Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) proposed a new rule aimed at banning certain contractual provisions in agreements for consumer financial products or services. The CFPB’s proposal targets certain terms and conditions sometimes found in so-called contracts of adhesion or standard-form contracts, including waivers of legal rights and protections, contract terms that limit free expression, and other terms that the CFPB believes undermine consumers’ rights and protections. The proposed rule also seeks to codify certain prohibitions under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Credit Practices Rule.

In a significant development in the ongoing litigation over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Final Rule on credit card late fees, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the CFPB’s motions to dismiss the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, transfer the case to the District of Columbia, and dissolve the preliminary injunction. This ruling follows the court’s earlier request for further briefing on the issue of associational standing, as discussed in our prior blog post, here.

In the last two weeks, several amicus briefs were filed in the Tenth Circuit in the ongoing litigation concerning Colorado’s opt-out from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Troutman Pepper submitted a brief on behalf of all 50 state bankers associations (state bankers), plus Washington, D.C., supporting the district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its overly broad and unlawful interpretation of DIDMCA’s opt-out. The Republican attorneys general from a dozen states, including Texas, Utah, Georgia, and Ohio also filed an amicus brief in support of the industry plaintiffs-appellees. This litigation centers on the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 against state-chartered banks located outside of Colorado who make loans to Colorado borrowers.