Fair Lending

Subscribe to Fair Lending

This summer, Representative Roger Williams (R-Texas) and Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introduced identical Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in the U.S. House and Senate (H.J. Res. 66 and S. J. Res. 32, respectively) disapproving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). Currently, the Senate resolution has not moved beyond introduction, but the House Financial Services Committee recently approved the House resolution to advance. If the resolutions are adopted by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the Final Rule would be overturned. While that outcome appears unlikely under the current Democratic administration, letters submitted to Congress by banking and credit union trade groups supporting the joint resolution do appear to confirm the nearly unanimous industry opposition to the Final Rule.

When using artificial intelligence (AI) or complex credit models, can lenders rely on the checklist of reasons provided in Regulation B sample forms for adverse action notices? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is, in many circumstances, no.

On September 14, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Kentucky became the second court to issue an order granting, in part, a plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) from enforcing its final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) against the plaintiffs and their members. (A discussion of the first injunction issued by a Texas federal court can be found here.) The injunction in The Monticello Banking Company v. CFPB will dissolve if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit in the Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB case, which found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and, therefore, rules promulgated by the Bureau invalid.

On September 8, a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and several other trade associations, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) “March 2022 manual update is beyond the agency’s constitutional authority based on an Appropriations Clause violation…

On August 18, the American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, CRE Finance Council, Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (collectively “the Trades”) sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) for all covered financial institutions to correct the current disparity between those institutions covered by the Texas Bankers Association et al v. CFPB injunction and those that are not covered.

On August 28, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its eighth redlining settlement under its Combatting Redlining Initiative. The settlement between the DOJ and the American Bank of Oklahoma, which originated from a referral by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), aims to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by redlining historically Black neighborhoods in the Tulsa, Oklahoma Metropolitan Statistical Area (Tulsa MSA). Under the terms of the proposed consent order, American Bank of Oklahoma will pay more than $1.15 million to resolve the allegations that it engaged in a “pattern or practice” of redlining in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Earlier this month, the California Department of Financial Regulation and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced a new rule expanding the definition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) to commercial financing. Specifically, the rule makes it unlawful “for a covered provider to engage or have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing or another financial product or service to a covered entity.” The new rule also includes annual reporting requirements (described below) for any covered provider who makes more than one commercial financing transaction to covered entities in a 12-month period or who makes five or more commercial financing transactions to covered entities in a 12-month period that are “incidental” to the business of the covered provider. Importantly, this rule does not apply to banks, credit unions, federal savings and loan associations, current licensees of the CA DFPI or licensees of other California agencies “to the extent that licensee or employee is acting under the authority of” the license.

On August 10, two credit union trade associations — Credit Union National Association (CUNA) and Cornerstone Credit Union League — and Rally Credit Union (collectively, Proposed Intervenors) filed an Unopposed Emergency Motion for Leave to Intervene, arguing that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is not enjoined from enforcing the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) against them. This filing comes just three days after CUNA and the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) sent a joint letter to the CFPB urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the Final Rule for all covered financial institutions until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v. CFPB (discussed here).

On August 8, bankers associations from all 50 states sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) for all covered financial institutions until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v. CFPB. The banking trade groups argued that relief should be provided to banks nationwide to “be prudent and ameliorate confusion.”

On August 7, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) and the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) for all covered financial institutions until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB.