This new article co-authored by Dorsey partner Melissa Krasnow discusses the Canadian and U.S. compliance regimes regarding spam emails, text messages, and other spam communications. Consumer finance entities should be familiar with these rules, given the potential implications of these rules for communications with potential and current borrowers.
Consumer Financial Services Legal Update Blog
On October 2, 2015, the City of New York moved to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the City of unlawfully perpetuating racial segregation in the housing industry. The arguments made by the City offer an important insight into the City Law Department’s view on the Fair Housing Act and disparate impact claims.
Dorsey partner Eric Epstein and Dorsey associate Augustine Lo wrote this recent article for The Real Estate Finance Journal regarding the new amendments to the HMDA regulation, Regulation C.
If a federal agency conducts a CRA audit and finds that a lender’s conduct is compliant with federal law, is the CFPB barred from subsequently alleging that the same conduct violates federal law?
Are contractual arbitration clauses harmful to consumers of financial products and services? The CFPB appears to think so. But is the CFPB’s view empirically or legally well-founded?
The CFPB recently added a new feature to its Consumer Complaint Database: namely, consumers now have the option to publish “narratives” detailing their allegations against a company. The problem lies in the possibility that these hearsay “narratives” will be used against companies in connection with enforcement actions or lawsuits.
Damned If You Do: Second Circuit Rules That Language Included In RESPA-Required Notice Begets FDCPA Violation
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) provides that, if a “debt collector” makes an “initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,” the debt collector must provide the consumer with certain information, such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and the consumer’s right to dispute the debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). However, the statute does not elaborate on the meaning of the phrase “in connection with the collection of any debt.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently flagged a Section 1692g(a) tripwire.
The Eighth Circuit’s recent decision in Beukes suggests two key take-away lessons regarding a lender’s options if the lender disputes the borrower’s right to rescind.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concludes that the manner in which Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are appointed is improper under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution. The decision is important to the consumer finance industry for several reasons discussed in this article.
In Texas Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015), the Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims are legally cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). Is this reasoning applicable to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”)?
On August 27, 2015, David Scheffel, Joe Lynyak, Nicholas Vlietstra and Eric Epstein of Dorsey’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group presented a Webinar on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Inclusive Communities decision, in which the Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. You can hear a playback of the Webinar at this link. We discuss the litigation and regulatory implications of this important decision.
Because the scope of the Supreme Court appeal was limited to a question of law, namely whether the FHA contemplates disparate impact liability, the Supreme Court’s opinion does not fully elaborate on the facts of the case. The record of the underlying District Court proceedings, which culminated in a bench trial, paints an even more complete picture of how disparate impact litigation can lead to arguably absurd results.
On July 14, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced they had reached a “groundbreaking settlement” with American Honda Finance Corporation (“Honda”). The settlement resolves allegations that Honda engaged in racial discrimination by charging higher interest rates on auto loans to minority borrowers. But what is the legal basis for the CFPB’s supervision of auto lenders? And what methodology did the CFPB use to establish the connection between discretion in interest rate markups and racial discrimination in auto lending?