CFPB

Subscribe to CFPB

This article is the first in a three-part series addressing a seminal Fifth Circuit case that is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Each week, we will debunk each myth and address the implications for consumer finance regulation going forward.

Myth No. 1: CFSA’s matter presents a novel attack on the Bureau’s constitutionality

Background

As many readers are aware, the plaintiffs in Consumer Financial Services Association of America, Ltd, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau et al. challenged the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB or Bureau”) new regulation concerning the payday loan industry. In federal court in Texas, the plaintiff also had asserted that the Bureau’s funding mechanism was unconstitutional, but it lost this argument. On appeal last fall however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that legislative appropriations are required before the agency’s expenditure. The Fifth Circuit held that because the Bureau’s budgets are not subject to appropriations, its funding mechanism violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. The case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and oral argument is now set for October 3, 2023.Continue Reading Three myths surrounding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s plight for constitutional legitimacy

There is a broader trend in financial regulatory developments to implement traditionally consumer-style borrower protections in commercial lending. This is occurring at both the federal and state levels, each of which is discussed below.

Federal:  CFPB Finalizes Rulemaking to Regulate Small Business Lending

For the first time since the formal launch of the Consumer Financial…

We recently had a chance to speak to The Independent and Forbes for articles on the impending regulatory response to the FTX bankruptcy, which will undoubtedly affect the entire crypto sector. A couple of additional thoughts worth mentioning are as follows:

The extended Crypto Winter is likely to hasten regulatory clarity with respect to crypto. While the Congressional bills introduced thus far have favored the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as the chief crypto regulator, the extended crisis in the crypto sector have punched up serious concerns regarding investor protection, which is the focus of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As a result, we’re likely to see a greater role for the SEC in terms of crypto regulatory oversight.Continue Reading A few additional thoughts… on the regulatory response in the wake of the FTX bankruptcy

A new CFPB advisory opinion drills down on what consumer reporting agencies must do to address discrepancies in consumers’ credit reports, in order to protect consumers and remove obstacles to them getting credit. And while the Bureau gives specific examples of items requiring correction, the opinion emerges in the bigger context of a heightened interest in expanding the categories of businesses that could constitute a consumer credit company and clarifies the work required of such companies vis-à-vis other actors in the consumer credit ecosystem such as furnishers or users of consumer data reports.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a substantial Advisory Opinion interpreting Section 607(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Section 607(b) is one of many technical provisions imposing specific compliance obligations on consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The Advisory Opinion indicates that if a CRA or a company engaged in consumer reporting activities neglects to remove logical inconsistencies from consumers’ credit reports, such a company will be deemed to have violated the FCRA’s mandate to build and carry out “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of information pertaining to consumers whose credit information or personal attributes are being reported.Continue Reading No junk data: CFPB Advisory Opinion fleshes out “maximum possible accuracy” for purposes of deciding FCRA violations

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finally moved forward today to ban class action waivers in mandatory arbitration clauses found in certain consumer financial services contracts.

In October 2015, the CFPB published its multiyear study on arbitration provisions in consumer financial contracts and an outline of the proposal under consideration. It then convened a …

On January 15, 2016, the CFPB Office of Enforcement asserted that claims pursued in administrative enforcement actions are not subject to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the Consumer Financial Protection Act, signaling that the agency is willing to target long-ago violations when seeking restitution and penalties. The CFPA — also known as…

As an early “holiday gift,” to help you more easily search for a particular piece of guidance from the CFPB, we’ve put together two CFPB guidance documents. The first is a compilation of all nine issues of the CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights, from 2012 to 2015. The second is a compilation of all the CFPB’s Bulletins,…

On September 1, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) won an important decision in which a federal court, for the first time, interpreted the meaning of “recklessly provid[ing] substantial assistance” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”). Perhaps since it was an order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss released just before the Labor…

In a move long anticipated by the industry, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on October 7, 2015 proposed to ban class action waivers in consumer financial contracts. Although the proposed ban would not take effect for a few years, it could lead to an increase in consumer class action lawsuits—some of which 　have been…