No. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1616), “to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a).

mer financial statutes as well as those created by the Dodd Frank Act. Among the previously existing laws transferred to the CFPB’s authority include:The Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982 (12 U.S.C. 3801);The Consumer Leasing Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 1667);The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693);The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (15 U.S.C.1691);The Fair Credit Billing Act (15 U.S.C.1666);The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681);The Home Owners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901);The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692);Subsections (b) through (f) of section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831t(b) – (f)), requiring disclosure when a depository institution lacks federal deposit insurance;Sections 502 through 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, protecting the disclosure of nonpublic personal information;The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2801);The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1601);The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA);The S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5101);The Truth in Lending Act (TILA)(15 U.S.C. 1601);The Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4301);Section 626 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, mandating a rulemaking on unfair and deceptive mortgage lending practices; andThe Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1701)The Act grants the CFPB the authority to enforce some provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, a role previously held by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The CFPB now exercises the FTC’s former authority to prescribe rules, issue guidance, conduct studies, and issue reports under any law now governed by the CFPB, including:Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 CFR Part 310);Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans (16 CFR Part 425);Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations (16 CFR Part 429);Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses (

ry information request from the CFPB, consult with counsel to determine whether and how best to respond to the CFPB, while keeping in mind that the CFPB’s regulations require an initial “meet and confer” within 10 days of receipt of a civil investigative demand.***[1] Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (12 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq.); Consumer Leasing Act (15 U.S.C. § 1667 et seq.); Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.—excluding § 920); Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.); Fair Credit Billing Act (15 U.S.C. § 1666 et seq.); Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.—excluding §§ 1681m(e) and 1681w); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.); Federal Deposit Insurance Act (in part) (12 U.S.C. § 1831t(b)–(f)); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6802-6809—in part); Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.); Home Owners Protection Act (12 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.); Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 note); Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. § 1701); Military Lending Act (10 U.S.C. § 987); Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Section 626 (Public Law 111-8); Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.); S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act (12 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.); Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.); Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.).[2] All figures are approximations obtained from CFPB press releases, available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom.

“unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices” (“UDAAP”) in connection with offering consumer financial products and services,[4] as well as other enumerated statutes and implementing regulations covering consumer financial products and services.[5] The statutes which the Bureau is authorized to implement and enforce include, but are not limited to, the following statutes regulating aspects of mortgage origination and/or servicing, and their implementing regulations: Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (12 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.); Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.); Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681et seq.), excluding 1681m(e) and 1681w; Home Owners Protection Act of 1998 (12 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.); Sections 502 through 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 2009 [Privacy of Consumer Financial Information](15 U.S.C. 6802–6809); Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.); Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1601 note); Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.); Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.)Discussion From its inception, the CFPB has prioritized and focused on mortgage origination and servicing issues, which it views as having contributed to the financial crisis, through new rule making, supervision, and enforcement. This article will examine the CFPB complaint gathering, regulatory and enforcement activity related to mortgage lending and servicing.

This article has the distinction of having two abstracts. Here's the SSRN abstract: This article analyzes the relationship between innovative mortgage products, like adjustable-rate mortgages, and the first wave of consumer legal challenges brought against those products under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. section 1601, et seq. (TILA). And here's the more-detailed abstract at the beginning of the article:As recently as the first quarter of 2007, home ownership rates were up across the board, including in low-income, fixed-income, and minority communities.

les.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_convergence-payments-commerce-implications-consumers_report_2022-08.pdf[8] ; https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf [9] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf[10] 15 U.S.C. § 1026.1(c)(1)(iii).[11] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf [12] Kusnier v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022), Case No. 3:22-cv-07770.[13] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf[14] See 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. (Electronic Funds Transfer Act), as implemented by Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(e)(1).[15] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf[16] [17] Id.[18] See 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA), as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.12(c), 12 C.F.R. § 1026.13; https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf.[19] https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/02/ABA-Risk-and-Compliance-Buy-Now-Pay-Later-DMFIRM_4113087651-002.pdf; https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf; [20] [21] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf [22] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf[23] [24] [25] Id.[26] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf ; https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_convergence-payments-commerce-implications-consumers_report_2022-08.pdf

