All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On June 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the joint motion by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender, calling the CFPB’s attempt to refund Townstone’s civil money penalty for alleged redlining practices “breathtaking.” This decision comes after allegations by the current CFPB of misconduct related to the case under former CFPB leadership.

On March 13, New York State introduced proposed legislation titled the Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Act). The proposed legislation seeks to broaden the scope of consumer protection from deceptive business practices currently available under existing law by amending § 349 of the General Business Law (GBL). If enacted, the FAIR Act would provide individuals, small businesses, and non-profit organizations with greater legal recourse at the state level and target a wider range of alleged harmful conduct, including “unfair” and “abusive” business practices.

In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) request for input on unnecessary compliance burdens, the debt collection industry, led by ACA International, is advocating for significant reforms to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Their primary focus is on eliminating rules that impose undue compliance burdens and conflict with existing debt collection regulations. Key proposals include the revocation of the “Revoke All” rule, restoration of the Established Business Relationship (EBR) exemption, and harmonization of TCPA rules with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.

On Tuesday, June 10, the House Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services both favorably reported to the House H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act (as amended). Both committees gave overwhelmingly bipartisan support for the bill with the Committee on Agriculture voting 47-6 and the Committee on Financial Services voting 32-19. Both…

This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.

On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted several regulatory proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Among the rules under consideration are those related to loan originator (LO) compensation and discretionary mortgage servicing, governed by the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X). Additionally, the CFPB is reviewing its “larger participant” rules, which define the scope of its supervisory authority over major players in the debt collection and consumer credit reporting sectors. These rules, currently in “prerule” status, are under scrutiny by the OMB.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the expectations for furnishers when investigating consumer disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, No. 23-721 (2d Cir. May 28, 2025), the Second Circuit emphasized that the FCRA requires furnishers to conduct reasonable, not perfect, investigations into disputed accounts. The opinion also cements the fact that summary judgment is possible — and appropriate — when a furnisher conducts a reasonable investigation of a credit dispute.