On October 6, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. This legislation aims to fortify consumer protections and enhance transparency in the car-buying process. The enactment of this law follows a series of discussions and amendments, as highlighted in our previous blog and podcast, which traced the bill’s evolution and its alignment with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) vacated CARS Rule.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month of August. However, year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.
On September 15, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed into law House Bill 3178, introducing new requirements for auto dealers in the state. This legislation aims to standardize certain aspects of auto finance transactions, specifically those involving retail installment contracts (RICs) or lease agreements, and ensure clarity in the car-buying process. The law will take effect in 2026.
On August 26, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) took action to enforce President Trump’s directive by issuing a letter to its network of over 5,000 lenders. This letter mandates the cessation of alleged politicized or unlawful banking practices, requiring lenders to reinstate qualified customers who were wrongfully denied access to financial services based on political, religious, or ideological beliefs. It further warns that punitive measures will be taken against lenders who fail to comply with the directives. This move marks a significant step in implementing Executive Order 14331, Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.
On August 15, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker approved Public Act 104-0383. This legislation, effective immediately, amends the Student Loan Servicing Rights Act and introduces Article 7, focusing on Educational Income Share Agreements (EISAs).
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is taking a significant step to modify its supervisory approach to nonbanks by publishing a proposed rule advancing a more stringent definition of “risks to consumers” in the context of § 1024(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when designating nonbanks for supervision. This move aims to limit the Bureau’s oversight of nonbanks to cases where there is a high likelihood of significant harm to consumers, thereby narrowing the scope of its supervisory authority.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of July. Year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.
As has been well-documented, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is navigating a period of significant uncertainty. Just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a preliminary injunction in the case of National Treasury Employees Union v. CFPB, potentially allowing for substantial layoffs and operational changes within the agency (discussed here). Despite this development, the CFPB briefly released an ambitious rulemaking agenda on the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website on August 15, which then became inaccessible due to “Site Maintenance.”
On August 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published a series of proposed rules aimed at redefining what constitutes a “larger participant” in several key financial markets. Under § 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau’s supervisory authority extends to “larger participants” offering consumer financial products or services. The proposed rules seek to amend existing thresholds in the consumer reporting, auto financing, consumer debt collection, and international money transfer markets to better align with current market conditions and regulatory priorities. The Bureau is accepting comments on these proposals until September 22, 2025.
On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision in the case of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). The appellate court vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had previously restricted the CFPB’s actions to halt the Bureau’s operations and terminate its employees.