On March 20, the Arkansas governor signed into law Arkansas Act 347, known as the Earned Wage Access Services Act. Sponsored by Representative David Ray (R) and Senator Ben Gilmore (R), this legislation aims to regulate earned wage access (EWA) providers. Notably, “providers” is defined to include a person engaged in the business of offering earned wage access, but not an employer that advances a portion of earned wages directly to employees or independent contractors.
Last month, we discussed the motion filed by the National Consumers League and four small business owners to intervene in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited. v. FCC. This motion aimed to challenge the Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule. Last week, the District of Columbia, along with 27 states, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc.
On March 18, President Donald Trump dismissed the two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The removal of Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter has sparked significant controversy and legal challenges.
The Utah Legislature has passed H.B. 279, known as the Earned Wage Access Services Act. Sponsored by Representative A. Cory Maloy (R) and Senator Chris H. Wilson (R), this legislation aims to regulate earned wage access (EWA) providers. Notably, “providers” is defined to include a person engaged in the business of offering earned wage access, but not an employer that advances a portion of earned wages directly to employees or independent contractors. If signed by the Governor, the Act will take effect on May 7, 2025.
On March 7, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the President’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. The petitioners argue that this standard is unreasonably burdensome and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen.
On March 10, Christopher Mufarrige, the newly-appointed Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), published a blog explaining the significance of Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) for businesses and the ramifications for failing to respond. The Director warns that “[i]f your business receives such a demand for information, we expect you to respond in a reasonable and timely manner or face legal consequences.” The blog also provides the following primer about CIDs:
In a significant development in the credit card late fee rule litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a status report indicating that it is actively working towards a resolution. This update follows last month’s court’s order, which required the CFPB to explain its plans for proceeding with the case.
On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a significant update regarding the involvement of national banks and federal savings associations in cryptocurrency activities. Interpretive Letter 1183 reaffirms the permissibility of various crypto-asset activities and aims to streamline the regulatory process for banks engaging in these activities.
On February 27, Texas State Senator José Menéndez (D) introduced Senate Bill 1736, a piece of legislation aimed at regulating convenience fees associated with electronic payments for motor vehicles. SB 1736 would allow such fees to be imposed to offset electronic payment processing costs as long as certain restrictions are met and disclosures are made.
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate. The consolidation of numerous identical filings by JAMS pursuant to its own rules did not present a gateway question of arbitrability. Furthermore, the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to raise unconscionability as a basis to compel individual arbitration. The decision distinguishes Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. and provides further guidance to parties seeking to control mass arbitration risk.