Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Subscribe to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) via RSS

On June 6, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking public input on the uses, opportunities, and risks presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the financial sector. Notably, the Treasury’s RFI comes three years after the issuance of a similar RFI by the federal banking agencies (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and National Credit Union Administration on financial institutions’ use of AI, discussed here.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced it has finalized a rule outlining the qualifications to become a recognized industry Standard Setter body (Standard Setter Rule). These bodies will be instrumental in issuing standards that assist companies in complying with the forthcoming Personal Financial Data Rights Rule under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (Section 1033 Rule). The Standard Setter Rule outlines the attributes that these bodies must exhibit to gain recognition from the CFPB. It also provides a comprehensive guide detailing the application process for recognition and the CFPB’s evaluation methodology.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.

On May 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a request for information (Request) regarding alleged “junk fees” in closing costs charged by mortgage lenders and related settlement service providers. The Bureau is accepting public comments until August 2, 2024.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of April. Only court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were slightly down. Still, year-to-date everything is up by double digits compared to 2023.

Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a complaint against SoLo Funds, Inc., a fintech company operating a small-dollar, short-term lending platform. The CFPB alleges that SoLo Funds engaged in deceptive practices related to the total cost of loans, servicing, and collection of void and uncollectible loans in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and engaged in providing consumer reports governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) but failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of those consumer reports.

As discussed here, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. Wasting no time, today the CFPB filed notices of the CFSA decision in cases nationwide, including in the case where several trade associations are challenging the CFPB’s final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Final Rule), Texas Bankers Association, et al. v. CFPB.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. The 7-2 majority held the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides the CFPB’s funding structure, satisfies the appropriations clause because it “authorizes the Bureau to draw public funds from a particular source — ‘the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System’ — in an amount not exceeding an inflation-adjusted cap. And it specifies the objects for which the Bureau can use those funds — to ‘pay the expenses of the Bureau in carrying out its duties and responsibilities.’” The Supreme Court further found that the “Bureau’s funding mechanism [] fits comfortably within the historical appropriations practice …” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision.