All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, the agencies) issued a joint statement on the subject of creditors’ use of immigration status for eligibility for credit transactions, an issue that has been kicking around in private litigation for years, but as to which the federal regulators have been silent. The joint statement warns lenders that “unnecessary or overbroad” reliance on immigration status in the credit decisioning process may violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other federal laws. According to the agencies, the joint statement was issued in response to consumers reportedly being rejected for credit cards and loans because of their immigration status, even when they have strong credit histories and are otherwise qualified to receive the loans.

The Middle District of Tennessee denied a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case, clearing the way for a lawsuit claiming that the defendant was secondarily liable under an agency theory for calls made by a third-party call service even though a principal-agent relationship was disclaimed by contract.

On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights report. This report serves as a “victory lap” for the Bureau, which highlights the relief it has obtained for consumers since the release of its March 2023 Special Fees Edition, discussed here. According to the Bureau, its supervisory efforts have led to institutions refunding over $140 million to consumers, including $120 million in overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees.

The Connecticut Banking Commissioner (Commissioner), acting through the Consumer Credit Division of the Department of Banking (the Division), conducted an investigation into the Law Offices of David M. Katz, discovering that in 2018 and 2019 the firm had engaged in in unlicensed collection activity involving about 10,000 Connecticut accounts with a total balance of $1.4…

In Moore v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corp., Inc., the plaintiff initiated litigation in state court alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the defendant’s use of a letter vendor to send the plaintiff a demand. After removal, the U.S. district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that the plaintiff failed to allege a harm sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to the original Pennsylvania state court.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a district court’s reading of an exception into §1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that would allow a furnisher discretion to refuse to investigate an indirect dispute it deems frivolous or irrelevant. Instead, the Third Circuit held that a furnisher must investigate even frivolous indirect disputes — disputes submitted by a consumer first to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that are then transmitted by the CRA to the furnisher. A copy of the decision can be found here.

On October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), a case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause because the CFPB does not receive its funding from annual congressional appropriations like most executive agencies, but instead, receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve based on a request by the CFPB’s director. If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the future of the Bureau as well as its rulemaking and enforcement actions would be in question.

As discussed here, on September 21 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an outline of its plans for rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The outline was supplied for initial comment to a panel of small business representatives convened under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).