Litigation and Court Decisions

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) filed an opposition brief (the “Opposition”) on Tuesday in response to a request by plaintiff trade groups to enjoin the CFPB’s final credit card late fee rule (the “Final Rule”) during the pendency of a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the Final Rule. In the Opposition, the CFPB argues that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, and that the Final Rule is consistent with the CARD Act’s mandate that late fees be “reasonable and proportional” to the late payment.… Continue Reading

On January 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases in which the question presented is whether the Court should overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.  That decision produced what became known as the “Chevron judicial deference framework”–the two-step analysis that courts typically invoke when reviewing a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute. … Continue Reading

Just two days after the CFPB issued its final credit card late fee rule (Rule) last week, a lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal district court seeking to invalidate the Rule.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business. … Continue Reading

The plaintiffs and intervenors in the lawsuit filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the CFPB’s final small business lending rule implementing Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank (Rule) have filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Texas Bankers Association, Rio Bank, McAllen, Texas, and the American Bankers Association. … Continue Reading

On January 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases in which the question presented is whether the Court should overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.  That decision produced what became known as the “Chevron judicial deference framework”–the two-step analysis that courts typically invoke when reviewing a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute. … Continue Reading

On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., a case involving the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on the scope of preemption under the National Bank Act (NBA).  The question before the Court is whether, post-Dodd-Frank Act, the NBA preempts a New York statute requiring banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts. … Continue Reading

On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., a case involving the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on scope of preemption under the National Bank Act (NBA).  The specific question before the Court is whether, post-Dodd-Frank, the NBA preempts a New York statute requiring banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts. … Continue Reading

On February 20, 2024, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed an eight-figure judgment against Ashford University (“Ashford”), an on-line, for-profit college, and its parent company, Zovio, Inc. (formerly Bridgepoint Education) for violations based on false and misleading statements to prospective students. Ashford and Zovio had not challenged the trial court’s liability determination, but sought review and reduction of the penalty awarded in that action.… Continue Reading

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on February 21, 2024 against TitleMax of Georgia, Inc. and TMX Finance LLC (together, “TitleMax”) accuses the Georgia-based title and pawn lender of various violations of the Military Lending Act (“MLA”), including charging servicemembers and their dependents interest in excess of the MLA’s 36% rate cap.… Continue Reading

On February 7, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s Order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings and holding that a charged-off loan made by a lender licensed under the Consumer Discount Company Act (“CDCA”) that is subsequently sold to a third-party debt collector is no longer subject to the CDCA and collecting on the debt without holding a CDCA license is not in and of itself a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).… Continue Reading