Effective September 1, 2025, SB 140 significantly expanded Texas’ telephone solicitation statute. SB 140 expressly covers text messages and similar electronic communications and introduced a direct private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), with exposure to treble damages, mental‑anguish damages, and attorney’s fees. Recently, a case in the Western District of Texas brought by Ecommerce Marketers Alliance (d/b/a Ecommerce Innovation Alliance), Flux Footwear, and Stodge (d/b/a Postscript) against the State of Texas ended with a joint motion to dismiss after the Texas Attorney General clarified that companies who engage in consent‑based text message programs are not subject to the state’s registration and disclosure requirements. Still, SB 140’s new DTPA cause of action increases the cost of missteps and companies should document affirmative consent.

In this crossover episode of Payments Pros and The Consumer Finance Podcast, guest host Taylor Gess is joined by Jason Cover and Jeremy Sairsingh to discuss buy now, pay later (BNPL) products as they continue to dive into the Point-of-Sale Finance Series. They highlight the complexities of BNPL offerings and the transformation of these payment models with varying fee structures and repayment terms. As these BNPL products mature, they challenge traditional definitions and regulatory frameworks, prompting a closer look at how consumers and providers are adapting to this financing option and its effects. With continuous industry innovations, regulators are working to keep pace, raising questions about the future direction of BNPL regulation and its impact.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Jason Manning, Angelo Stio, and Rob Jenkin to unpack the surge of litigations arising from the use of tracking technologies (e.g., cookies, pixels, and session tools) on websites. This episode explains how plaintiff firms are repurposing federal and state wiretap and “trap-and-trace” laws, as well as the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), to assert claims associated with a business’s use of tracking technologies without consent. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a new proposed rule that would substantially revise the 2023 small business lending data collection and reporting rule under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, which implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal re-centers Section 1071 on “core” providers, products, and data, with a single compliance date and material carve-outs to reduce complexity and improve data quality. The proposal is open for comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, just this week the CFPB filed a notice with the D.C. Circuit attaching a Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion which concluded that the Bureau will only be legally funded through December 31, potentially affecting rulemaking and operations timelines.

On October 31, CMS finalized the CY 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) rule (CMS-1832-F), effective January 1, 2026. While primarily directed at Medicare providers, the rule’s changes have clear downstream effects for payors and private insurers that benchmark to Medicare or align commercial policies with federal payment logic. Key themes are higher baseline rates, a stronger push toward value-based care via dual conversion factors, permanent telehealth flexibilities (including virtual supervision), expanded behavioral health integration, and a cost-containment overhaul for skin substitutes.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has proposed an unprecedented, far‑reaching rewrite of Regulation B (Reg B) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). If finalized, the proposed rule would eliminate disparate‑impact liability under ECOA, significantly narrow the scope of “discouragement” to focus on explicit statements directed at applicants or prospective applicants, and prohibit or tightly restrict the use of certain protected‑class criteria in Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs) offered by for‑profit organizations. Existing SPCP‑originated credit would be grandfathered.

Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a proposed effective date 90 days after publication.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026. The filing attaches a November 7 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Acting Director Vought concluding that the CFPB’s statutory funding stream — quarterly transfers from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) — is unavailable while the Federal Reserve operates at a loss. The Bureau expects to continue operating, including in compliance with an existing district court injunction, through at least December 31, 2025, but absent congressional action may face a funding lapse thereafter, which would trigger Antideficiency Act constraints.

On November 10, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to Colorado’s H.B. 23‑1229, holding that Colorado may enforce its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest‑rate caps for loans to Colorado borrowers even when originated by out‑of‑state, state‑chartered banks. Interpreting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) § 525’s opt‑out phrase “loans made in such State,” the court concluded it encompasses loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt‑out state. Because Colorado has opted out, § 1831d no longer preempts Colorado rate caps for loans from out‑of‑state state banks to Colorado residents, and the preliminary injunction “falls apart.”