All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On October 19, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dismissed its claims against Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple) executives Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen for allegedly aiding and abetting Ripple’s violations of the Securities Act with respect to its “institutional sales” of XRP. The Southern District of New York had deemed “institutional sales” to be unregistered securities in its July summary judgment decision, however, at that time the court reserved judgment as to the aiding and abetting claims against the executives. The matter was set for trial in 2024.

The Utah court of appeals has recently affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s suit against a debt buyer based on its alleged failure to register as a collection agency prior to filing collection lawsuits. The court’s decision in Meneses v. Salander Enterprises LLC, not only holds that a violation of the Utah Collection Agency Act (UCAA) is not a deceptive or unconscionable act under state law, but also calls into question whether the UCAA ever even applied to debt buyers. As discussed here, the UCAA was repealed by the state legislature earlier this year, but cases asserting this theory of liability remain pending before state and federal courts.

On October 17, following Washington Attorney General (AG) Bob Ferguson’s unsuccessful consumer protection action against thrift store chain, Savers Value Village Inc. (Savers), the Washington Superior Court of King County granted Savers’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $4.3 million. This substantial award — which is allowable under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WA CPA) — represents a substantial recoupment of Savers’ attorneys’ fees spent to defend the almost decade-long litigation.

The Delete Act (SB 362), signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom on October 10, imposes additional disclosure and registration requirements on data brokers. It requires data brokers to support deletion requests through a central “deletion mechanism” managed by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). The law also empowers consumers to request deletion of their personal information from all registered data brokers with a single submission.

On October 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied certification of a putative class action asserting that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by allegedly misleading consumers about the accuracy and popularity of VantageScore 1.0, TransUnion’s proprietary credit scoring model. The court held that the plaintiff was an inadequate class representative due to his lack of credibility, and the asserted class claims failed both the commonality and predominance prongs of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)23.

Recently, the New Jersey appellate division held that a debt purchaser is not liable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Fraud Act) for failing to obtain a license under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJ Licensing Act). Although the decision is unpublished, it is still a welcome relief for purchasers of defaulted debt.

A new enforcement action provides more detail on the expectations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the agencies) for the content of tenant screening reports.

On October 12, in its monthly bulletin the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced that final regulations to implement the Student Loan Servicing Act and the Student Loans Borrower Rights Law have been approved and will become effective Jan. 1, 2024. Among other things, the rules clarify that all education financing products, including income share agreements (ISAs) and installment contracts, are student loans, and servicers of all such products are covered by the Student Loan Servicing Act and must be licensed.

On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion regarding § 1034(c) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which requires large banks and credit unions to comply in a timely manner with consumer requests for information concerning their accounts. This advisory opinion follows a June 2022 request for information where the CFPB asked for public input on customer service obstacles encountered when interacting with large financial institutions. According to the CFPB, this initiative is in response to large financial institutions moving away from “relationship banking.”