All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On November 24, the plaintiffs in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a motion to clarify the existing injunction, asking the court to confirm that the CFPB may not justify noncompliance by declining to request funds from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and that “combined earnings” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) refers to the Federal Reserve System’s total earnings, not a net figure reduced by interest expense. In response, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a minute order directing the parties to file submissions by November 26 identifying which provisions of the preliminary injunction they believe remain in force and addressing the court’s authority to enforce those provisions in light of the D.C. Circuit’s August 15 opinion and the pending petition for rehearing en banc.

On November 21, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) notified staff that it will restart supervision and require examiners, beginning with the 2026 examination cycle, to open each review by reading to the supervised entity a Humility in Supervisions Pledge. The pledge signals a notable shift in tone and execution that is in line with the CFPB’s Memorandum on Supervision and Enforcement Priorities from April 2025. Specifically, examinations will now have tighter alignment to the CFPB’s statutory authority, narrower and more clearly scoped exams (with a focus on “identified priority markets”), greater transparency and predictability, and an express preference to remediate issues in Supervision rather than escalate to Enforcement. It also formalizes a renewed focus on tangible consumer harm, especially to service members, their families, and veterans, and aims to minimize duplicative oversight where states or other regulators are already active.

As reported by Law360 on November 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) will hand off its remaining enforcement lawsuits and other active litigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as the Bureau prepares for a potential funding lapse. CFPB staff were informed that DOJ will begin assuming matters from the CFPB’s enforcement and legal divisions in the coming weeks, with transfer logistics to be worked out. It remains unclear whether all pending cases will survive the transition or whether case schedules and continuity will be affected.

On November 20, the Illinois Supreme Court narrowly construed private rights of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), creating a de facto “concrete injury” requirement for claims under the FCRA and potentially other federal statutes with similar language authorizing rights of action. Although Article III’s concrete-injury requirement has become familiar in federal courts over the last decade, Illinois courts had not previously imposed such a requirement in cases involving statutory rights of action. The court in Fausett v. Walgreen Co., held that the FCRA does not explicitly authorize consumers to sue for violations, so the law did not authorize consumer lawsuits unless the consumer could show that a violation caused them a concrete injury. This ruling will significantly narrow consumers’ ability to bring no-injury claims under similar statutes in Illinois state courts.

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, host Jason Cover is joined by colleagues Taylor Gess and Andrew Thurmond to unpack the legal and operational complexities of home solicitation and home improvement finance. The conversation analyzes the Federal Trade Commission’s Cooling-Off Rule and state analogs, highlighting practical pitfalls around oral and written cancellation notices, dealer obligations, and extended rescission periods or differing notice requirements in certain jurisdictions. The team explores how funding timing, change orders, electronic contracting, and foreign-language sales can impact risk.

Effective September 1, 2025, SB 140 significantly expanded Texas’ telephone solicitation statute. SB 140 expressly covers text messages and similar electronic communications and introduced a direct private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), with exposure to treble damages, mental‑anguish damages, and attorney’s fees. Recently, a case in the Western District of Texas brought by Ecommerce Marketers Alliance (d/b/a Ecommerce Innovation Alliance), Flux Footwear, and Stodge (d/b/a Postscript) against the State of Texas ended with a joint motion to dismiss after the Texas Attorney General clarified that companies who engage in consent‑based text message programs are not subject to the state’s registration and disclosure requirements. Still, SB 140’s new DTPA cause of action increases the cost of missteps and companies should document affirmative consent.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a new proposed rule that would substantially revise the 2023 small business lending data collection and reporting rule under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, which implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal re-centers Section 1071 on “core” providers, products, and data, with a single compliance date and material carve-outs to reduce complexity and improve data quality. The proposal is open for comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, just this week the CFPB filed a notice with the D.C. Circuit attaching a Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion which concluded that the Bureau will only be legally funded through December 31, potentially affecting rulemaking and operations timelines.