All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

In March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would update the definition of loan to include what it dubs as “income-based advances” also known as earned wage access (EWA) products, except for those offered by employers. After considering written comments to the proposed regulations, on November 6, the DFPI issued modifications to the proposed regulations and announced comments on the modifications would be accepted until November 27. Under the modifications, direct-to-consumer (i.e., non-employer offered) EWA products would still be defined as loans.

On November 20, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted a civil enforcement action against Kraken, a major U.S. cryptocurrency exchange. The SEC alleged Kraken operated as an unregistered broker, dealer, exchange, and clearing agency, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC’s lawsuit aims to prohibit Kraken from continuing these activities and seeks an unspecific amount of civil monetary penalties.

A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California recently held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment must clearly state that attorneys’ fees and costs are limited or waived, as Arvest Central Mortgage Company (Arvest) learned to its detriment. The plaintiff had a mortgage with Arvest, entered into a forbearance agreement, and made the payments on the property, but claimed Arvest inaccurately reported that he was late on his October 2020 payment. The plaintiff sued Arvest and nine other defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, ultimately resolving his claims against all defendants except Arvest.

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was tasked with determining whether the alleged extracting and retaining of consumer data and tracking of customers using an online payment platform exposes defendants to personal jurisdiction in the state where an online purchase was made. The court concluded it does not. “When a company operates a nationally available e-commerce payment platform and is indifferent to the location of end-users, the extraction and retention of consumer data, without more, does not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum where the online purchase was made.”

On November 20, a judge for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class-action holding that a simple lack of a date on a model validation notice did not amount to a violation of the statute because it was not confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.

On November 20, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued an invitation for comments on proposed application-related rulemaking under the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL). This move comes after Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 39 and Senate Bill 401, which together create the DFAL. The DFAL and Senate Bill 401, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2023, are set to regulate virtual currency activities within California, effective July 1, 2025.

On November 30, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced proposed regulations that would require businesses to clearly disclose the total price of a product at the time it is presented to consumers, provide clear and accessible information on whether fees are optional or required, and simplify the process for cancelling trial offers and recurring charges. The proposed regulations are issued pursuant to the Attorney General’s rule-making power under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The stated purpose of the proposed regulations is to close gaps within the state’s consumer protection laws and to combat unfair and deceptive business practices related to fees charged across various industries.

As discussed here, this summer, Representative Roger Williams (R-Texas) and Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introduced identical Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in the U.S. House and Senate (H.J. Res. 66 and S. J. Res. 32, respectively) disapproving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a rule promulgated by an administrative agency “shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.” On October 18, by a bipartisan vote of 53-44, the Senate approved its resolution. On November 29, the House likewise passed a resolution of disapproval by a vote of 221-202.