Published: September 19, 2019

As the CFPB is currently structured, the head of the CFPB may only be ousted by the President for good cause.

. . . . . .

Published: September 3, 2019

In Salcedo v. Hanna, No. 17-14077 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2019), the 11th Circuit considered whether receipt of a single unsolicited text message was sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The court found it was not and in doing so, it rejected decisions from other U.S. circuit courts on this issue.

. . . . . .

Published: August 28, 2019

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 a consent order entered into with Maxitransfers Corp., a Texas-based money transmitter, following its investigation of Maxitransfers’ compliance with the Remittance Rule’s regulations concerning transmission error-resolution policies and consumer disclosures.

. . . . . .

Published: August 23, 2019

In a recent published decision, Shaw v. Shand,1 the New Jersey Appellate Division held that licensed semi-professionals are not "learned professionals" exempt from liability under the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA")2 simply because they are subject to an independent statutory or regulatory scheme.  Shaw was an appeal from a trial court decision entering summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ CFA claims in favor of a home inspector, holding that home inspectors are “semi-professionals” exempt from the CFA.

. . . . . .

Published: August 21, 2019

In a precedential opinion, DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC, the Third Circuit held that adding an unencrypted "quick response" or "QR" code to an envelope containing a debt collection letter violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").i That section limits what collection agencies can include on envelopes, prohibiting "language or symbols" other than the debt collector’s address.  

. . . . . .

Published: August 6, 2019

On August 5, 2019 a New York state court, on remand from the Appellate Division, again determined that Section 228.2(c) of the New York Department of Financial Services’ Title Insurance Regulation was unconstitutionally vague and thus could possibly be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.

. . . . . .

Published: May 22, 2019

A New York law aimed at curbing robocalls could significantly increase risk for companies relying on auto-dialers or prerecorded calls to contact customers.

. . . . . .