to available exemptions from the laws.As of the date of this post, the following states have proposed various forms of commercial financing laws this legislative session:Illinois (Senate Bill 2234 and House Bill 3064),Kansas (Senate Bill 245),Maryland (House Bill 496, which has since failed);Mississippi (Senate Bill 2619 and House Bill 1271, both of which have since failed),Missouri (Senate Bill 187 and House Bill 584, both of which have since failed),North Carolina (Senate Bill 539 and House Bill 662) andTexas (Senate Bill 1918 and House Bill 4359, both of which have since failed).Bills remain pending in New Jersey from the carry-over session (Senate Bill 819 and House Bill 2150).Members of Congress are proposing their own federal CFDL. Similar to prior legislative iterations, bills were recently introduced in the Senate and House (Senate Bill 2021 sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) and House Bill 4192 sponsored by Representative Velazquez (D-NY)) to amend the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. The legislation would make provisions of TILA applicable to certain commercial loans (open-end and closed-end financings, factoring, and sales-based financings, are included) and require consumer-like disclosures. The bills would apply to loans to small businesses and include loans equal to or less than $2.5 million. The bills also propose to designate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the regulatory and enforcement authority over the law.Although recently introduced, the bills have not moved beyond the initial committees assigned to them. Discussions undoubtedly will unfold focusing on federal preemption of current state CDFLs. The Constitutional concept that federal law takes precedent over conflicting state and local laws cannot be ignored with the introduction of these new Congressional bills. An amendment to TILA may create one law to follow, as opposed to an individual state-driven patchwork of non-uniform CFDLs. Preemption, however, may remove exemptions for c

ion to review their consumer-facing disclosures to ensure that the terms are clear, easy to understand and prominently displayed. Potential efforts to ensure compliance include the following: (a) readability assessments by third-party providers to determine the complexity of written disclosures;(b) prominence of fees and charges through bold print or unified placement (through a textual box or otherwise); and (c) internal assessments of consumer complaints to determine where alleged "disconnects"between the written disclosures and consumer understanding have been identified.While these assessments may be burdensome on lenders that are strained by increasing consumer defaults and a myriad of state and federal compliance obligations, fulsome assessments of issues related to consumer-facing disclosures will likely yield important benefits for providers both in terms of regulatory "friction"and potential exposure to private party litigation. 1 12 USC § 5531(d). 2 12 USC § 5536(a)(1)(B). 3 15 USC §§ 1601 et seq. 4 15 USC §§ 1667 et seq.

listed UK securities to be a criminal offence in the UK, it will still have to take place in the UK. A person can be guilty of insider dealing in listed UK securities under MAR even if the conduct occurs outside the UK. The Order will enter into force 21 days after the day on which it is made, which on current Parliamentary timetables is likely to be during Q3 2023.UK regulated firms should update their compliance manuals/policies to reflect these changes once the Order is made. Learn more about this update in a recent client alert.Enforcement and Litigation UpdatesThird Circuit Upholds Dismissal of TILA Claim Based on Failure to Itemize Annual Credit Card Renewal Notice FeesOn Tuesday, April 11, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) failed to itemize annual fees on its credit card renewal notices in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. See Weichsel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 21-3371 (decided April 11, 2023) (Opinion).Read more about this update in more detail on Goodwin’s Consumer Finance Insights blog.[View source.]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) failed to itemize annual fees on its credit card renewal notices in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. See Weichsel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 21-3371 (decided April 11, 2023) (Opinion).The plaintiff in Weichsel, a Chase credit card account holder, filed a putative class action complaint alleging that, although his 2019 Chase card renewal notice listed his total annual fee as $525, the renewal notice failed to specify that the total annual fee of $525 was comprised of $450 for the primary cardholder and $75 for the additional card for an authorized user. Id. at 6. He asserted that Chase’s failure to itemize each component of the renewal fee in such notice violated TILA and Regulation Z. The plaintiff sought $1 million in damages on behalf of himself and the putative class, or up to $5,000 in individual statutory damages. Id.Chase moved to dismiss the complaint, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Chase’s motion, holding that the plaintiff had standing because he suffered an economic injury based on his assertion that he would not