Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

In a recent speech at the Financial Data Exchange Global Summit, Rohit Chopra, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), discussed the current state of open banking in the United States and emphasized the importance of standard-setting organizations in the transition. He noted that these organizations play a crucial role in ensuring that the system is open and interoperable but warned against the potential of standard-setting to be used in an anti-competitive manner to benefit dominant firms.

On February 20, the Wisconsin Senate passed House Bill (HB) 574 to regulate earned wage access (EWA) products and services. HB 574 creates a new chapter to the Wisconsin Statutes that requires EWA providers to be licensed by the Division of Banking and imposes substantive and disclosure rules. HB 574 expressly exempts EWA offered by licensees under the new law from the licensed loan company provisions in Wis. Stat. § 138.09 but does not clearly address whether EWA is covered by the Wisconsin Consumer Act. HB 574 will be sent to Governor Tony Evers for signature.

On March 7, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a final rule updating recordkeeping requirements and extending the protections against misrepresentations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to businesses (Final Rule). It also announced a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend the TSR’s coverage to inbound telemarketing calls involving technical support services. These actions are part of the FTC’s current review of the TSR, which includes the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry rules and provisions banning nearly all telemarketing robocalls to consumers.

On March 8, Washington State’s legislature passed a significant amendment (SB 6025) to the Consumer Loan Act (CLA) targeting bank model lending. SB 6025 is an updated version of a prior bill, discussed here. The act awaits Governor Jay Inslee’s signature.

As discussed here, earlier this week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized its credit card late fee rule (Final Rule). The Final Rule sets a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminates the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. The timing of the Final Rule’s announcement, just days before the State of Union address, did not go unnoticed. President Biden highlighted this development in his speech, emphasizing his administration’s commitment to eliminating so-called hidden fees.

On March 1, Senate Bill (SB) 335 was introduced, which, if passed, would impose certain requirements on “commercial financing transactions.” Recently, multiple states have enacted disclosure regulations for commercial financing transactions (see discussions on California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New York, Virginia, and Utah).

On February 15, Massachusetts became the latest state to introduce legislation to regulate earned wage access (EWA) products and services. House Bill (HB) 4456 would create a new chapter to the Massachusetts Code explicitly stating that EWA services offered under the new chapter are not loans or other form of credit or debt, and voluntary tips or gratuities are not interest or finance charges. It further requires EWA providers to be licensed and provide mandatory disclosures to consumers. The bill is pending before the Joint Financial Services Committee.

We discussed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) credit card late fee proposed rule here 13 months ago, and today, the Bureau announced that it has finalized the rule (Final Rule) setting a safe harbor amount for late fees at $8 and eliminating the annual inflation adjustments to that safe harbor amount, for larger card issuers. Notably, due to industry pushback during the comment period, the Final Rule does not codify the proposal that late fees must not exceed 25% of the minimum payment. The Final Rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Can digital comparison-shopping operators or lead generators violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by preferencing products or services based on financial benefit? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes. Specifically, according to the CFPB, operators of digital comparison-shopping tools can violate the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices by steering consumers to certain products or services based on remuneration. Lead generators can also violate the CFPA if they steer consumers to one financial services provider over another based on compensation received. As is typical for the CFPB today, the Bureau has couched this guidance on its “abusive” authority under Dodd-Frank.