Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

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.

This summer, Representative Roger Williams (R-Texas) and Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) introduced identical Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in the U.S. House and Senate (H.J. Res. 66 and S. J. Res. 32, respectively) disapproving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). Currently, the Senate resolution has not moved beyond introduction, but the House Financial Services Committee recently approved the House resolution to advance. If the resolutions are adopted by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, the Final Rule would be overturned. While that outcome appears unlikely under the current Democratic administration, letters submitted to Congress by banking and credit union trade groups supporting the joint resolution do appear to confirm the nearly unanimous industry opposition to the Final Rule.

When using artificial intelligence (AI) or complex credit models, can lenders rely on the checklist of reasons provided in Regulation B sample forms for adverse action notices? According to today’s guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is, in many circumstances, no.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a final rule adjusting the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) dollar amounts for certain provisions, including under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), where appropriate, based on the annual percentage change reflected in the consumer price index (CPI). The rule takes effect on January 1, 2024.

In response to a petition filed last week by a number of consumer advocacy groups, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that it will be seeking public input on a possible rule that would curtail mandatory pre-dispute arbitration provisions.