Featured Posts

Subscribe to Featured Posts via RSS

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has proposed an unprecedented, far‑reaching rewrite of Regulation B (Reg B) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). If finalized, the proposed rule would eliminate disparate‑impact liability under ECOA, significantly narrow the scope of “discouragement” to focus on explicit statements directed at applicants or prospective applicants, and prohibit or tightly restrict the use of certain protected‑class criteria in Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs) offered by for‑profit organizations. Existing SPCP‑originated credit would be grandfathered.

Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a proposed effective date 90 days after publication.

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Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a new interpretive rule replacing its 2022 interpretive rule (withdrawn in May 2025) concerning the scope of preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).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.

Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.

On October 10, California Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 483 (AB 483) into law, introducing new regulations on early termination fees in fixed term installment contracts. This legislation applies to contracts entered into or modified on or after August 1, 2026, and prohibits the use of termination fees unless specific conditions are met.

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Empower Finance’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit concerning its earned wage access (EWA) product, Cash Advance. In Vickery v. Empower Finance, Inc., the court found that Empower’s Cash Advance product was “credit” under the Military Lending Act (MLA) making Empower’s arbitration agreement unenforceable under the MLA, which prohibits arbitration agreements for consumer credit extended to active-duty service members and their dependents.