Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.
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 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski et al., unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that when parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other sending arbitrability disputes to the courts — a court must decide which contract governs. The decision teaches a cautionary lesson that parties with multiple contracts between them must keep issues of arbitrability consistent between the contracts.
On May 16, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2933. The bill amends the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act making it unlawful for a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to create a consumer report containing any adverse information that the CRA knows or should know relates to medical debt incurred by the consumer or a collection action against the consumer to collect medical debt. The bill would also make it unlawful for a CRA to maintain a file on any consumer containing information relating to medical debt. The bill is currently awaiting Governor Pritzker’s signature.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempted the plaintiff’s state law defamation claim based on information furnished to a consumer reporting agency (CRA).
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill (HB) 2247 into law, bringing significant changes to the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). The changes brought about by HB 2247 will largely become effective on January 1, 2025. However, those changes standardizing threshold amounts consistent with federal law will become effective on July 1, 2024.
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:
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a complaint against SoLo Funds, Inc., a fintech company operating a small-dollar, short-term lending platform. The CFPB alleges that SoLo Funds engaged in deceptive practices related to the total cost of loans, servicing, and collection of void and uncollectible loans in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and engaged in providing consumer reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) but failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of those consumer reports.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. The 7-2 majority held the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides the CFPB’s funding structure, satisfies the appropriations clause because it “authorizes the Bureau to draw public funds from a particular source — ‘the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System’ — in an amount not exceeding an inflation-adjusted cap. And it specifies the objects for which the Bureau can use those funds — to ‘pay the expenses of the Bureau in carrying out its duties and responsibilities.'” The Supreme Court further found that the “Bureau’s funding mechanism [] fits comfortably within the historical appropriations practice …” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently upheld a lower court’s decision that a debt buyer who purchased a portfolio of defaulted student loans and placed an account with a collection agency qualifies as a “debt collector” under both Indiana state law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).