According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of April saw a significant reduction from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as a reduction in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

On May 18, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed into law the Commerce Omnibus Bill, which, among other things, amends Minnesota Statute §§ 47.60 and 47.601 to cap the annual percentage rates (APR) on consumer small loans and consumer short-term loans at a 50% all-in APR, and expressly provides for predominant economic interest and totality

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 proposed rule in 2021, and after considering the over 2,500 comments it received, on March 30, 2023, the CFPB issued the massive, highly technical, and complicated Final Rule. The Final Rule and its accompanying discussion and analysis, as well as the Official Commentary totals 888 pages exclusive of the 123-page Filing Instruction Guide and numerous other documents released by the Bureau. In this first in a multi-post blog series, we will provide a high-level overview of the Final Rule.

A district court in the Western District of Washington held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not require a consumer reporting agency (CRA), as part of its investigative duties, to issue an opinion on the legal validity of a consumer’s debt. Through its holding, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and

In Bemero v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss in a Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case where the Model Validation Notice (MVN) was undated, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not allege a concrete injury.

The defendant

In Casillas v. Thunderbird Collections Specialists Incorporated, et al., the plaintiff sustained a work-related injury requiring medical treatment for which a worker’s compensation claim was filed. Under state law, an injured worker who receives a workers’ compensation award is not legally responsible for medical bills covered by the award. Unaware of this law, a

Colorado just became the latest state to recognize that a borrower’s bankruptcy discharge does not accelerate secured installment debt or trigger the final statute of limitations period to recover the debt.

On April 24, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision, available here. The state supreme court reviewed the court of appeals’

On April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, which expands the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. HB 1051 will become law once it is signed by Governor Inslee.

HB

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case where a bank promptly corrected inaccurate mortgage payment information furnished to three national consumer reporting agencies (CRAs).

In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted FCRA claims against the bank holding

On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas declined to increase or treble the plaintiff’s $8,500 jury trial damages awarded under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after failing to find that the defendant acted willfully or knowingly under TCPA § 227(c)(5)(B). Indeed, the judge cut the award to $6,500.