State Attorneys General, CFPB + FTC

Subscribe to State Attorneys General, CFPB + FTC via RSS

On December 19th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a report highlighting consumers’ experiences with overdraft and nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees. The report found that roughly a quarter of consumers are still being charged these fees despite the CFPB’s hostility towards so called “junk fees,” which has led many banks and credit unions to eliminate such fees. The report further found that many consumers who were charged overdraft and NSF fees had access to an alternative asserted to be cheaper by the CFPB, such as available credit on a credit card.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its 14th annual report to Congress in fulfillment of its requirements under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act. For the report, the CFPB reviewed information available on college websites on the financial products offered directly to students or jointly marketed to students with third-party providers. According to the CFPB, its research showed that college-sponsored financial products have higher fees and less favorable terms and conditions compared to typical market products.

On December 13, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law S4907A, which prohibits hospitals, medical providers, or ambulance services from providing negative information about medical debt to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The law also requires that these entities include a provision in their contracts with collection agencies prohibiting the reporting of any portion of a medical debt to a CRA. Any debt that is reported to a CRA will be deemed void. The law became effective immediately after it was signed.

On December 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published the long-awaited regulation specific to motor vehicle dealers to address concerns of consumer deception in the sales process (Final Rule). We covered the proposed rule, introduced in June 2022, in a blog post here and podcast here. In a 3-0 vote, the FTC approved the issuance of the Final Rule, which will be published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks.

On December 4, a federal district court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) finding that regulations adopted last year under California’s Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL) do not violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and are not preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Under the CFDL, providers are required to give certain disclosures similar to consumer transactions, such as the amount of funding the small business will receive, the APR, a payment amount (if applicable), the term, details related to prepayment policies, and (for products without a monthly payment) an average monthly cost.

On November 30, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced proposed regulations that would require businesses to clearly disclose the total price of a product at the time it is presented to consumers, provide clear and accessible information on whether fees are optional or required, and simplify the process for cancelling trial offers and recurring charges. The proposed regulations are issued pursuant to the Attorney General’s rule-making power under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The stated purpose of the proposed regulations is to close gaps within the state’s consumer protection laws and to combat unfair and deceptive business practices related to fees charged across various industries.

As discussed here, 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). Under the Congressional Review Act (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.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of October, but filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were up. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were also up for the month.

On November 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Annual Report detailing the CFPB’s 2022 activities related to debt collection practices. This comprehensive document summarizes everything FDCPA-related undertaken by the agency during 2022, including enforcement actions, a summary of consumer complaints, education and outreach initiatives, and highlights from examinations it conducted. In addition to summarizing activities in the debt collection space from the past year, the report hints at potential future activities. Tellingly, the CFPB’s focus in 2022 was predominantly on medical debt, as highlighted by its press release announcing this report.

Last week, the annual Community Reinvestment Act & Fair Lending Colloquium took place in Austin, Texas. Two officials from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed in detail the “Combatting Redlining Initiative” led by the DOJ using a “whole of government” approach, the current state of redlining investigations, and the future direction of enforcement. In prepared remarks Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke stated, “we are proud of the work we have been able to accomplish in these past two years through the Combatting Redlining Initiative. But we are by no means done. We are also focusing on unlawful practices such as reverse redlining, and steering.”