Tag: CFPB

1
U.S. District Court (Again) Rules that Parties Can Challenge a CFPB Information Request Without Revealing Their Identities
2
Payday Loans Under Attack: The CFPB’s New Rule Could Dramatically Affect High-Cost, Short-Term Lending
3
CFPB Takes Aim at Marketplace Lenders
4
CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Put the Brakes on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Financial Contracts
5
More To Know About “Know Before You Owe”: CFPB Acknowledges TRID Challenges and Announces July 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
6
“A Bridge Too Far:” CFPB’s Authority Grab Rejected by Federal Judge
7
D.C. Circuit Appears Poised to Overturn First CFPB Enforcement Action to Reach the Court: Five Key Takeaways From Yesterday’s Oral Argument
8
Increased Scrutiny On “Auto-Defaults”— Road To Enforcement Or Impetus For Change?
9
Proactive Protection of Consumers or Premature Penalty? Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Bucks the Trend in Data Security Breach Cases
10
A New Cyber Regulator on the Beat: The CFPB Issues its First Cybersecurity Order and Fine

U.S. District Court (Again) Rules that Parties Can Challenge a CFPB Information Request Without Revealing Their Identities

By: Ted Kornobis

Last week, a federal court issued an opinion supporting the ability of an entity to file a court challenge to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) information requests without necessarily needing to “out” itself as a potential investigation target. Specifically, the court reaffirmed a prior ruling that recipients of a CFPB civil investigative demand (“CID”) who were potential targets of an enforcement action could challenge the CFPB’s attempt to take certain testimony by proceeding as “John Doe” plaintiffs in a federal injunctive action. The district court first allowed the plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously late last year, and last week’s order denied the CFPB’s motion for reconsideration. A description of the case background and judge’s original decision may be found in our earlier post on this case.

Read More

Payday Loans Under Attack: The CFPB’s New Rule Could Dramatically Affect High-Cost, Short-Term Lending

By Jennifer J. Nagle, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Gregory N. Blase, and Hayley Trahan-Liptak

On June 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) proposed a new rule under its authority to supervise and regulate certain payday, auto title, and other high-cost installment loans (the “Proposed Rule” or the “Rule”). These consumer loan products have been in the CFPB’s crosshairs for some time, and the Bureau formally announced that it was considering a rule proposal to end what it considers payday debt traps back in March 2015. Over a year later, and with input from stakeholders and other interested parties, the CFPB has now taken direct aim at these lending products by proposing stringent standards that may render short-term and longer-term, high-cost installment loans unworkable for consumers and lenders alike. At a minimum, the CFPB’s proposal seriously threatens the continued viability of a significant sector of the lending industry.

To read the full alert, click here.

CFPB Takes Aim at Marketplace Lenders

By David Christensen

Last Fall, in its 2015 Rulemaking Agenda, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) signaled its intent to “to develop rules to define larger participants in markets for consumer installment loans.”[1] Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to issue “larger participant” rules to define entities in a particular market for consumer financial products or services. The issuance of such rules opens the door for supervisory and examination authority over such entities. Fast forward to Spring 2016, when the CFPB announced that it is accepting complaints from consumers regarding alleged problems with online marketplace loans, and it appears that the CFPB has marketplace lenders squarely in its sights.[2]

Read More

CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Put the Brakes on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Financial Contracts

By Andrew C. Glass, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Roger L. Smerage, Joshua Butera

Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in the 1920s to deter hostility toward arbitration. Despite numerous Supreme Court rulings over the decades upholding that goal, arbitration continues to face hostility. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), for example, recently issued a proposed rule that would significantly expand the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act’s restrictions on arbitration agreements. The rule would severely restrict the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses by providers of consumer products and services, primarily by prohibiting the use of class action waivers. And under the proposed rule, the CFPB would exercise close scrutiny over arbitration proceedings by requiring consumer financial services providers to report certain information about arbitrations to the CFPB.

To read the full alert, click here.

