Recent Posts
Blog Post
08/11/2022
By Francis X. Riley III and John L. Ropiequet

The CFPB is now ready to directly regulate the purveyors of digital consumer marketing. The CFPB new rule clarifies when digital marketers and financial products sellers are subject to consumer protection regulations. Digital marketers that are "materially involved" in the development of content strategy — including facilitation of targeted marketing based on customer's behavior so as to affect their purchase behavior — are "service providers" and subject to the bureau's oversight.

Blog Post
03/18/2022
By Francis X. Riley III

CFPB's intended use of its UDAAP authority to investigate, and regulate and enforce against illegal "discrimination" in financial products and services breaks open the proverbial damn, with such authority washing over every consumer financial product/service, as well as those that support or facilitate same.  In short, the use of this catch-all authority to address illegal discrimination will result in more risk and liability for financial institutions for the advertising, pricing and other practices of their agents, vendors and those third parties who - through their own products and

Blog Post
04/02/2021
By Colleen Fox and Ryan L. DiClemente

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Facebook v.

Blog Post
02/19/2021
By Thomas Laser

Since the Illinois Supreme Court held in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. in 2019 that a plaintiff need not show actual injury to bring an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) claim in state court, courts have seen a barrage of BIPA lawsuits alleging violations of the statute’s informed consent and notice provisions. This blog post addresses two recent decisions impacting BIPA claims: the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to take up a case which may definitively decide whether certain BIPA claims are preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”); and the Seventh Circuit’s January 2021 decision on federal standing requirements with regard to BIPA cases that merely allege procedural injuries.

Blog Post
10/22/2020
By Francis X. Riley III

On September 11, 2018, an interagency statement was issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  that sought to clarify the limited role of the guidance that they issue. Following this, two banking industry advocacy groups, the Bank Policy Institute and the American Bankers Association, filed a petition with regulators on November 5, 2018 that requested a formal rulemaking on the subject. On October 21, 2020, the agencies jointly issued a proposed rule that would codify the 2018 interagency statement to establish that supervisory guidance is not binding or enforceable at law.
 

Blog Post
10/15/2020
By Francis X. Riley III

A national lender, USAA Federal Savings Bank, entered into a consent order with the Office of the Controller of the Currency (“OCC”), which included an $85 million civil money penalty for alleged "unsafe or unsound" banking risk management, compliance processes, and information technology (“IT”) risk governance. In the consent order, the OCC stated that the bank has failed to implement and maintain banking risk management and IT risk governance protocols. Specifically, the bank had deficiencies in "all three lines of defense": first-line business units, independent risk management, and internal audits. As a result, the OCC concluded that the lender had violated the Military Lending Act (“MLA”) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) in a “pattern of misconduct."

Blog Post
10/12/2020
By Stephanie L. Denker

It has been several months since consumers began filing lawsuits against various companies for failing to issue refunds or changing their refund policies after the COVID-19 pandemic began. 

Blog Post
06/30/2020
By Francis X. Riley III and John L. Ropiequet

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cannot constitutionally be subject to removal only for cause, as provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), but must instead be removable at the President’s will. Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, No. 19-7 (U.S. June 29, 2020), arose from a constitutional challenge to the CFPB’s authority to issue a civil investigative demand (CID) for documents and information from a law firm that handled debt relief services. The firm asserted that the single-director structure of the agency, with the director removable only for cause, was a violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution. The district court rejected the argument and was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

Pages