As California Attorney General Xavier Becerra advises consumers of all their new rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), multiple states are introducing their own privacy acts, some of which are remarkably similar to the CCPA. The most-watched privacy legislation is perhaps in Washington State, described below, which very nearly passed its Privacy Act last year.
Posts published in “Compliance Management”
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed a bill to license consumer debt collectors. The proposal comes as part of the governor’s 2021 “budget bill” and was introduced on Jan. 21. A copy is available here. The bill proposes an effective date of Oct. 1, 2020.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s finding that a consumer lacked standing to pursue a lawsuit alleging that collection notices sent by a law firm violated the FDCPA because no attorney with the firm conducted a meaningful review of his debts.
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.
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 year 2020 offers to be an interesting one for bankruptcy litigation. With several issues before the Supreme Court, at least one will have a material effect on financial services. In addition, higher credit costs will spur an increase in the number of bankruptcy filings, both on the consumer and commercial side. With the California Consumer Privacy Act taking effect on Jan. 1, it will not be long before we see issues arising from it percolating into bankruptcy cases.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25, 2018, and introduced privacy concepts that were new to some U.S. businesses. Fortunately, the GDPR was developed over a period of time that allowed for thoughtful deliberation and careful drafting. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), on the other hand, was speedily enacted under the threat of a ballot initiative.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a collection letter offering payment options on a time-barred debt and listing “benefits” of paying the debt was not deceptive or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meanwhile, the CFPB is expected to take up the issue of time-barred debt disclosures early next year.
Lenders foreclosing FHA-insured mortgages in Ohio often face challenges that contest the lender’s compliance with relevant regulations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Like most courts throughout the nation, Ohio courts treat HUD regulations as contractual terms incorporated into FHA-insured mortgage loan documents. As Ohio case law on this issue continues to evolve, confusion—and sometimes shock—can arise for out-of-state lenders unfamiliar with the state-specific intricacies of litigating contested foreclosures involving FHA-insured mortgage loans in Ohio.
There is no discovery rule for federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, the U.S. Supreme Court held today. Affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm, today’s opinion also overrules an earlier ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc. There, the Ninth Circuit permitted FDCPA claims to run from when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the violation.
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 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) both recently issued proposed rules to “fix” the potential problems arising from the ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2nd Cir. 2015), which called into question the “valid when made” doctrine. In addition, the FDIC’s proposal would make clear that the permissible interest on a loan would be determined at the time the loan is made, regardless of subsequent events such as changes in state law or the sale or assignment of the loan. The OCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available…