More To Know About “Know Before You Owe”: CFPB Acknowledges TRID Challenges and Announces July 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

By Jennifer Janeira Nagle and Hollee Watson

The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule (“TRID”) went into effect on October 3, 2015, and has posed significant implementation challenges industry-wide. Those challenges have been articulated to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) by industry participants, trade groups, and congressional leaders alike. In response, the CFPB has issued guidance in the form of letters, webinars, educational videos, guides, and factsheets. Notwithstanding this informal guidance, and despite the CFPB’s assurances that its initial compliance examinations would be “diagnostic and corrective, not punitive,” see December 29, 2015 Letter from CFPB Director Richard Cordray to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the mortgage industry continues to experience uncertainty and risk in its efforts to implement TRID’s sweeping changes to TILA and RESPA. See January 29, 2016 Mortgage Industry Trade Group Letter to CFPB; March 11, 2016 Sen. Bob Corker Letter to CFPB.

In the wake of pressure for more formal guidance, the CFPB recently announced that it will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on TRID in late July. In an April 28, 2016 letter to mortgage industry trade groups, Director Richard Cordray acknowledged that “the implementation of the Know Before You Owe rule poses many operational challenges” and that “there are places in the regulation text and commentary where adjustments would be useful for greater certainty and clarity.”

Read More

“A Bridge Too Far:” CFPB’s Authority Grab Rejected by Federal Judge

By Soyong Cho and Ted Kornobis

Judge cautions new agency against “plow[ing] head long” beyond its jurisdiction

On April 21, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s investigatory powers and civil investigative demand (“CID”) authority were soundly checked by federal district court judge Richard J. Leon. The Court denied the CFPB’s petition to enforce a CID issued to the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (“ACICS”) seeking information regarding accreditation of for-profit colleges, because the subject of the CID fell squarely outside of the CFPB’s enforcement authority. [1] Judge Leon’s ruling demonstrates that the right to judicial review can provide a backstop to an overly-aggressive and broad investigation.

Read More

D.C. Circuit Appears Poised to Overturn First CFPB Enforcement Action to Reach the Court: Five Key Takeaways From Yesterday’s Oral Argument

By Jon Eisenberg and Irene C. Freidel

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the first CFPB enforcement case to reach the court. The court appears poised to reverse the CFPB’s decision and also to rule that the concentration of power in a single CFPB Director not subject to removal at will by the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. We discuss five key takeaways from the oral argument that are important not only to the parties in the case but potentially to others facing enforcement actions by the CFPB or other government agencies.

To read the full alert, click here.

Increased Scrutiny On “Auto-Defaults”— Road To Enforcement Or Impetus For Change?

By: David E. Fialkow and Hollee M. Watson

Private student loan companies are at the center of increased scrutiny by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”). Speaking at a recent conference, the CFPB student loan ombudsman Seth Frotman warned attendees that student loan companies are at risk of violating the law for placing borrowers in default when the co-signer of the loan dies or declares bankruptcy. See Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Federal agency warns student loan companies about automatic defaults, The Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2016). This “auto-default” practice occurs when banks and other financial companies provide student borrowers with education loans that grant lenders or servicers the right to trigger a default upon a co-signer’s death or declaration of bankruptcy, even if the loan is paid on time.

Read More

Proactive Protection of Consumers or Premature Penalty? Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Bucks the Trend in Data Security Breach Cases

By: R. Bruce AllensworthRyan M. TosiLindsay S. Bishop

Data breaches and cybersecurity attacks appear to be growing in frequency. Despite the increase in the number of such attacks, plaintiffs have found it difficult to establish a legal foothold for data breach claims, as federal courts across the country have routinely dismissed data breach claims brought by private litigants where no cognizable harm has been alleged. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), however, now appears poised to enforce regulations regarding the protection of private consumer information, including holding companies accountable — even without any data breach or misuse of private consumer information.

To read the full alert, click here.

A New Cyber Regulator on the Beat: The CFPB Issues its First Cybersecurity Order and Fine

By: Ted Kornobis

On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) instituted its first data security enforcement action, in the form of a consent order against online payment platform Dwolla, Inc. The CFPB joins several other regulators that have recently issued statements or instituted enforcement actions in this space, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the National Futures Association (“NFA”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), state attorneys general, and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), which has been active in this area for several years.

To read the full alert, click here.

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.