The “Adam’s Rib” of assignee liability ̶ the “Holder Rule” issued by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in 1976 ̶ is up for review. Imposing liability on innocent purchasers of consumer credit loans for the legal violations of the originating creditors has long been a controversial issue in the capital markets. The FTC is seeking public input as it reviews the Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, commonly known as the Holder Rule. Although the Rule has not garnered significant attention over its 40-year existence, industry members should consider commenting by the February 12 deadline. Changes to the Holder Rule, including the scope and types of claims and defenses that can be asserted against a holder, could have a material impact on the market. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can also enforce the Holder Rule against covered institutions.
In 2014, cybersecurity and data breach incidents regularly made the headlines, with the reported breaches becoming increasingly large and complex. As in the past, these data breaches have inevitably been followed by a flurry of class actions and government investigations. But amid this flurry of activity, one federal regulator in particular, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC” or “Commission”), has unquestionably been the most prominent and active cybersecurity enforcer.
To read the full alert, click here.
On April 26th, the FTC gathered private sector representatives, regulators, and academics for a workshop to discuss the state of the mobile payment industry. Some commentary has interpreted regulators’ comments at the workshop to be a signal that regulators intend to use a “light touch” as the industry matures, but the phrase only partially hits the mark. Read More
Over the weekend, the CFPB and the FTC executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the two agencies that clarifies how they will share information and coordinate efforts with respect to companies and issues that fall under both agencies’ jurisdiction. The document contains few surprises but offers some insight into the steps the agencies are taking to prevent unnecessary duplication and inconsistency. Read More
By: Andrew L. Caplan* and David A. Tallman
*Mr. Caplan is not yet admitted to practice; admission to the NY Bar pending.
Litigation making its way through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California could have broad implications for the use of social media websites for marketing purposes. The central issue in PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz is the extent to which a company can control or limit the use of a social media account created for the company’s benefit but used by an individual employee in that employee’s name. The case illustrates the competing concerns that companies face with respect to social media marketing. Some companies may prefer to allow employees to engage with social media relatively independently in order to mitigate the risk that courts or regulatory authorities will impute employee-generated content to the company or subject the content to substantive regulation. But by doing so, companies may lose the ability to manage key social media relationships. Read More
The centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Act from a consumer protection standpoint is Title X, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. The Act will create a powerful consumer financial protection watchdog, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The majority of existing federal consumer financial protection laws will come under the Bureau’s purview, and the Bureau will have broad authority to enforce those laws and to issue its own rules under the Act. This alert describes the Bureau, including its structure, objectives, functions, jurisdiction, rulemaking authority and enforcement powers.
To view the complete alert online, click here.
This client alert is part of a series of alerts focused on monitoring financial regulatory reform. Below is a list of other alerts in the series:
Investor Protection Provisions of Dodd-Frank – July 1, 2010