All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026. The filing attaches a November 7 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Acting Director Vought concluding that the CFPB’s statutory funding stream — quarterly transfers from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) — is unavailable while the Federal Reserve operates at a loss. The Bureau expects to continue operating, including in compliance with an existing district court injunction, through at least December 31, 2025, but absent congressional action may face a funding lapse thereafter, which would trigger Antideficiency Act constraints.

On November 10, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to Colorado’s H.B. 23‑1229, holding that Colorado may enforce its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest‑rate caps for loans to Colorado borrowers even when originated by out‑of‑state, state‑chartered banks. Interpreting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) § 525’s opt‑out phrase “loans made in such State,” the court concluded it encompasses loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt‑out state. Because Colorado has opted out, § 1831d no longer preempts Colorado rate caps for loans from out‑of‑state state banks to Colorado residents, and the preliminary injunction “falls apart.”

On October 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its rule requiring nonbank entities to register certain agency and court orders with the Bureau. This decision follows a proposal made earlier this year (discussed here), which highlighted concerns about the regulatory burden and costs imposed on nonbank entities, which could ultimately affect consumers.

On October 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a new interpretive rule replacing its 2022 interpretive rule (withdrawn in May 2025) concerning the scope of preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This new interpretive rule clarifies that the FCRA broadly preempts state laws related to consumer reporting, reinforcing Congress’s intent to establish national standards when information is used to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment and the like. This move replaces the previous rule, which was criticized for its potential to create regulatory confusion.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rose by double digits while litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) trended slightly down.  Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) saw a modest increase.

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against First National Collection Bureau, Inc. (FNCB). In an unpublished opinion, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision clarifies the scope of third-party communications under the FDCPA, particularly in the context of using third-party vendors for mailing collection letters.

On October 15, the California Hospital Association (CHA) filed a petition against the California Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) and related entities. The petition challenges the imposition of stringent cost targets on hospitals across California, arguing that these targets are arbitrary, capricious, and not based on comprehensive data analysis. CHA contends that the cost targets violate both state and federal laws, including the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, by being confiscatory and lacking a clear methodology for compliance. Furthermore, the petition asserts that OHCA’s actions were prematurely implemented without adequate stakeholder engagement, potentially leading to significant operational disruptions and threatening the quality and accessibility of health care services.