Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

Last week, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association (NACARA) hosted its annual conference at the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s Sacramento office. The event served as a platform for state regulators and collection agency representatives to discuss the latest challenges and emerging trends affecting the industry.

On August 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its Filing Instructions Guide ("Guide") for Nonbank Registration pursuant to its Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders Final Rule ("the Final Rule").

On June 3, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued the Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders Final Rule (“the Final Rule”).

On February 16, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its revised rule addressing how financial institutions can appeal their compliance ratings or adverse material findings by the Bureau. The rule is an update to the Bureau's November 2015 revisions.

Early in October, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd (CFPB v. CFSA). The appeal stems from a 2021 Western District of Texas ruling upholding the Payday Lending rule and the CFPB's funding structure, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later partially reversed. The Fifth Circuit held the CFPB's entire funding structure unconstitutional because "Congress's cession of its power of the purse to the Bureau violates the Appropriations Clause and the Constitution's underlying structural separation of powers[,]" and thereby vacated the Pay Day Lending Rule.

On March 23, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney (Moroney). The case reviewed constitutional challenges to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding structure previously decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last October in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. CFPB (Community Financial). In Community Financial, the Fifth Circuit vacated the CFPB's 2017 "Payday Lending Rule" on the grounds that it was invalid "as the product of the Bureau's unconstitutional funding scheme." The CFPB's petition for writ of certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in February.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 2547, on a strict party-line vote. Titled "The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, the bill would amend several consumer finance statutes for the first time in decades and impose new requirements and limitations on debt collectors, among others. Its fate now rests in the U.S. Senate.

On March 11, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced rescission of its January 24, 2020 Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices (Policy). In announcing its rescission, the Bureau indicated the Policy did not provide the intended clarity to regulated entities, and declared it inconsistent with the Dodd-Frank Act, including by limiting the Bureau's full scope of supervisory and enforcement authority.

Anti-discrimination efforts are front and center for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is evident by the interpretive rule it recently issued relating to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. The rule clarifies that the prohibition against sex discrimination in ECOA and Regulation B encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The prohibition includes discrimination motivated by perceived nonconformity with sex-based or gender-based stereotypes, as well as discrimination based on an applicant's associations.

In its recent Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights on COVID-19 Prioritized Assessments, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) summarized challenges and risks with respect to several industries it had informally examined since the start of the pandemic. Beginning in May 2020, the Bureau rescheduled about half of its planned examinations and instead conducted "prioritized assessments" in response to the pandemic. These assessments included seeking information on how institutions were responding and communicating with consumers, and also examining how institutions were confronting and adapting compliance in response to the pandemic.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB ) rescinded Bulletin 2015-05, RESPA Compliance and Marketing Services Agreements on October 7, 2020, stating that the bulletin did not provide the regulatory clarity necessary for compliance with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation X. The CFPB also issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify when marketing services agreements (MSAs) are acceptable under RESPA.

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court issued a two part decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Court first decided, in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts authoring the Court's opinion, that the CFPB's leadership by a single Director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers doctrine. The Court next decided that the Director's unconstitutional removal protection is severable from the other provisions of Dodd-Frank that establish the CFPB and define its authority. The severability holding was also authored by Roberts, but drew a 7-2 split.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently published compliance guidance—effective immediately—on the handling of information and documents during the transfer of a mortgage loan to a new servicer. Following related guidance issued in 2014 on these mortgage servicer transfers, CFPB supervisory examiners have continued to document weaknesses in servicer compliance management systems and violations of Regulation X, including inadequate policies and procedures for transferring loan information and documents in a timely and accurate manner that ensures uninterrupted continuation of required servicing functions.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in response to the continuing threat posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Among other provisions, the CARES Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with the intent to stop adverse credit reporting during the period of national emergency related to the coronavirus crisis. Despite this, furnishers should be aware that their procedures for responding to consumer disputes during the crisis period should not be relaxed.

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.

On September 19, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) hosted the second in a series of scheduled symposia. After the first symposium, we evaluated the panel discussions that focused on the term "abusive" and whether the Bureau should disclose parameters surrounding its interpretation of the term. The September 19 symposium addressed how behavioral law and economics can inform regulatory action. The discussion consisted of two panels: first, an academic discussion of behavioral economics, while a second panel discussed how behavioral economics can inform regulatory action, or lack thereof, in the consumer financial services field.

On May 7, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The significance of this NPRM cannot be understated. The CFPB's proposed rules cover multiple aspects of debt collection and are one of most substantial developments in the debt collection industry since the enactment of the FDCPA in 1977. The proposed rules seek to modernize application of the FDCPA to match the sophistication of today's electronic communications (e.g., voicemails, text messages, and electronic mail) and provide safe harbors and prescribe prohibited conduct. We've highlighted some of the proposed rules that demonstrate the significant impact on both debt collectors and debtors below.

The Senate voted 50-49 along party lines last week to confirm Kathleen "Kathy" Kraninger to a five-year term as the newest director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). She will succeed Acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney. Prior to her appointment, Kraninger served as an associate director in the Office of Management and Budget. She also previously held posts in the departments of Homeland Security and Transportation.

At the close of a 108 page decision filed in response to motions to dismiss a CFPB enforcement action, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC, C.A. No. 17-cv-890, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (within Second Circuit jurisdiction) granted the motions by concluding the CFPB's structure was unconstitutional. This is significant because the D.C. Circuit had determined en banc earlier this year that the CFPB was constitutional in PHH Corp. v. CFPB.

We've been following PHH's longstanding challenge of the CFPB's imposition of a fine against it for alleged RESPA kickback violations, through which elemental questions regarding the Bureau's constitutionality were tested.