The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued its final rule entitled “Protections for Borrowers Affected by the COVID-19 Emergency Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Regulation X.”
Posts published in “Federal Regulation”
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that the Federal Trade Commission Act allows permanent injunctions to prevent future violations but does not authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement, except that the FTC may obtain monetary relief by first invoking its administrative procedures and then Section 19’s redress provisions (which includes limitations).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint alleging that a collection letter’s itemization of a debt as including “$0.00” in interest and fees — when the debt could not accrue interest or fees — violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
On April 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a Proposed Rule that would postpone the effective date of the Debt Collection Final Rules, Part 1 and Part 2, by 60 days, from Nov. 30, 2021, to Jan. 29, 2022.
Last year, the CFPB provided some answers to the question: What is abusive conduct? For 10 years, industry waited on a policy statement regarding the framework that the CFPB would use in enforcement related to the catch-all category of “abusiveness” only to have the CFPB rescind the policy statement citing that it intended to “exercise its supervisory and enforcement authority consistent with the full scope of its statutory authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau increased the maximum civil penalty it can impose within its jurisdiction after Jan. 15, 2021. 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.
During what was an extraordinary and difficult year, there was an abundance of activity at the state and federal levels and a good deal of it was driven by the present COVID-19 pandemic. Here is my take on some of the most significant regulatory activities from the past year in consumer debt collection that will continue to impact both consumers and creditors in the years to come.
The year 2020 in bankruptcy law started with an eye on increasing the ability of small businesses to utilize the Chapter 11 process in a more efficient and less expensive way, which lead to a record number of commercial filings, a reduction in consumer filings, and a test of the bankruptcy system.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released its final rule for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The release of the rule promises to bring substantial changes in consumer debt collection practices.
The FTC will soon propose changes it says are designed to align several existing rules under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act with the Dodd-Frank Act. The impacted rules cover only “motor vehicle dealers” being persons “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.”
The Supreme Court of the United States recently vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that rejected constitutional challenges to the design and structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).