All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

In this special crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, host Jason Cover is joined by colleagues Taylor Gess and Andrew Thurmond to unpack the legal and operational complexities of home solicitation and home improvement finance. The conversation analyzes the Federal Trade Commission’s Cooling-Off Rule and state analogs, highlighting practical pitfalls around oral and written cancellation notices, dealer obligations, and extended rescission periods or differing notice requirements in certain jurisdictions. The team explores how funding timing, change orders, electronic contracting, and foreign-language sales can impact risk.

Effective September 1, 2025, SB 140 significantly expanded Texas’ telephone solicitation statute. SB 140 expressly covers text messages and similar electronic communications and introduced a direct private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), with exposure to treble damages, mental‑anguish damages, and attorney’s fees. Recently, a case in the Western District of Texas brought by Ecommerce Marketers Alliance (d/b/a Ecommerce Innovation Alliance), Flux Footwear, and Stodge (d/b/a Postscript) against the State of Texas ended with a joint motion to dismiss after the Texas Attorney General clarified that companies who engage in consent‑based text message programs are not subject to the state’s registration and disclosure requirements. Still, SB 140’s new DTPA cause of action increases the cost of missteps and companies should document affirmative consent.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a new proposed rule that would substantially revise the 2023 small business lending data collection and reporting rule under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, which implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal re-centers Section 1071 on “core” providers, products, and data, with a single compliance date and material carve-outs to reduce complexity and improve data quality. The proposal is open for comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, just this week the CFPB filed a notice with the D.C. Circuit attaching a Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion which concluded that the Bureau will only be legally funded through December 31, potentially affecting rulemaking and operations timelines.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026. The filing attaches a November 7 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Acting Director Vought concluding that the CFPB’s statutory funding stream — quarterly transfers from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) — is unavailable while the Federal Reserve operates at a loss. The Bureau expects to continue operating, including in compliance with an existing district court injunction, through at least December 31, 2025, but absent congressional action may face a funding lapse thereafter, which would trigger Antideficiency Act constraints.

On November 10, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to Colorado’s H.B. 23‑1229, holding that Colorado may enforce its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest‑rate caps for loans to Colorado borrowers even when originated by out‑of‑state, state‑chartered banks. Interpreting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) § 525’s opt‑out phrase “loans made in such State,” the court concluded it encompasses loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt‑out state. Because Colorado has opted out, § 1831d no longer preempts Colorado rate caps for loans from out‑of‑state state banks to Colorado residents, and the preliminary injunction “falls apart.”

On October 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its rule requiring nonbank entities to register certain agency and court orders with the Bureau. This decision follows a proposal made earlier this year (discussed here), which highlighted concerns about the regulatory burden and costs imposed on nonbank entities, which could ultimately affect consumers.