Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced an extension to the proposed comment period for Covered Person Registration Rulemaking. The comment period, initially set to end on April 12, 2023, has now been extended to May 17, 2023.

On September 23, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2269, known as the Digital Financial Assets Law, which would have implemented a new licensing regime for digital asset businesses operating within California. Without the Governor's veto, these businesses would have been subject to ongoing oversight and examination by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) and substantive requirements with respect to consumer disclosures and development of policies and procedures to address perceived risk concerns.

Last month, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) published proposed regulations under the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The regulations largely address procedural matters related to obtaining a license. However, the DFPI's proposed regulations also appear to implicitly address the scope of the license requirement, potentially expanding the category of licensees beyond what the statutory text contemplates.

An important resource for financial services compliance professionals has been updated. The Fourth Edition of the 50 State Guide on Student Loan Servicing Regulations is a quick reference guide and resource for student loan servicers regarding the regulations specific to the industry, along with pending legislation, litigation, and court rulings.

We recently reported on the California Attorney General's ongoing and active enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) despite COVID-19 and the availability of private actions. In Robert Cullen v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 20-cv-02155, filed on March 30, 2020, plaintiff alleges that Zoom failed to properly safeguard the personal information of him and other users of its software application (Zoom App) and video conferencing platform.

Despite concerns expressed by the business community, enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will not be delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra recently clarified that his office "is committed to enforcing the law upon finalizing the rules or July 1, whichever comes first. … [W]e are all mindful of the new reality created by COVID-19 and the heightened value of protecting consumers' privacy online that comes with it. We encourage businesses to be particularly mindful of data security in this time of emergency."

The Governors of California and New York have announced 2020 policy agendas that aim to expand consumer protections in response to what they describe as federal inaction, roll backs, and failures. We explore these proposed changes in detail below.

A recent hearing at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation explored the contours for a comprehensive and bipartisan federal data privacy law. Titled "Examining Legislative Proposals to Protect Consumer Data Privacy," the hearing featured an all-female panel of experts, including two former FTC leaders, and representatives from industry, academia, and consumer rights groups.

An important resource for financial services compliance professionals just received a new update. The Third Edition of the 50 State Guide on Student Loan Servicing Regulations—a quick reference guide and resource for student loan servicers regarding the regulations specific to the industry, along with pending legislation, litigation, and court rulings—now also includes language of the rules implementing state student loan servicer laws.

"Franz Kafka lives. This automatic stay violation case reveals that he works at Bank of America." Thus begins an opinion stretching over 100 pages in length in which United States Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein fined Bank of America over $45 million for what he found to be an egregious violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay.

A debt collector seeking to collect on a GAP credit card debt placed 49 telephone calls over the course of 18 days. The cardholder filed suit, arguing the calls constituted harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically, the cardholder stated that he had to stop what he was doing every time the phone rang, which not only disrupted and distracted him from his daily activities, but also caused frustration and anxiety.