All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On December 13, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law S4907A, which prohibits hospitals, medical providers, or ambulance services from providing negative information about medical debt to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The law also requires that these entities include a provision in their contracts with collection agencies prohibiting the reporting of any portion of a medical debt to a CRA. Any debt that is reported to a CRA will be deemed void. The law became effective immediately after it was signed.

On December 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published the long-awaited regulation specific to motor vehicle dealers to address concerns of consumer deception in the sales process (Final Rule). We covered the proposed rule, introduced in June 2022, in a blog post here and podcast here. In a 3-0 vote, the FTC approved the issuance of the Final Rule, which will be published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.

On December 4, a federal district court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) finding that regulations adopted last year under California’s Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL) do not violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and are not preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Under the CFDL, providers are required to give certain disclosures similar to consumer transactions, such as the amount of funding the small business will receive, the APR, a payment amount (if applicable), the term, details related to prepayment policies, and (for products without a monthly payment) an average monthly cost.

Yesterday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued guidance to banks on managing the risks associated with “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) lending. Specifically, the bulletin addresses BNPL loans that are payable in four or fewer installments and carry no finance charges. The stated aim of the OCC’s guidance is to ensure that these loans are offered in a manner that is safe, sound, and compliant with applicable laws and regulations.

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.”