This article was republished on insideARM on February 6, 2024.
On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Smith v. Spizzirri, which presents the question of whether § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to issue a stay pending arbitration or allows courts the discretion to dismiss the suit when all claims are subject to arbitration.
On January 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to amend exemptions to Regulation Z so the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)/Regulation Z would apply to certain overdraft “credit” provided by insured financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, in furtherance of the Bureau’s crusade on “junk fees.” At a highlevel, the CFPB’s proposed rule would provide covered financial institutions with two options for offering overdraft “credit”: (1) a “courtesy” overdraft service with “breakeven” fees exempt from TILA/Regulation Z; or (2) a “covered overdraft credit” line/loan in connection with debit card or routing/account number transactions with “above breakeven” fees subject to TILA/Reg. Z. Under the proposal, an institution subject to the rule would have to provide full TILA disclosures and comply with other substantive TILA requirements for overdraft fees if they exceed costs or a low CFPB safe harbor amount.
Late last month, the Revenue Based Finance Coalition (RBFC), a trade group of sales-based financing providers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). As discussed here, § 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to impose significant data collection and reporting requirements on small business creditors. Specifically, RBFC objects to the CFPB’s characterization of sales-based financing as a form of credit subject to the Final Rule’s collection and reporting requirements.
On January 9, SB 1146, entitled the Earned Wage Access Services Act, was introduced into the Florida Senate. The bill would require earned wage access (EWA) providers to register with the Florida Financial Services Commission. The bill also requires EWA providers to develop procedures for dealing with consumer questions and complaints, requires consumer notifications, and requires providers to offer at least one reasonable option for consumers to get EWA proceeds at no cost. Like Nevada, discussed here, the law specifies that EWA products are not loans (including not being subject to the Consumer Finance Act), nor is such activity considered money transmission under Florida law. SB 1146 has been referred to the banking and insurance committee for consideration. If passed, the law would take effect on October 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:
Cryptocurrency, with its anonymity and decentralization, has revolutionized financial transactions. However, it has also opened doors for illicit activities, such as terrorist financing. Below we explore the role of cryptocurrency in terrorist financing, focusing on Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
On January 10, HB 254, entitled the True Lender Act, was introduced before the Maryland House of Delegates. The Act would amend the Maryland Commercial Law to add an article containing both predominant economic interest and totality of the circumstance tests to determine the “true lender” of a loan. A hearing on HB 254 is scheduled on January 23.
On January 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued two “advisory opinions” addressing the CFPB’s views of the obligations of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The advisory opinions are interpretive rules issued under the Bureau’s authority to interpret the FCRA pursuant to § 1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
In a change of course, the Utah court of appeals has reversed the dismissal of a plaintiffs’ suit against a debt collector based on its alleged failure to register as a collection agency prior to filing collection suits. While the Utah Collection Agency Act (UCAA) was repealed by the Utah legislature last year, discussed here, cases asserting this theory of liability remain pending before state and federal courts in the state. Late last year, in Meneses v. Salander Enterprises LLC, discussed here, the court of appeals held that a violation of the UCAA was not a deceptive or unconscionable act. The court distinguished this case from Meneses by finding that the defendant made affirmative representations in the lawsuits at issue that precluded dismissal at this stage.