Litigation and Court Decisions

Subscribe to Litigation and Court Decisions via RSS

Earlier this month, the CFPB filed a notice with the Texas federal district court that it is appealing to the Fifth Circuit the district court’s order granting summary judgment to a group of trade associations in their lawsuit against the CFPB challenging the changes made to its UDAAP Exam Manual in March 2022. … Continue Reading

We previously blogged about an Illinois federal district court order requiring Samsung to pay about $4 million in arbitration fees in connection with 35,000 individual arbitration demands filed as part of a “mass arbitration.”  By way of update, Samsung is pursuing an appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which recently granted Samsung’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. … Continue Reading

Joining every other circuit to address the same issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a consumer does not have to prove actual damages to recover statutory damages for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In Omar Santos, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.… Continue Reading

In September 2023, the CFPB updated its UDAAP Examination Manual to remove the changes it made in March 2022 which provided that unfair acts or practices encompassed discriminatory conduct, even in circumstances to which federal fair lending laws, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, did not apply.

It has been suggested that this update means the CFPB has retreated from its position that discriminatory conduct can be the basis of a UDAAP violation. … Continue Reading

On November 6, the CFPB filed a notice with the Texas federal district court that it is appealing to the Fifth Circuit the district court’s order granting summary judgment to a group of trade associations in their lawsuit against the CFPB challenging the changes made to its UDAAP Exam Manual in March 2022. … Continue Reading

On November 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument  in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a case in which the respondents are challenging the constitutionality of the SEC’s use of administrative law judges (ALJs).  The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the use of ALJs by all federal agencies, including the CFPB, FTC, and federal banking agencies.  … Continue Reading

On November 30, 2023 at 12:30 PM, ET, Ballard Spahr will hold a webinar entitled “Recent Important Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks: What They Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers” during which this case will be dissected.

In a lengthy (65-page) order, the California Superior Court in Los Angeles has issued an extremely important decision upholding the legitimacy of bank-model online lending by denying a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) that sought to force fintech Opportunity Financial LLC (OppFi) to stop facilitating loans to California borrowers from its partner FinWise Bank at interest rates above the interest rate cap (generally 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate) imposed by the California Financing Law (CFL).… Continue Reading

On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in CFSA v. CFPB, a case with profound potential implications for the future of the CFPB.  The Court will rule on whether the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. … Continue Reading

The Texas federal district court hearing the lawsuit challenging the validity of the CFPB’s final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Rule) has issued an order that preliminarily enjoins the CFPB from implementing and enforcing the Rule on a nationwide basis against all entities covered by the Rule.  On July 31, the court had denied the request of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit for nationwide preliminary relief and instead issued an order that granted preliminary relief only to the plaintiffs and their members. … Continue Reading

A Rhode Island federal district court recently refused to enforce a stand-alone class action waiver in the consumer plaintiff’s automobile lease agreement on the ground that it violates state public policy.  The court in Metcalfe v. Grieco Hyundai LLC held that the class action waiver contravened Section 6-13.1-5.2 of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), which provides that consumers “may … bring an action on behalf of themselves and other similarly injured and situated persons to recover damages.” … Continue Reading