As discussed here, on February 3, 2023, an Illinois federal court dismissed a case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) in 2020 against Townstone Financial, Inc., a Chicago mortgage lender, for alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The CFPB had accused Townstone of discouraging prospective African American applicants in the Chicago metropolitan area from applying for mortgages.
On July 5, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Data Broker Registration pursuant to Senate Bill 362 (the Delete Act). The Delete Act requires the CPPA to establish an accessible deletion mechanism. This mechanism allows a consumer, through a single verifiable consumer request, to request that every data broker delete any personal information related to that consumer held by the data broker or associated service provider or contractor. The stated aim of the proposed rulemaking is to clarify and enhance the registration process for data brokers.
The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has once again modified its proposed rulemaking on earned wage access (EWA) products. As discussed here, this spring the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) rejected the proposed regulations for failure to comply with the clarity standard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and failure to follow the required APA procedures. These new modifications attempt to address those concerns.
On July 1, amendments to Florida’s Consumer Finance Act took effect. Among other things, the amendments raise the maximum tiered interest rates on consumer finance loans, increase the grace period before late fees can be imposed from 10 to 12 days, require licensees to offer free credit education courses to borrowers at the time a loan is made, provide for the suspension of certain collection activities in the event of a disaster, and require branches of businesses making consumer finance loans to obtain a license.
On July 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published the summer edition of its Supervisory Highlights, focusing on examinations of auto and student loan servicing companies and debt collectors that were completed between April 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. The report also highlights consumer complaints about medical payment products and identifies concerns with financial institutions freezing deposit accounts.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruling the Chevron doctrine. This decision marks a watershed moment in administrative law, fundamentally altering the landscape for judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
On April 17, 2024, Virginia enacted HB 1519 taking a significant step towards amending the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) to prohibit creditors from charging fees for accepting electronic payments in connection with credit transactions in Virginia. However, this amendment will not become effective unless the Virginia General Assembly reenacts the bill in 2025. Between now and then, the Virginia State Corporation Commission will assess this change and report its findings to the General Assembly by December of this year.
As discussed here, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), which upheld the CFPB’s funding structure, the Bureau announced updated compliance dates for its Section 1071 Final Rule concerning small business data collection and reporting under the Dodd-Frank Act.
On June 20, six federal financial services regulators issued the final automated valuation model (AVM) rule. The AVM rule, initially proposed in June 2023 and discussed here, aims to implement the quality control standards mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). The final AVM rule is largely identical to the proposed rule and is set to take effect on the first day of the calendar quarter following 12 months after its publication in the Federal Register.
On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.’” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”