Recently, the New Jersey appellate division held that a debt purchaser is not liable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Fraud Act) for failing to obtain a license under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJ Licensing Act). Although the decision is unpublished, it is still a welcome relief for purchasers of defaulted debt.
On October 12, in its monthly bulletin the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced that final regulations to implement the Student Loan Servicing Act and the Student Loans Borrower Rights Law have been approved and will become effective Jan. 1, 2024. Among other things, the rules clarify that all education financing products, including income share agreements (ISAs) and installment contracts, are student loans, and servicers of all such products are covered by the Student Loan Servicing Act and must be licensed.
On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion regarding § 1034(c) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which requires large banks and credit unions to comply in a timely manner with consumer requests for information concerning their accounts. This advisory opinion follows a June 2022 request for information where the CFPB asked for public input on customer service obstacles encountered when interacting with large financial institutions. According to the CFPB, this initiative is in response to large financial institutions moving away from “relationship banking.”
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, the agencies) issued a joint statement on the subject of creditors’ use of immigration status for eligibility for credit transactions, an issue that has been kicking around in private litigation for years, but as to which the federal regulators have been silent. The joint statement warns lenders that “unnecessary or overbroad” reliance on immigration status in the credit decisioning process may violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other federal laws. According to the agencies, the joint statement was issued in response to consumers reportedly being rejected for credit cards and loans because of their immigration status, even when they have strong credit histories and are otherwise qualified to receive the loans.
On October 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights report. This report serves as a “victory lap” for the Bureau, which highlights the relief it has obtained for consumers since the release of its March 2023 Special Fees Edition, discussed here. According to the Bureau, its supervisory efforts have led to institutions refunding over $140 million to consumers, including $120 million in overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees.
The Connecticut Banking Commissioner (Commissioner), acting through the Consumer Credit Division of the Department of Banking (the Division), conducted an investigation into the Law Offices of David M. Katz, discovering that in 2018 and 2019 the firm had engaged in in unlicensed collection activity involving about 10,000 Connecticut accounts with a total balance of $1.4
On October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), a case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause because the CFPB does not receive its funding from annual congressional appropriations like most executive agencies, but instead, receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve based on a request by the CFPB’s director. If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the future of the Bureau as well as its rulemaking and enforcement actions would be in question.
As discussed here, on September 21 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an outline of its plans for rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The outline was supplied for initial comment to a panel of small business representatives convened under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the petition for certiorari in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), a case where Corner Post challenges a 2011 Board rule that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions. Specifically, the question presented is whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claim, for statute of limitations purposes, first accrues when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to be “adversely affected or aggrieved.” The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve an ongoing circuit split on the issue.
As discussed here, on June 29, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed SB 1033, An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Banking Statutes, into law. Among other things, the bill: (1) raised the small loan limit from $15,000 to $50,000; (2) expanded the Small Loan Act (SLA) licensure requirement to cover certain brokering and facilitating activities; (3) codified a predominant economic interest test for determining the “true lender” in the SLA; (4) broadened the definition of small loan to include income sharing agreements (ISAs), refund anticipation loans, and pension advances; (5) limited the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) on loans of $5,000 to $50,000 to 25%; (6) redefined APR as an all-in APR calculated similarly to the federal Military Lending Act (MLA); and (7) expanded the definition of finance charge to essentially capture all fees and charges, including optional fees. The revised SLA goes into effect on October 1, 2023.