Statistics for August 2026 consumer litigation filings are in, and the picture is a mixed one: some statutes rose while others fell. Nonetheless, one trend for 2026 is becoming unmistakable: filings remain up substantially across the board compared to the same period last year.
Business email compromise (BEC) and other third-party fraud inducing funds transfers have generated a wave of litigation against banks: not just those where victims hold accounts, but also against the financial institutions where the funds were transferred, even when the victim is not a customer. A threshold question often arises as to whether the beneficiary bank receiving the funds via a wire transfer owes a noncustomer plaintiff any duty of care at all. Most courts uniformly hold that banks owe no duty of care to noncustomers. But in 2024, in Elkin Valley Baptist Church,the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania went against the weight of authority and answered that question in plaintiffs’ favor.
On September 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a fantastic ruling for payors defending against private enforcement of No Surprises Act (NSA) independent dispute resolution (IDR) payment determinations. In East Coast Advanced Plastic Surgery, LLC v. Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co., the court held that the NSA does not create a private right of action allowing out-of-network providers to sue health plans that fail to pay IDR payment determinations.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has entered into a stipulated order for permanent injunction against 5967 Ventures, LLC, doing business as Humboldt Merchant Services, resolving allegations that the payment processor facilitated fraud by opening and maintaining payment processing accounts for shell companies and merchants engaged in deceptive practices. The order, filed on September 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, carries significant implications for the payment processing industry.
As we reported in December 2025, New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights (DCR) adopted what its Attorney General described as the “most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country” under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Those rules, effective December 15, 2025, codify a broad burden-shifting framework for disparate impact claims across housing, lending, employment, public accommodations, and contracting, and include specific guidance on liability arising from the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making tools. Now, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) has filed suit to stop them.
Our Newsletter Is Moving to LinkedIn
To keep receiving your weekly insights, all you need to do is subscribe to our new Consumer Financial Services Weekly Newsletter — it’s quick and easy.
We’ll see you there!
To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
In this episode of Payments Pros, host Keith Barnett examines a June 2026 multistate consent order issued jointly by Colorado and Texas against RamadPay, a Minnesota-based money transmitter specializing in international transfers between the U.S. and Africa.
More than two years after filing suit, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong have secured a $4 million settlement with Manchester, Connecticut auto dealer Chase Nissan LLC, doing business as Manchester City Nissan, along with its owners and managers, resolving allegations of widespread deceptive fee practices targeting consumers in the car-buying process.
In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Dave Gettings is joined by Partners Brooke Conkle and Ethan Ostroff to break down the Tenth Circuit’s landmark decision in Ward v. National Credit Systems, Inc., which reversed a $500,000 jury verdict and confirmed that reported information is only actionably inaccurate under Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA if it is “objectively and readily verifiable” as inaccurate. The team discusses how Ward fits into a growing circuit court consensus, what it means for furnishers defending identity theft claims at summary judgment, and why consumers will need to bring more than just an FTC identity theft report to support their disputes going forward.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis sits down with Partners Joseph DeFazio and Joseph Froehlich to discuss the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Diana, a unanimous ruling and long-awaited victory for debt buyers operating in New Jersey. At the center of the conversation is a high-volume litigation campaign waged by the Kim Law Firm, which targeted the chain of title for consumer debts under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJCFLA). Kim’s core theory argued that any consumer debt under $50,000 — including personal loans, auto loans, and retail credit — that was ever touched, transferred, or assigned by an unlicensed entity is void and unenforceable as a matter of law, and that any attempt to collect on such a debt independently triggers statutory liability.