The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on June 2 announced a settlement with a Tennessee-based company and its subsidiaries that provide short-term loans (payday or auto-title) for the lenders' conduct at all stages of their operations, including providing “deceptive finance charge disclosures … failing to refund overpayments ... and engaging in unfair debt collection practices.”
Posts published in “CFPB”
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has extended the deadline for public comments on its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on time-barred debt disclosures to Aug. 4. The Bureau stated its reason for the extension as “the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
On April 1, the CFPB issued a policy statement addressing the responsibility of furnishers under the CARES Act and describing the flexible approach the Bureau intends to take with respect to supervision and enforcement of the FCRA and Regulation V during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Maryland Court of Appeals recently held that victims on whose behalf money is collected or property is recovered by the Maryland Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office (CPD) or federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have no authority, through a private settlement, whether or not approved by a court, to preclude the CPD or CFPB from pursuing their own remedies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the restrictions on the president's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, allowing for the removal of the CFPB's director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” are valid and constitutional.
Following its enaction, the Dodd-Frank Act left the financial services industry with uncertainty in many areas. For nearly 10 years, the industry has wondered and speculated about the inclusion of a prohibition against abusive acts and practices. What exactly is abusive conduct? Is abusive conduct different from false and misleading acts or unfairness? How will the CFPB handle enforcement?
Effective Jan. 15, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau increased the maximum civil monetary penalty it can impose within its jurisdiction. The increases are required by federal law, which requires agencies to adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty within an agency’s jurisdiction by Jan. 15.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a significant enforcement action on Jan. 9 against several companies and individuals marketing student loan debt-relief services for credit reporting violations, charging advance fees and deceptive conduct.
It has been an extraordinary 365 days for consumer financial services law. I cannot recall a year where so many states introduced legislation or proposed regulations or rules impacting the credit industry. At the federal level, proposed rules for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were (finally) released and California also proposed regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The federal banking regulators and the CFPB recently issued an “Interagency Statement on the Use of Alternative Data in Credit Underwriting,” stating in sum that the agencies “encourage responsible use” of alternative data, especially in the context of credit underwriting.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced it will allow more time for comments on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB has extended the comment period by 30 days to Sept. 18. Years in the making, if adopted the proposed rules would bring significant changes to the form and manner of consumer debt collection subject to the FDCPA. According to the CFPB, its proposal “would set clear, bright-line limits on the number of calls debt collectors may place to reach consumers on a weekly basis; apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order requiring a law firm to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents pursuant to a civil investigative demand promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit cited prior Supreme Court separation-of-power opinions which indicate that the bureau’s restriction permitting removal of its director only by the president “for cause” did not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine to conclude that its structure was constitutionally permissible. The Ninth Circuit also held that the civil investigative demand was proper…