All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

Deceptive advertisements, market manipulation, misappropriation of customer funds, and “Ask Me Anything (AMA)” sessions served as the catalysts of a civil enforcement action the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed against bankrupt digital asset services provider Celsius Network LLC (Celsius) and its co-founders on July 13. This is a groundbreaking move by the FTC for two reasons. First, it marks the first time that the agency has filed suit against a digital asset-based company. Second, the FTC’s request for civil money penalties is predicated on a novel theory under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Alongside the FTC, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against ex-CEO Alexander Mashinsky, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have filed separate civil enforcement actions against Celsius.

In a long-awaited decision in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York held that Ripple Labs, Inc.’s (Ripple) XRP token is not, in and of itself, a security requiring registration. Although the decision is being regarded by many as a victory for both Ripple and the crypto industry, the nuances in the decision may result in an appeal from both sides.

On July 12, U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) reintroduced legislation, titled the Responsible Financial Innovation Act that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets. This proposed bill expands on the bill the senators introduced in 2022 by adding new consumer protections and safeguards to further strengthen the industry against fraud and bad actors, among other additions.

In the latest episode of Regulatory Oversight, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Executive Director Brian Kane joins co-host Ashley Taylor to discuss the role that NAAG plays among attorneys general. NAAG provides a community for attorneys general and their staff to collaboratively address issues important to their work, as well as training and resources to support attorneys general. From Supreme Court training to a multistate settlement database, NAAG offers a variety of resources to the attorneys general offices.

On June 29, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed SB 1033, An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Banking Statutes, into law. As discussed here, with this bill, Connecticut joins several other states that have set strict rate caps on consumer loans, including Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado, and California, and those that expressly provide for a predominant economic interest test for true lender purposes. The law will take effect on October 1, 2023.

On July 7, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB 103 into law, which prohibits any person from offering earned wage access (EWA) services without registering with the Division of Finance and paying an annual $1,000 fee. The law also requires EWA providers to develop procedures for dealing with consumer questions and complaints, specifies notices required to be given to consumers, and regulates the types of fees that may be charged and the manner in which repayments may be pursued. The law further specifies requirements should the EWA provider solicit, charge, or receive tips or gratuities from consumers. Like Nevada, discussed here, the law specifies that EWA products are not loans or money transmissions under Missouri law. In March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took the opposite position with respect to EWA products and proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would update the definition of loan to include EWA products, except for those offered by employers.

On June 14, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed into law AB 332, An Act Relating to Student Education Loans, requiring, among other things, student loan servicers to be licensed by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions and regulating certain conduct of the servicers towards borrowers. The law will take effect on January 1, 2024.

As discussed here, on October 19, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 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. In response, the CFPB filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the CFPB’s petition (discussed here).

On July 7th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Treasury (collectively, the agencies) jointly issued a Request for Information (Request) seeking public comment on medical credit cards, loans, and other financial products used to pay for health care. Specifically, the agencies are interested in information regarding whether these products contribute to health care cost inflation, displace hospital provided financial assistance, lead to inaccurate or inflated medical bills, inflate bills due to financing costs, or otherwise harm patients financially.