Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

On September 14, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Kentucky became the second court to issue an order granting, in part, a plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) from enforcing its final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) against the plaintiffs and their members. (A discussion of the first injunction issued by a Texas federal court can be found here.) The injunction in The Monticello Banking Company v. CFPB will dissolve if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit in the Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB case, which found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and, therefore, rules promulgated by the Bureau invalid.

On September 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a report on Tuition Payment Plans in Higher Education. Ninety-eight percent of colleges now allow students to pay for their education in installments using tuition payment plans. Tuition payment plans have a wide range of structures and may be managed by the schools or administered by third-party payment processors. Typically, tuition payment plans are interest-free, but, according to the CFPB, many charge enrollment fees, late fees and returned payment fees. The Bureau asserts that these fees can create a high cost of credit. Specifically, the CFPB states that when the amount borrowed is low and the enrollment fee is high, students can face annual percentage rates as high as 237%.

On September 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an issue spotlight focusing on the role that mobile device operating systems play in determining consumer’s payment options. According to the CFPB, “[g]iven the continued shift toward the use of contactless payments on mobile devices like smartphones and wearables, there is now readily available technology for consumers to securely make [point-of-sale (POS)] payments through different apps and services … Any restrictions imposed by the dominant operating systems … will have an outsized effect on access to payments systems and may hinder the development of a truly open ecosystem.”

On September 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it issued a consent order against Tempoe, LLC, a nonbank consumer finance company, for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Consumer Leasing Act, and Regulation M. That same day, it was announced that Tempoe also entered into a parallel settlement with 41 states and the District of Columbia resolving a multi-state investigation into the same alleged misconduct. Under the terms of the CFPB consent order, Tempoe was banned from consumer leasing activity and must pay $1 million to the CFPB and $1 million to the states and jurisdictions participating in the settlement.

As discussed here, on July 7th the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Treasury (collectively, the agencies) jointly issued a Request for Information (Request) seeking public comment on medical credit cards, loans, and other financial products used to pay for health care. On September 11, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a response letter to the agencies specifically addressing the Request’s questions regarding health equity concerns, consumer confusion, best practices for medical providers who offer medical payment products, and consumer protection. According to AG Bonta, “California is uniquely qualified to comment on the [Request] because it has enacted strong consumer protections to guard against patient harms from these products.”

On September 8, a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and several other trade associations, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) “March 2022 manual update is beyond the agency’s constitutional authority based on an Appropriations Clause violation and beyond the agency’s statutory authority to regulate ‘unfair’ acts or practices under the Dodd–Frank Act.”

In the ever-evolving world of digital assets and law, Grayscale Investments, LLC (Grayscale) found itself at the pinnacle of a major decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On August 29, the court deemed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) denial of Grayscale’s October 19, 2021, spot Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF) application “arbitrary and capricious” and vacated the agency’s decision. At the heart of the court of appeal’s ruling lies the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the complex interplay between spot asset pricing and futures asset pricing, and the SEC’s current sentiment towards digital asset-based financial products.

On August 18, the American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, CRE Finance Council, Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (collectively “the Trades”) sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and 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) for all covered financial institutions to correct the current disparity between those institutions covered by the Texas Bankers Association et al v. CFPB injunction and those that are not covered.

Earlier this month, the California Department of Financial Regulation and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced a new rule expanding the definition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) to commercial financing. Specifically, the rule makes it unlawful “for a covered provider to engage or have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing or another financial product or service to a covered entity.” The new rule also includes annual reporting requirements (described below) for any covered provider who makes more than one commercial financing transaction to covered entities in a 12-month period or who makes five or more commercial financing transactions to covered entities in a 12-month period that are “incidental” to the business of the covered provider. Importantly, this rule does not apply to banks, credit unions, federal savings and loan associations, current licensees of the CA DFPI or licensees of other California agencies “to the extent that licensee or employee is acting under the authority of” the license.

On August 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A4284, which prohibits sellers from imposing certain surcharges for credit card transactions. Specifically, the law prohibits sellers from charging more than what they pay to process credit card transactions. The law also requires sellers to disclose and post notices of the surcharge prior to the consumer incurring the charge.