On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling addressing the obligations of furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information, whether the disputed information be legal or factual in nature. The issue of whether the distinction between “legal” and “factual” disputes is relevant under the FCRA has been hotly contested in recent years. The Fourth Circuit’s new decision follows in the footsteps of the Eleventh and Second Circuits by replacing a “legal vs. factual” test with a “readily and objectively verifiable” test.

On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Blackrock Services, Inc. and its associated entities and individuals. The court order aims to halt the defendants’ alleged deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.

This article was republished in insideARM on February 12, 2025.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) requested and was granted a 90-day stay in the litigation involving trade associations Cornerstone Credit Union League (Cornerstone) and the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA). This case, which challenges the CFPB’s Final Rule on the prohibition of medical debt information in consumer reports, has been temporarily halted as the Bureau undergoes significant leadership changes.

On January 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its updated list of consumer reporting companies for 2025. The list includes nationwide consumer reporting companies as well as several other companies that focus on specific market areas, consumer segments, and types of users. According to the CFPB, consumers can use the list to know about the kinds of personal financial information that is collected for credit and other consumer reports, request their consumer reporting data, dispute inaccuracies, and block access to their credit reporting data through security freezes. 

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing a summary judgment order in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant debt collector knew or should have known that the plaintiff disputed the debt, and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in reporting the debt.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, focusing on the use of advanced technologies in credit scoring models. This edition of Supervisory Highlights concerns select examinations of institutions that use credit scoring models, including models built with advanced technology commonly marketed as AI/ML technology, when making credit decisions. The report repeated the CFPB’s previous statements that there is “no ‘advanced technology’ exception” to federal consumer protection laws (which, to our knowledge, no industry participant has suggested to exist) and asserted that financial institutions will need to improve their practices to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. This includes actively searching for less discriminatory alternatives, critically evaluating the use of alternative data, and rigorously testing and validating adverse action reasons.

As discussed here, yesterday the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized a rule aimed at removing an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the consumer reports of approximately 15 million Americans. This rule amends Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), to eliminate the exception that previously allowed lenders to use certain medical information in making lending decisions. The rule also prohibits consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from including medical debt information on consumer reports and credit scores sent to lenders. We anticipated that legal challenges would follow, asserting that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Recently, the Eastern District of Kentucky denied a motion to dismiss under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after finding the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that credit reports were pulled without a permissible purpose.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 9, 2025.

On January 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its rule aimed at removing an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the consumer reports of approximately 15 million Americans. Specifically, the Bureau’s rulemaking as finalized removes an existing exception in Regulation V that permitted lenders to obtain and use information on medical debts. The final rule is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. However, the upcoming change in administration may very well impact its implementation.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 2, 2025.

This week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its semiannual regulatory agenda, outlining its planned rulemaking initiatives. This agenda includes a mix of rules in the pre-rulemaking, proposed rule, and final rule stages, covering a wide range of topics from medical debt reporting to financial data transparency. The CFPB releases regulatory agendas twice a year in voluntary conjunction with a broader initiative led by the Office of Budget and Management to publish a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory actions across the federal government.