The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it threatened legal action to collect debts that were still within the applicable statute of limitations.
Yesterday, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and state financial regulators issued a joint statement to provide covered financial institutions with strategies and examples of effective risk management and other practices to identify, prevent, and respond to elder financial exploitation. The agencies emphasized that the joint statement does not establish new supervisory expectations or impose new regulatory requirements.
The New Mexico Supreme Court recently confirmed consumer standing to pursue state law claims against a credit union after it pursued debt collection lawsuits against its members in the New Mexico magistrate courts. Several members filed a class action lawsuit against the credit union for the unauthorized practice of law and under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), but the trial court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under both the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law and the UPA.
Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of a maritime attachment order, providing a detailed analysis of the requirements for personal and in rem jurisdiction over attached property under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule on personal financial data rights, purportedly aimed at enhancing consumer control over their financial data and promoting competition in the financial services industry. According to the Bureau’s press release, “[t]he rule requires financial institutions, credit card issuers, and other financial providers to unlock an individual’s personal financial data and transfer it to another provider at the consumer’s request for free… help[ing] lower prices on loans and improve customer service across payments, credit, and banking markets.” Later that same day, a complaint was filed challenging the Bureau’s authority.
Yesterday, we discussed the constitutional legal challenge against New York City’s recently amended debt collection rules, which were scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2024. These rules would stringently regulate various debt collection activities by debt collectors operating in the city. Today, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) announced a delay in the enforcement of these new rules until April 1, 2025.
New York City’s recently amended debt collection rules — scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2024 and which would stringently regulate various debt collection activities by debt collectors operating in the city — have drawn a constitutional legal challenge. Whether this challenge will affect the effective date is yet to be seen. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of the rules amending Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York, which they argue are unconstitutional and preempted by federal and state law.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated summary judgment for the defense on various claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the plaintiff lacked subject matter jurisdiction from the outset.
On October 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that they reached a settlement with Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation (Fairway). This settlement addresses allegations of redlining in majority-Black neighborhoods in Birmingham, Alabama. Fairway is headquartered in Madison, WI, but operates under the trade name MortgageBanc in the Birmingham area. Fairway, the third-largest mortgage lender in the United States, is now the second non-bank mortgage company to enter into a redlining settlement.