Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

On September 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced a proposed rule aimed at amending the disclosure requirements for international money transfers, commonly known as remittances. The proposed amendment is aimed at clarifying for consumers the types of inquiries that may be better handled by their remittance company before contacting the CFPB or the relevant state regulator. The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register, and the public will have until November 4, 2024, to submit their comments.

On September 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1934 into law, marking a significant update to California’s Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL). In addition to extending the compliance deadline for digital financial asset businesses, providing them with additional time to meet regulatory requirements and implement necessary operational changes, this new legislation includes significant modifications to the DFAL.

On August 16, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published its semiannual regulatory agenda in the Federal Register, detailing the agency’s upcoming regulatory actions and priorities. The agenda outlines the proposed, final, and long-term rulemaking activities across various divisions, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

Highlights from the agenda, include:

Proposed Rule Stage:…

On September 24, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of consumer protection laws, with three bills aimed directly at collection practices. These new laws introduce significant changes in the areas of commercial debt collection practices, medical debt reporting, and civil actions for money judgments.

On September 19, USTelecom — The Broadband Association (USTelecom), a major telecommunications trade organization, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing its concerns about the proposed enhancements to anti-robocall regulations. USTelecom’s primary contention is that the proposed rules, which aim to extend the do-not-originate (DNO) requirement, could inadvertently block legitimate calls, including emergency communications. The association argues that the current industry practices already effectively block calls from invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers on the DNO list managed by the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group (ITG).

On September 24, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced a significant development in its efforts to implement open banking rules in the United States. The Bureau has initiated a public comment process for the first application from an organization seeking recognition as an open banking standard-setter.

On September 18, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) providing guidance on applying Regulation Z requirements to Pay-in-Four Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products accessed through digital user accounts (DUAs). These FAQs follow the Bureau’s interpretive rule issued in May of this year, subjecting BNPL transactions to provisions of Regulation Z applicable to “credit cards.”

On September 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published Circular 2024-05 (Circular) addressing whether a financial institution violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Regulation E by charging overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions without proof of the consumer’s affirmative consent to enrollment in covered overdraft services. (According to the CFPB’s press release, the Bureau considers this to be a “phantom opt-in.”) The Bureau’s response is clear: Yes, charging fees in these circumstances can indeed constitute a violation of EFTA and Regulation E.

In a recent ruling, the District of Colorado granted several motions to dismiss filed by the developers and owners of cryptocurrency application Atomic Wallet, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction. This decision effectively ends a class action litigation involving the alleged theft of cryptocurrency assets by North Korean hackers.