On March 22, a group of 39 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (participating states) entered an interim consent order against Sigue Corporation, a licensed money transmitter corporation, ordering it to cease operations due to deteriorating financial conditions. Sigue reported approximately $4.9 million in outstanding liabilities related to regulated money transmission transactions originating in the participating states and New York. The corporation is currently in the process of surrendering its money transmission licenses and winding-down.

Can remittance transfer providers be held liable under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when marketing about the speed and cost of their services? According to a March 27 Circular issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes, if the marketing is deceptive. Specifically, according to the CFPB, providers may be liable under the CFPA for deceptive marketing practices if they market: remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame when transfers actually take longer; remittance transfers as “no fee” when in fact the provider charges fees; promotional fees or promotional exchange rates for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying when an offer is temporary; and remittance transfers as “free” if they are not in fact free.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was 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.).

In Scott v. Collecto, Inc., the plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and common law negligence based on the defendant’s use of a letter vendor to send the plaintiff a demand. The County Court of Florida found that the plaintiff failed to allege an injury sufficient to establish standing.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis discusses the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) recent circular on comparison shopping and lead generation websites. The CFPB asserts that certain practices related to these websites are abusive under the Dodd Frank Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) regulation. The CFPB argues that it is abusive for website operators to influence their display or ranking of consumer financial products and services based on compensation they receive from product providers. Willis critiques the CFPB’s stance, arguing that the Bureau is attempting to rewrite commerce rules by labeling practices as abusive, in conflict with long-standing regulatory guidance focused on disclosures on such websites. Despite the CFPB’s circular, he suggests that the industry will likely continue to rely on appropriate disclosures to ensure consumers are informed of how products are presented in online contexts.

Unauthorized Access, our privacy and cybersecurity-focused podcast, spotlights the human side of the cybersecurity industry. In this episode, Sadia welcomes Sherri Davidoff, CEO of LMG Security, to discuss the challenges and experiences associated with being a primary caregiver in the cybersecurity space. Whether as a mother, father, elder-care provider, or in any other role, this is a topic that many individuals in the cybersecurity community struggle with, but go to great lengths to conceal. Both Sadia and Sherri pause to share their personal journeys and highlight the individuals who have supported them in excelling in both their professional and caregiving roles (spoiler alert — for Sadia, that person is Ron Raether). Sherri, reflecting on the need for more flexibility, notes that virtual opportunities, which had expanded during the pandemic, are now beginning to decrease as the world transitions back to a ‘pre-pandemic’ state. These opportunities broadened the accessibility of the cybersecurity industry, especially for those juggling demanding caregiving responsibilities.

Yesterday, three trade organizations filed a complaint in Colorado federal court challenging H.B. 1229, Colorado’s effort to limit interest charges by out-of-state financial institutions, which is set to take effect on July 1, 2024. As discussed here, in June 2023, Colorado passed H.B. 1229, limiting certain charges on consumer loans and simultaneously opting Colorado out of §§ 521-523 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA empower state banks, insured state and federal savings associations and state credit unions to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting state law (i.e., “export” their home state’s interest-rate authority). However, § 525 of DIDMCA enables states to opt out of this rate authority with respect to loans made in the opt-out state.

In Martinez v. Celtic Bank, the Southern District of New York recently denied a motion for summary judgment finding that a jury could consider an investigation reckless when a furnisher fails to review any records other than a payment history in response to a dispute that an account was erroneously reported as delinquent.