lawsuit filed by ACA International, LLC and Collection Bureau Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Director Rohit Chopra. The lawsuit challenges the CFPB’s October 1, 2024 advisory opinion on medical debt collection practices. The plaintiffs are seeking an order vacating the advisory opinion and a stay of the effective date pending the conclusion of the case.