All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently confirmed consumer standing to pursue state law claims against a credit union after it pursued debt collection lawsuits against its members in the New Mexico magistrate courts. Several members filed a class action lawsuit against the credit union for the unauthorized practice of law and under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), but the trial court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under both the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law and the UPA.

Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.

On November 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a significant consent order against Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL), a company that provides communication and financial services to correctional facilities. The CFPB found that GTL, along with its subsidiaries Telmate, LLC and TouchPay Holdings, LLC, engaged in illegal practices that adversely affected incarcerated individuals and their friends and families.

On November 13, Representative Gary J. Palmer (R-AL) introduced House Joint Resolution 220, which seeks congressional disapproval of an advisory opinion published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) relating to medical debt collection practices.

On November 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a request from Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Services Alliance of Texas to reopen their legal challenge against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) payday loan rule. This decision effectively clears the path for the rule to be implemented.

On November 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a pilot study titled “Matched-Pair Testing in Small Business Lending Markets” highlighting what the CFPB believes were two statistically significant disparities in the treatment of Black and white small business owners seeking loans. First, the secret shopping study indicated that Black entrepreneurs were less encouraged by small business lenders to apply for loans. Specifically, such lenders expressed interest in obtaining loan applications from 40% of white participants, but only 23% of Black participants. Second, the study found that Black participants were more frequently steered toward alternative financing products — such as business credit cards or real estate-secured loans — compared to their white counterparts with similar or weaker business credit profiles. Specifically, non-requested or alternative credit products were discussed with 59% of Black participants, compared to 39% of white participants.

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 Recovery Resources, Inc. Since then, NYC DCWP also announced it would delay the effective date for the amended rules to April 1, 2025 to align with the enforcement date.

Late last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against Global Circulation, Inc. (GCI) and its owner for engaging in deceptive and abusive debt collection practices. According to the FTC, the Georgia-based debt collector tricked consumers into paying more than $7.6 million in bogus debt. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleges violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act).