Commentary on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, issued May 6, 2016.
Consumer Financial Services Legal Update Blog
Can Credit Card Debt Collectors Continue to Charge Interest and Late Charges After Charging-Off the Debt?
A federal district court in Oklahoma recently dismissed a putative class action asserting that defendants’ credit card debt collection activities violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Problems With the CFPB’s Argument: An Analysis of the D.C. Circuit Oral Arguments on Statute of Limitations
What began as a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) $109 million enforcement ruling against the mortgage company PHH Corp. (“PHH”) for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), has evolved into a broader discussion about the constitutionality of the agency itself. As demonstrated in the closely watched federal appeal brought by PHH, critical developments occurred earlier this month that have implications for the agency’s future enforcement approach.
The Supreme Court of Iowa recently held that non-sufficient funds fees (“NSF fees”) charged by a state-chartered Iowa bank are not subject to the usury provisions of the Iowa Consumer Credit Code (“ICCC”) because the transactions at issue did not constitute extensions of credit.
In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a three-year lease-to-own agreement for a water heater was not subject to certain disclosure requirements.
Home Field Advantage Continues for Tech Companies in Silicon Valley: Facebook Wins Big TCPA Victory on its Home Turf
In the latest example of a Silicon Valley court bending over backward to keep the TCPA’s grimy little paws off an emerging tech company, Facebook won a huge victory on the automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) front with its motion to dismiss in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.
When is an Administrative Action Barred by the Dodd-Frank Act’s Three-Year Statute of Limitations? Never, According to the CFPB
Corporate defendants are entitled to the protections afforded by statutes of limitations, which bar claims for conduct long-past and are “vital to the welfare of society.” Recently, however, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has doubled down on its position that the statute of limitations is inapplicable to enforcement actions brought in a certain category of proceedings.
Dorsey partner Eric J. Troutman explains how the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is the single most expansive restriction on constitutionally-protected speech in our nation’s history … and why you are probably okay with that.
As previously reported on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) adopted a burden-shifting approach to assessing claims that housing policies cause disparate impact on minority populations in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (42 U.S.C. § 3601). By adopting that approach, the Court confirmed the availability of this form of lawsuit against government entities that implement housing policies.
A little over one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), which resolved a circuit court spit regarding how a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”).
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal held that the practice called “dual tracking” – when a lender forecloses on a property while the borrower’s application for a loan modification is under review – violates California’s Unfair Competition Law.
A recent decision by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals highlights some of the challenges lenders may face when seeking the dismissal of allegations of unfair and deceptive lending practices in connection with a loan that requires a balloon payment at the end of the loan’s term.
On December 11, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear a dispute concerning allegations of deceptive debt collection by lawyers.