In this episode of Troutman Pepper’s FCRA Focus podcast, host Kim Phan delves into the topic of dispute resolution through the e-OSCAR system with special guest, Joel Strickland, the director of customer success at e-OSCAR. Joel shares valuable insights into the resources available to data furnishers, including e-OSCAR University and the annual users conference, Simplicity. This episode illuminates the functionalities and benefits of the e-OSCAR system for FCRA dispute resolution and clarifies the limitations of e-OSCAR’s role in the dispute resolution process, underscoring the importance of legal and compliance consultations for data furnishers.

On April 24, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights report focusing on examinations of the residential mortgage servicing market that were completed between April 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. According to the report, the CFPB found instances of mortgage servicers charging illegal fees, such as prohibited property inspection fees, and sending deceptive notices to homeowners. Examiners also found servicers violating Regulation X’s loss mitigation rules.

On April 19, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill (HB) 2560 to regulate earned wage access (EWA) products and services. HB 2560 enacts the Earned Wage Access Services Act that requires EWA providers to be licensed by the state bank commissioner and comply with certain disclosure rules. Kansas follows Nevada, Missouri, and Wisconsin in enacting EWA legislation.

In this pivotal episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis, alongside colleagues Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso, explores the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) groundbreaking proposal for regular and extensive data collection within the auto finance industry. This episode is part of our special series on auto finance, where we unpack the implications of this initiative, rooted in the authority of Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act, for both the industry and consumers. As the auto finance sector experiences significant growth amid rising prices and rates, we shed light on the CFPB’s strategy to enhance market monitoring and ensure transparency. Join us as we explore the potential impacts of this development, the reactions from major auto finance companies, and what this means for the future of consumer financial services. Don’t miss this insightful discussion that navigates the complexities of regulatory changes and their effects on the auto finance landscape.

A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s alleged consumer reporting.

Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted letters to senators in Connecticut and California supporting their proposals to prohibit medical debt reporting.

On April 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) entered a consent order against BloomTech, a for-profit vocational school, and its CEO, Austen Allred, for deceptive marketing practices related to income-share agreements (ISAs). The CFPB found that BloomTech and Allred misled students about the nature and cost of their ISAs and made false claims about job-placement rates for graduates. The CFPB’s action highlights the Bureau’s ongoing scrutiny of ISAs, including the Bureau’s classification of ISAs as loans, and the Bureau’s concern that consumers may not fully understand the true cost of their educations if they use ISAs.

In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim that the defendant violated § 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to report a debt as disputed. Specifically, the court determined it could disregard the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff had disputed the debt during a telephone call, because the defendant attached the transcript of the call to the motion to dismiss that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations.