A U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently denied summary judgment in a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), finding that the defendant failed to show it received prior express written consent for telemarketing calls.
Dear Mary,
We had a security incident a few weeks backs that luckily turned out to be nothing. I’ll tell you, tension was high around here while the investigation was ongoing because there was a possibility that it was going to be bad. The forensic firm (hired by our outside counsel) figured out that the incident resulted from a misconfiguration in our MFA. We fixed that and now I’m wondering whether we really need a forensic report given the limited impact. I am not sure I understand the need.
– Uncertain in Atlanta
On June 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a proposed rule amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), concerning medical debt. The proposed rule would remove a regulatory exception that currently allows creditors to obtain and use information on medical debts for credit eligibility determinations. Additionally, the proposed rule would generally prohibit consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from furnishing consumer reports containing medical debt information to creditors. Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted until August 12, 2024. The Bureau aims to finalize the rule by early 2025.
On June 6, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking public input on the uses, opportunities, and risks presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the financial sector. Notably, the Treasury’s RFI comes three years after the issuance of a similar RFI by the federal banking agencies (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and National Credit Union Administration on financial institutions’ use of AI, discussed here.
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week:
On May 31, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published an opinion in Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, which has significant implications for the healthcare industry, most notably by clarifying the broad scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) preemption of state law causes of action arising from pre-service coverage communications between medical providers and health plan administrators.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced it has finalized a rule outlining the qualifications to become a recognized industry Standard Setter body (Standard Setter Rule). These bodies will be instrumental in issuing standards that assist companies in complying with the forthcoming Personal Financial Data Rights Rule under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (Section 1033 Rule). The Standard Setter Rule outlines the attributes that these bodies must exhibit to gain recognition from the CFPB. It also provides a comprehensive guide detailing the application process for recognition and the CFPB’s evaluation methodology.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week:
On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.