Credit Reporting + Data Brokers

Subscribe to Credit Reporting + Data Brokers via RSS

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (NYC DCWP) has adopted a comprehensive set of amendments to its debt collection rules, effective September 1, 2026. The final rule clarifies that New York City’s consumer protection framework applies not only to traditional third‑party debt collectors and debt buyers, but also to original creditors once they engage in defined “debt collection procedures.” It also tightens limits on collection communications, expands validation and verification obligations, and adds targeted protections for medical and time‑barred debt. NYC DCWP will withdraw its prior August 2024 Notice of Adoption and treat this new rule as the governing framework going forward.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Freedom Mortgage Corporation, rejecting Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims brought by borrowers who insisted they had made their mortgage payments on time. The court held that the servicer accurately reported a 30‑day late payment and conducted a reasonable investigation in response to the borrowers’ disputes forwarded to it by the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The opinion reinforces two important principles: first, a payment can be accurately reported as late when it is not properly identifiable or conforming to the servicer’s payment instructions, and second, a furnisher’s investigative obligations are defined and limited by the information it receives from the CRAs.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Kim Phan is joined by Michael Yaghi, partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement practice group, to unpack the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) latest effort to require registration for the credit reporting industry. They discuss DFPI’s second request for comment, how it fits into California’s broader push to regulate nonbank financial services, and which entities may be swept in beyond the “big three” consumer reporting agencies — such as furnishers, data brokers, specialty credit reporting agencies, resellers, and fintechs. Kim and Michael also explore how narrowly (or broadly) the rules might be drawn, potential overlap and tension with existing FCRA requirements, what registration and reporting could mean in practice for covered entities, and what companies should be doing now as the February 26 comment deadline approaches.

On January 12, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a second invitation for comments on potential regulations under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) that would require registration and reporting by firms engaged in consumer reporting and related data activities. Comments are due by February 26.

On October 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a new interpretive rule replacing its 2022 interpretive rule (withdrawn in May 2025) concerning the scope of preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This new interpretive rule clarifies that the FCRA broadly preempts state laws related to consumer reporting, reinforcing Congress’s intent to establish national standards when information is used to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment and the like. This move replaces the previous rule, which was criticized for its potential to create regulatory confusion.

On September 5, President Trump signed into law the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (HPPA) (H.R. 2808). This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Representatives John Rose (R-TN) and Ritchie Torres (D-NY), aims to safeguard homebuyers’ personal financial information.

On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.

On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.

On June 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released an update to its 2015 report on Americans who did not have a credit record (credit invisibles) or who had insufficient credit history to have a credit score (“stale unscored” and “insufficient unscored”). The CFPB provided this update, driven by methodological corrections and enhanced data sources, in an effort to offer a more accurate depiction of the number of Americans with limited credit histories and highlight significant changes over the past decade.