In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory is joined by Nick St. John, director of regulatory compliance at America’s Credit Unions, to discuss the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and related developments from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Enacted in 2021, the CTA aims to combat the use of anonymous legal entities for money laundering. It mandates that legal entities report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, which maintains a database accessible to law enforcement, financial institutions, and other entities that meet specific criteria.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis and Josh McBeain discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) proposed rule on overdraft fees. The rule, which only applies to large financial institutions with assets over $10 billion, aims to regulate overdraft services by altering the definition of ‘finance charge,’ effectively subjecting these institutions to Regulation Z’s disclosure and substantive provisions. Chris and Josh delve into the complexities of the proposed rule, considering its potential implications and the likelihood of litigation challenges from the industry. They also discuss the role of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the concept of Chevron deference in this context.

On April 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order staying the district court’s decision to transfer the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) credit card late fee rule from the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C). As discussed here, on March 28, 2024, the district court had transferred the case to D.D.C. finding an “attenuated nexus” to the Fort Worth Division since, according to the district court, only one of the six plaintiffs had even a remote tie to the division. The Fifth Circuit’s stay is in effect until 5:00 pm on Friday, April 5, 2024.

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.