Payment Processing + Cards

Subscribe to Payment Processing + Cards via RSS

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.

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 12, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced the finalization of its rule addressing overdraft fees. The rule targets financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, imposing new restrictions and requirements on how these institutions manage and charge for overdraft services. However, with the upcoming change in administration, questions remain as to whether the final rule will ever take effect.

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 6, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced an order asserting supervisory authority over Google Payment Corp. (GPC), a subsidiary of Google LLC. This decision was based on alleged “risks to consumers” associated with GPC’s retired peer-to-peer (P2P) payment product. The CFPB’s order, however, does not assert that GPC violated any laws or engaged in wrongdoing. Instead, it relies on a relatively small number of unverified consumer complaints to justify future examinations, even though GPC stopped offering the product.

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.

Late last year, we discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) proposed rule aimed at supervising larger technology companies offering digital wallets and payment apps. On November 21, the CFPB finalized this rule, which will bring significant changes to the oversight of nonbank digital payment companies. This final rule is set to take effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

On November 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a significant consent order against Global Tel Link Corporation (GTL), a company that provides communication and financial services to correctional facilities. The CFPB found that GTL, along with its subsidiaries Telmate, LLC and TouchPay Holdings, LLC, engaged in illegal practices that adversely affected incarcerated individuals and their friends and families.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule on personal financial data rights, purportedly aimed at enhancing consumer control over their financial data and promoting competition in the financial services industry. According to the Bureau’s press release, “[t]he rule requires financial institutions, credit card issuers, and other financial providers to unlock an individual’s personal financial data and transfer it to another provider at the consumer’s request for free… help[ing] lower prices on loans and improve customer service across payments, credit, and banking markets.” Later that same day, a complaint was filed challenging the Bureau’s authority.

On October 2, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in support of several banking associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA). The IFPA, signed into law in June 2024, prohibits credit or debit card issuers and any other entities involved in processing electronic payments from charging an interchange fee on the tax or gratuity portions of a transaction. Additionally, the Act, which is set to take effect in July 2025, restricts banks and other entities from using transaction data for purposes other than processing the transaction, except as required by law. Several banking associations quickly challenged the Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent its implementation. They argue that the IFPA is preempted by federal law, unconstitutional, and invalid.