All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On March 18, President Donald Trump dismissed the two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The removal of Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter has sparked significant controversy and legal challenges.

On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling addressing the obligations of furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information, whether the disputed information be legal or factual in nature. The issue of whether the distinction between “legal” and “factual” disputes is relevant under the FCRA has been hotly contested in recent years. The Fourth Circuit’s new decision follows in the footsteps of the Eleventh and Second Circuits by replacing a “legal vs. factual” test with a “readily and objectively verifiable” test.

Dear Mary,

Our company experienced a cybersecurity incident. It seemed pretty minor — just a few suspicious emails and an employee’s account being locked. To my dismay, we’re now hearing from our IT team that the issue is more serious. We have cyber insurance, but we didn’t notify our carrier right away. Did we make a mistake? When should I reach out to our insurance provider?

– Unsure Insured of San Francisco

The Utah Legislature has passed H.B. 279, known as the Earned Wage Access Services Act. Sponsored by Representative A. Cory Maloy (R) and Senator Chris H. Wilson (R), this legislation aims to regulate earned wage access (EWA) providers. Notably, “providers” is defined to include a person engaged in the business of offering earned wage access, but not an employer that advances a portion of earned wages directly to employees or independent contractors. If signed by the Governor, the Act will take effect on May 7, 2025.

On March 7, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the President’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. The petitioners argue that this standard is unreasonably burdensome and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen.

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.

On March 10, Christopher Mufarrige, the newly-appointed Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), published a blog explaining the significance of Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) for businesses and the ramifications for failing to respond. The Director warns that “[i]f your business receives such a demand for information, we expect you to respond in a reasonable and timely manner or face legal consequences.” The blog also provides the following primer about CIDs:

In a significant development in the credit card late fee rule litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a status report indicating that it is actively working towards a resolution. This update follows last month’s court’s order, which required the CFPB to explain its plans for proceeding with the case.