Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

More than two years after the Supreme Court released its ruling in Facebook v. Duguid, confirming the meaning of automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s application of the Facebook decision. The Facebook ruling effectively closed the door on one of the broadest classes of TCPA-related litigation; since then, plaintiff-side advocates have worked ceaselessly, though largely unsuccessfully, to chip away at the ruling. If the Supreme Court accepts the appeal, this will represent a significant development in the ongoing saga of ATDS litigation.

Deceptive advertisements, market manipulation, misappropriation of customer funds, and “Ask Me Anything (AMA)” sessions served as the catalysts of a civil enforcement action the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed against bankrupt digital asset services provider Celsius Network LLC (Celsius) and its co-founders on July 13. This is a groundbreaking move by the FTC for two reasons. First, it marks the first time that the agency has filed suit against a digital asset-based company. Second, the FTC’s request for civil money penalties is predicated on a novel theory under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Alongside the FTC, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against ex-CEO Alexander Mashinsky, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have filed separate civil enforcement actions against Celsius.

On July 12, U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) reintroduced legislation, titled the Responsible Financial Innovation Act that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets. This proposed bill expands on the bill the senators introduced in 2022 by adding new consumer protections and safeguards to further strengthen the industry against fraud and bad actors, among other additions.

On July 7, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB 103 into law, which prohibits any person from offering earned wage access (EWA) services without registering with the Division of Finance and paying an annual $1,000 fee. The law also requires EWA providers to develop procedures for dealing with consumer questions and complaints, specifies notices required to be given to consumers, and regulates the types of fees that may be charged and the manner in which repayments may be pursued. The law further specifies requirements should the EWA provider solicit, charge, or receive tips or gratuities from consumers. Like Nevada, discussed here, the law specifies that EWA products are not loans or money transmissions under Missouri law. In March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took the opposite position with respect to EWA products and proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would update the definition of loan to include EWA products, except for those offered by employers.

On June 14, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed into law AB 332, An Act Relating to Student Education Loans, requiring, among other things, student loan servicers to be licensed by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions and regulating certain conduct of the servicers towards borrowers. The law will take effect on January 1, 2024.

As discussed here, on October 19, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 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. In response, the CFPB filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the CFPB’s petition (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. Specifically, the agencies are interested in information regarding whether these products contribute to health care cost inflation, displace hospital provided financial assistance, lead to inaccurate or inflated medical bills, inflate bills due to financing costs, or otherwise harm patients financially.

The drumbeat to increase regulation of tenant screening continues, this time in Michigan.

On June 15, Michigan state Representative Brenda Carter (D-29) introduced House Bill 4818, which proposes to amend landlord-tenant act 1972 PA 348. Specifically, the amendment proposes to exclude the credit score of a prospective Michigan tenant from being a deciding factor in determining the prospective tenant’s eligibility for a lease. Under the proposed amendment “credit score” is defined as, “the numerical score ranging from 300 to 850 assigned by a consumer reporting agency to measure credit risk.”

As shown by a new report, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is focusing its fair lending work on mortgage origination and pricing, small business lending, redlining, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning models.

On June 29, the CFPB released its annual Fair Lending Report (Report) to Congress describing its fair lending enforcement and supervisory activities, guidance, and rulemaking for calendar year 2022. The Report satisfies the CFPB’s statutory responsibility to report annually to Congress on public enforcement actions taken pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).

On June 28, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Senate Bill 1032 entitled An Act Requiring Certain Financing Disclosures, which requires certain providers of commercial financing to make various disclosures and requires providers and brokers to register. Connecticut now joins states like Utah, California, Georgia, New York, Florida, and Virginia (discussed here, here, here, here, here, and here) in requiring such disclosures.