The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.
Yesterday, the lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee rule (Final Rule) was ordered to be transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) for the second time in as many months. The court’s decision was largely based on the same analysis as the first transfer order.
On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski et al., unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that when parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other sending arbitrability disputes to the courts — a court must decide which contract governs. The decision teaches a cautionary lesson that parties with multiple contracts between them must keep issues of arbitrability consistent between the contracts.
On May 16, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2933. The bill amends the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act making it unlawful for a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to create a consumer report containing any adverse information that the CRA knows or should know relates to medical debt incurred by the consumer or a collection action against the consumer to collect medical debt. The bill would also make it unlawful for a CRA to maintain a file on any consumer containing information relating to medical debt. The bill is currently awaiting Governor Pritzker’s signature.
Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill (HB) 2247 into law, bringing significant changes to the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). The changes brought about by HB 2247 will largely become effective on January 1, 2025. However, those changes standardizing threshold amounts consistent with federal law will become effective on July 1, 2024.
As discussed here, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. Wasting no time, today the CFPB filed notices of the CFSA decision in cases nationwide, including in the case where several trade associations are challenging the CFPB’s final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Final Rule), Texas Bankers Association, et al. v. CFPB.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. The 7-2 majority held the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides the CFPB’s funding structure, satisfies the appropriations clause because it “authorizes the Bureau to draw public funds from a particular source — ‘the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System’ — in an amount not exceeding an inflation-adjusted cap. And it specifies the objects for which the Bureau can use those funds — to ‘pay the expenses of the Bureau in carrying out its duties and responsibilities.’” The Supreme Court further found that the “Bureau’s funding mechanism [] fits comfortably within the historical appropriations practice …” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Smith v. Spizzirri holding that § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to issue an order staying a federal case pending the outcome of arbitration, rather than dismiss the case when a motion to compel arbitration is granted. This decision resolves a circuit split where previously the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had held that the plain text of § 3 mandates a stay of the proceedings whereas the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits had held that district courts have the discretion to dismiss the proceedings if the entire dispute was subject to arbitration.
On May 2, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released two sets of guidance addressing the applicability of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to two areas where, in the agency’s view, algorithmic processes and artificial intelligence (AI) pose particular concerns: tenant screening and advertising of housing opportunities through online platforms that use targeted ads. The purpose of HUD’s guidance is to make housing providers, tenant screening companies, advertisers, and online platforms aware that the FHA applies to tenant screening and housing advertising, including when algorithms and AI are used to perform those functions.