All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On August 28, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its eighth redlining settlement under its Combatting Redlining Initiative. The settlement between the DOJ and the American Bank of Oklahoma, which originated from a referral by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), aims to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by redlining historically Black neighborhoods in the Tulsa, Oklahoma Metropolitan Statistical Area (Tulsa MSA). Under the terms of the proposed consent order, American Bank of Oklahoma will pay more than $1.15 million to resolve the allegations that it engaged in a “pattern or practice” of redlining in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were slightly up while filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) remained unchanged for the month of July. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were down for the month.

On August 18, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) relating to an allegedly improper debt assignment notification.

Earlier this month, the California Department of Financial Regulation and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced a new rule expanding the definition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) to commercial financing. Specifically, the rule makes it unlawful “for a covered provider to engage or have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing or another financial product or service to a covered entity.” The new rule also includes annual reporting requirements (described below) for any covered provider who makes more than one commercial financing transaction to covered entities in a 12-month period or who makes five or more commercial financing transactions to covered entities in a 12-month period that are “incidental” to the business of the covered provider. Importantly, this rule does not apply to banks, credit unions, federal savings and loan associations, current licensees of the CA DFPI or licensees of other California agencies “to the extent that licensee or employee is acting under the authority of” the license.

On August 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A4284, which prohibits sellers from imposing certain surcharges for credit card transactions. Specifically, the law prohibits sellers from charging more than what they pay to process credit card transactions. The law also requires sellers to disclose and post notices of the surcharge prior to the consumer incurring the charge.

On August 11, in the case of Yuille v. Uphold HQ Inc., the Southern District of New York was tasked with determining whether the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) applies to digital asset-based accounts. The court concluded there was no “account” as defined by EFTA because the digital asset account at issue was not established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

On August 16, a coalition of seven state attorneys general (AG) announced a settlement with participants alleged to be involved in a “massive” robocall operation. The stipulated order, which names Scott Shapiro, Michael T. Smith, Jr., and Health Advisors of America (defendants), permanently bans Shapiro and Smith from initiating or facilitating robocalls; working in or with companies that make robocalls; and engaging in telemarketing. The settlement also requires the defendants to make monetary payments to the coalition, which is comprised of AGs from the states of Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas (the AGs).

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison recently announced steps the office is taking as part of its “renewed focus” on medical billing. “The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has long been concerned with medical billing and has acted for years to protect Minnesotans from abusive and deceptive practices. With recent reports in the media and from consumers that problems continue, we’re taking several steps to renew our focus on this longstanding concern.” Among these steps, is investigating the billing practices of Allina Health and its Termination of Care Policy that reportedly denied non-emergency medical care to patients who carried medical debt.