On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of federal claims brought by a mortgagee against Trinity Financial Services, LLC (Trinity) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). While the appellate court agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing, its holding was rooted in different grounds, namely that the plaintiff’s injuries were not traceable to any independent FDCPA violation.

On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

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 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.

On December 10, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) issued a letter to all federally insured credit unions, highlighting the risks associated with certain overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee practices. The letter emphasizes the potential harm to consumers and the heightened risks to credit unions, including reputational, consumer compliance, third-party, and litigation risks, resulting

On December 3, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued version 1.1 of the “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, also known as the UDAAP booklet. The UDAAP booklet was last updated in June 2020.

Yesterday, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and state financial regulators issued a joint statement to provide covered financial institutions with strategies and examples of effective risk management and other practices to identify, prevent, and respond to elder financial exploitation. The agencies emphasized that the joint statement does not establish new supervisory expectations or impose new regulatory requirements.

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.