All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion vacating the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (CARS Rule). The decision came in response to a petition filed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), challenging the procedural validity of the rule. The petitioners argued that the FTC violated its own regulations by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS Rule. They also contended that the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.

On January 22, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a significant settlement with Yellowstone Capital of New Jersey and its affiliated companies over allegations of illegal high-interest loans disguised as merchant cash advance (MCA) transactions.

In a previous post, we discussed the oral arguments held on December 18, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenged the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which aimed to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole” and requiring “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.

This week, President Trump designated National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Vice Chairman Kyle Hauptman as the thirteenth Chairman of the NCUA Board. Hauptman succeeds Todd Harper as NCUA Chairman. In the press release announcing his appointment, Chairman Hauptman said, “I am deeply honored that President Trump has asked me to serve as Chairman of NCUA. I look forward to leading the agency’s dedicated professionals and working with my Board colleagues to create a regulatory structure that promotes growth, opportunity, and innovation within the credit union system.”

As discussed here, in February 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) launched the auto finance data pilot and issued nine market monitoring orders to three banks, three finance companies, and three captive lenders. This initiative aimed to gather comprehensive data on auto lending portfolios. Yesterday, the CFPB issued a Repossession in Auto Finance report using the dataset to show that repossession assignments increased for certain consumers post-2020, but many consumers avoided repossession in parts of 2021 and 2022. The data also indicates that repossession forwarders were increasingly involved in repossession activity, potentially resulting in increased repossession costs passed on to consumers.

On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a Compliance Aid to clarify the requirements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E. Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs) are defined as “any transfer of funds that is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, computer, or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer’s account.” The Compliance Aid, presented in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) format, addresses various aspects of EFTs, including coverage, financial institutions’ obligations, and error resolution processes.

Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued new policy statements regarding its Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) and No-Action Letters (NAL) programs. These policies ostensibly aim to promote innovation, competition, ethics, and transparency in the consumer financial products and services market. However, the policies also introduce significant restrictions, particularly concerning applications from firms with prior federal or state enforcement actions and those represented by former CFPB attorneys.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 28, 2025.

In our previous post, we discussed the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s (NYC DCWP) decision to delay the enforcement of the amended debt collection rules from December 1, 2024, to April 1, 2025. This postponement was in response to industry concerns and a legal challenge filed by ACA International, Inc. and Independent, Inc. NYC DCWP then announced it would delay the effective date for the amended rules to April 1, 2025, to align with the enforcement date.

On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.