State Attorneys General, CFPB + FTC

Subscribe to State Attorneys General, CFPB + FTC via RSS

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking public comment on its proposal to amend the Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses (Impersonation Rule or Rule), that is being finalized by the FTC today, to add a prohibition on the impersonation of individuals. The amendment would also extend liability for violations of the Impersonation Rule to parties who provide goods and services with knowledge or reason to know that those goods or services will be used in illegal impersonations. The FTC stated the impetus for the amendment is the surging number of complaints it has received around impersonation fraud, including “deepfakes” generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

On February 13, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a blog post warning companies that it could be deemed an unfair or deceptive practice for a company to adopt more permissive data practices and to only inform consumers of such changes through retroactive amendments to its terms of service or privacy policy.

As federal student loan repayments resume after a three-year pause due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published an Issue Spotlight on student borrowers’ experiences, using consumer complaints to identify emerging problems.

This article was republished on insideARM on February 6, 2024.

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

On January 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to amend exemptions to Regulation Z so the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)/Regulation Z would apply to certain overdraft “credit” provided by insured financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, in furtherance of the Bureau’s crusade on “junk fees.” At a highlevel, the CFPB’s proposed rule would provide covered financial institutions with two options for offering overdraft “credit”: (1) a “courtesy” overdraft service with “breakeven” fees exempt from TILA/Regulation Z; or (2) a “covered overdraft credit” line/loan in connection with debit card or routing/account number transactions with “above breakeven” fees subject to TILA/Reg. Z. Under the proposal, an institution subject to the rule would have to provide full TILA disclosures and comply with other substantive TILA requirements for overdraft fees if they exceed costs or a low CFPB safe harbor amount.

Late last month, the Revenue Based Finance Coalition (RBFC), a trade group of sales-based financing providers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). As discussed here, § 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to impose significant data collection and reporting requirements on small business creditors. Specifically, RBFC objects to the CFPB’s characterization of sales-based financing as a form of credit subject to the Final Rule’s collection and reporting requirements.

On January 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued two “advisory opinions” addressing the CFPB’s views of the obligations of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The advisory opinions are interpretive rules issued under the Bureau’s authority to interpret the FCRA pursuant to § 1022(b)(1) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.

As discussed here, during the summer of 2023, 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). Under the CRA, a rule promulgated by an administrative agency “shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.” On October 18, by a bipartisan vote of 53-44, the Senate approved its resolution. On November 29, the House likewise passed a resolution of disapproval by a vote of 221-202.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed suit against auto dealer Manchester City Nissan (Manchester City), its owner, and several employees for allegedly deceiving consumers about the price of certified used cars, add-ons, and government fees. Filed January 4, the lawsuit was brought under the FTC Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

On December 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint in a Texas federal court against Colony Ridge Development, LLC (Colony Ridge), its affiliates, and Loan Originator Services, a Texas mortgage company, for allegedly operating an illegal land sales scheme and targeting tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false statements and predatory loans. Specifically, the complaint alleges Colony Ridge sells flood-prone land without water, sewer, or electrical infrastructure, and that the company sets borrowers up with loans they cannot afford. The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination by targeting Hispanics in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition, the complaint alleges violation of the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP), and a variety of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.