Dear Mary,
One of our critical service providers recently suffered a cyberattack. It’s all over the news, and our business operations are severely impacted. We’re losing money every day, and we have no idea how long this will last. Do you have any suggestions on what to do? The lack of information from our service provider is incredibly frustrating.
– Frustrated in Dallas
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 June 20, six federal financial services regulators issued the final automated valuation model (AVM) rule. The AVM rule, initially proposed in June 2023 and discussed here, aims to implement the quality control standards mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). The final AVM rule is largely identical to the proposed rule and is set to take effect on the first day of the calendar quarter following 12 months after its publication in the Federal Register.
Dear Mary,
We received a data request from Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, today. It was in connection with a data security incident that happened almost a year ago. Is this normal? Should this impact how we respond?
– Not Forgotten in New Orleans
On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.'” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”
On June 18, a Colorado federal court granted the plaintiff trade groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction, effectively halting the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 with respect to loans made by out-of-state state-chartered banks.
In this episode of Payments Pros, host Keith Barnett discusses the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit and $10 million settlement against the payment facilitator, BlueSnap. On May 1, the FTC filed a complaint alleging that BlueSnap and its executives aided and abetted a debt relief service provider’s violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, along with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis delves into the renewed focus on incentive compensation by federal financial regulators. Joined by colleagues Sheri Adler and Jina Davidovich from the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation group, the discussion centers on the implications of Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The episode explores the historical context, proposed rule changes, and the potential impact on financial institutions and their employees. Key topics include the scope of covered institutions, specific requirements for senior executives and significant risk-takers, and the governance and compliance obligations that may arise if the rules are enacted.
On June 18, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of mandamus, effectively halting the transfer of the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule from a Texas federal district court to the District of Columbia. This decision marks another pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle over the CFPB’s Final Rule, which has seen a complex procedural history unfold over the past few months.
Over the course of the last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has increased its scrutiny of medical financing products, such as medical credit cards and installment loans. In July 2023, the CFPB and other federal agencies launched an inquiry into medical payment products, discussed here. Last week, when the CFPB announced its proposed rule to ban the reporting of medical debt on consumer reports, discussed here, it stated it was considering action related to medical financing products. Then this week, the CFPB published a blog examining how financial institutions market their products to healthcare providers in an effort to ensure “consumers aren’t pushed into medical payment products.” The CFPB’s ongoing discourse on this topic signals a potential regulatory crackdown may be coming.