All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action plaintiff’s claims challenged the credit union’s $15 dollar returned-check fee under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing it was an “unfair” and “unlawful” business practice, especially since the check the plaintiff deposited was declined without any funds being made available to him. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim was preempted by 12 C.F.R. § 701.35, which states expressly that state laws regulating bank fees do not apply to federal credit unions.

An initiative designed to add significant regulatory obligations to the home improvement and solar financing industries is progressing through the California legislature. Senate Bill 784 (SB 784) passed the California Senate last month and the California Assembly is quickly moving a slightly amended version of the bill through committees in July. If enacted, SB 784 would take effect on January 1, 2026.

On July 16, TradeStation Securities, Inc., a member firm of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) to FINRA’s Department of Enforcement. This AWC proposes a settlement for alleged rule violations concerning retail communications related to crypto assets. The acceptance of this AWC by FINRA ensures that no future actions will be brought against TradeStation Securities based on the same factual findings.

In a significant turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has decided to initiate a new rulemaking process concerning its final rule on personal financial data rights under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (1033 rule). This decision comes amidst ongoing legal challenges, notably from Forcht Bank, N.A.; Kentucky Bankers Association; and the Bank Policy Institute, which filed a lawsuit immediately after the 1033 rule was finalized challenging it.

Today, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (NYC DCWP) announced another delay in the effective date of its amended debt collection rules. This marks the second postponement. As discussed here, the rules were initially set to take effect on December 1, 2024. Then the enforcement date was first postponed to April 1, 2025, following industry concerns and legal challenges, and then to October 1, 2025. However, the NYC DCWP has now stated that the rules will not go into effect on October 1, 2025, and has committed to providing an update at least three months prior to the new effective date.

On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.

As a follow up to our May post, FAPA in the Spotlight Again: Second Circuit Renews Call for NY Court of Appeals Review, the New York Court of Appeals has finally agreed to consider New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act’s (FAPA) reach and constitutionality in the case of Art. 13 LLC. Interestingly, on the same day the Court of Appeals accepted the Second Circuit’s request, New York’s highest court also agreed to review a separate decision from the First Department, which found that it is constitutional to apply the FAPA amendments retroactively in the case of Van Dyke. Both appeals stem from actions seeking to cancel and discharge mortgages, where the New York trial courts previously held that the statute of limitations for foreclosure had expired.