Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Nevada have joined the list of jurisdictions considering proposals to legislatively opt out of federal interest rate preemption established under the federal Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA). Although the legal effect remains unclear, the apparent objective of these proposed laws is to prevent interest rate “exportation” by state-chartered financial institutions.… Continue Reading

After targeting credit card late fees in its proposed rule, the CFPB has set its sights on further attacking credit card pricing through interest rates. The CFPB published a blog late last month stating that credit card interest rate margins are at an all-time high, with an average 14.3% margin in 2023 compared to 9.6% margin in 2013, and have fueled the profitability of revolving balances.… Continue Reading

On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., a case involving the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on scope of preemption under the National Bank Act (NBA).  The specific question before the Court is whether, post-Dodd-Frank, the NBA preempts a New York statute requiring banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts. … Continue Reading

The CFPB has released a supervisory order which establishes that the CFPB has supervisory authority over World Acceptance Corp. (WAC) based on the CFPB’s conclusion that it has reasonable cause to determine that WAC “is engaging in or has engaged in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of one or more consumer financial products or services.” … Continue Reading

Our special guest is Brad Blower, Principal and Founder of Inclusive-Partners LLC, and author of a recent blog post titled “The CFPB Has An Opportunity to Greatly Advance the Ethical and Non-Discriminatory Use of AI in Financial Services and Should Take It.”  We first discuss the lack of clear guidance from the CFPB on the non-discriminatory use of AI and the possible reasons for the CFPB’s apparent reticence to provide more specific guidance. … Continue Reading

On February 20, 2024, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed an eight-figure judgment against Ashford University (“Ashford”), an on-line, for-profit college, and its parent company, Zovio, Inc. (formerly Bridgepoint Education) for violations based on false and misleading statements to prospective students. Ashford and Zovio had not challenged the trial court’s liability determination, but sought review and reduction of the penalty awarded in that action.… Continue Reading

The FTC published guidance warning companies that “[i]t may be unfair or deceptive for a company to adopt more permissive data practices—for example, to start sharing consumers’ data with third parties or using that data for artificial intelligence (AI) training—and only inform consumers of this change through a surreptitious, retroactive amendment to its terms of service or privacy policy.” … Continue Reading

The CFPB has revised its internal supervisory appeals process for institutions seeking to appeal a compliance rating or an adverse material finding.  The revisions became effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register on February 22, 2024. 

As an initial matter, the revised appeals process references the “Supervision Director” rather than the “Associate Director” (for supervision, enforcement, and fair lending). … Continue Reading

On December 21, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) published guidance (the Guidance) to assist regulated institutions in assessing and managing their climate-related financial and operational risks.

This is a follow up to DFS’s previous letter published in October 2020, which highlighted the impact of risks from climate change on its regulated institutions.… Continue Reading

On February 22, 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued letters (the “AG Letter”) to California’s 197 state-chartered banks and credit unions warning that overdraft and returned deposited item fees may violate California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). The AG Letter encourages the institutions to review their practices and policies regarding: “(1) surprise overdraft fees, which are assessed even when a consumer cannot reasonably anticipate that a debit or checking transaction will overdraw their account; and (2) returned deposited item fees, which are assessed when a consumer deposits a check that is returned, even when the consumer has no knowledge of or control over the circumstances that caused the check to be returned.”… Continue Reading