We are pleased to introduce ‘Dear Mary,’ a new advice column from Troutman Pepper’s Incidents + Investigations team. This column will answer questions about anything and everything cyber-related — data breaches, forensic investigations, responding to regulators, and much more. ‘Dear Mary’ goes beyond the articles, podcasts, webinars, and other content we produce, as we are responding directly to your questions with concise, practical answers. ‘Dear Mary’ can be found here on the firm website, and direct links can be found on our Privacy + Cyber related blogs and newsletters.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Partner Lori Sommerfield to discuss the new guidance issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on targeted advertising for housing and housing-related ads. The conversation delves into the implications of the guidance, which was motivated by HUD’s original charge of discrimination against Facebook in 2019 and President Biden’s 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI. They explore how the guidance shifts the focus from disparate treatment to disparate impact, and the challenges advertisers and advertising platforms may face in complying with the new guidelines. The episode concludes with a discussion on the potential for regulatory overreach and the possibility of litigation.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of April. Only court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were slightly down. Still, year-to-date everything is up by double digits compared to 2023.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.

On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski et al., unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that when parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other sending arbitrability disputes to the courts — a court must decide which contract governs. The decision teaches a cautionary lesson that parties with multiple contracts between them must keep issues of arbitrability consistent between the contracts.

On May 16, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2933. The bill amends the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act making it unlawful for a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to create a consumer report containing any adverse information that the CRA knows or should know relates to medical debt incurred by the consumer or a collection action against the consumer to collect medical debt. The bill would also make it unlawful for a CRA to maintain a file on any consumer containing information relating to medical debt. The bill is currently awaiting Governor Pritzker’s signature.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Sheri Adler to discuss the implications of the upcoming change in securities law that shortens the settlement period for broker-dealer transactions from T+2 (two business days after the trade date) to T+1 (one business day after the trade date). This change, effective May 28, 2024, has significant implications for employers who offer equity-based compensation to their employees. Adler provides an overview of the history of the settlement cycle, the reasons behind the shift to T+1, and the impact on tax withholding obligations for equity awards. She also offers practical advice for companies to prepare for this change, including potential adjustments to the calculation of fair market value for withholding purposes.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an “interpretive rule,” subjecting “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) transactions to provisions of Regulation Z applicable to “credit cards.” Among other things, this classification would require BNPL and other lenders to extend many of the same legal protections and rights to consumers that apply to traditional credit cards, including the rights to dispute charges and demand refunds for returned products, and, potentially, receive periodic statements. The Bureau claims its authority to issue this interpretive rule — in lieu of a formal rulemaking — stems from the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, and its general authority to issue guidance as set forth in § 1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.