On June 1, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, holding that the plaintiff’s claims that he received a single ringless voicemail (RVM) for commercial purposes satisfy the demands of Article III because his alleged injury under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitutes a concrete harm.

In Dickson, the plaintiff alleged that Direct Energy delivered multiple RVMs to his cellular phone advertising its services. RVM technology allows a party to deposit voicemails directly into a recipient’s voicemail box, without having to place a traditional call to the recipient’s wireless phone. During discovery, an expert witness concluded that of the multiple RVMs the plaintiff received, only one originated from Direct Energy. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s receipt of a single RVM did not constitute concrete harm sufficient for Article III standing because: (1) the plaintiff could not recall what he was doing at the time he received the RVM, (2) the plaintiff was not charged for the RVM, (3) the RVM did not tie up the plaintiff’s phone line, and (4) the plaintiff spent a small amount of time reviewing the RVM.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has signaled that it intends to propose a rule that would allow it to exercise supervisory authority over a greater number of nonbank financial companies that participate in the consumer payments market.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), the CFPB has authority

As recently discussed on our podcast here, section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require lenders to collect information about small business credit applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data concerning the principal owners, lending decisions, and the price of credit. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its massive, highly technical, and complicated Final Rule on March 30, 2023. In this second in a multi-post blog series (the first post is available here), we will take a closer look at the data collection and reporting requirements of the Final Rule.

On June 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the agencies) issued proposed guidance to financial institutions on how to incorporate reconsiderations of value (ROV) for

On June 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it had entered a consent order against medical debt collector Phoenix Financial Services for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the CFPB, Phoenix sent collection letters to consumers who had disputed the

On June 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a request for information (RFI) to gain additional insight into how it can optimize joint enforcement with state attorneys general (state AGs) to protect consumers from fraud. The announcement signals a growing trend of cooperation between the FTC and state AGs, which we have also seen between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the state regulators.

In Wood v. Omni Financial of Nevada, Inc., the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA). Specifically, the plaintiffs, two active duty service members who had entered into multiple installment loans with the defendant, alleged that the defendant violated the MLA by unlawfully: 1) extending loans with

As discussed here, in April 2023, Colorado introduced HB 1229 that proposed to limit certain charges on consumer loans and simultaneously opt Colorado out of sections 521-523 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA empower state banks, insured state and federal savings associations and state credit unions to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting state law (i.e., “export” their home state’s interest-rate authority). However, section 525 of DIDMCA gives states the authority to opt out of sections 521-523. Indeed, Colorado initially opted out of DIDMCA when it was enacted, but later repealed its opt-out. This week HB 1229 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis joining Colorado with Iowa and Puerto Rico as the only jurisdictions currently opting out.

New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has proposed landmark legislation entitled the Crypto Regulation, Protection, Transparency, and Oversight Act (CRPTO Act) in an attempt to tighten New York’s regulations on the cryptocurrency industry. The CRPTO Act aims to stop conflicts of interest, require public reporting of financial statements, and bolster investor protections. The Attorney General