To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week.
Federal Activities:
On January 16, the U.S. Department of Education announced it will temporarily delay the use of involuntary collection tools on defaulted federal student loans — such as administrative wage garnishment and the Treasury Offset Program — so it can implement major repayment reforms mandated by the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. The Act streamlines repayment into a standard plan and a single income-driven repayment (IDR) option, including a new IDR plan that waives unpaid interest for on-time payers whose payments do not fully cover interest and provides small matching payments in some cases to steadily reduce principal, beginning July 1, 2026. It also allows borrowers a second opportunity to rehabilitate a defaulted loan, reversing prior law that limited them to one rehabilitation. Education officials framed the pause as giving defaulted borrowers time to consolidate, choose among simplified repayment options, or pursue rehabilitation before collections resume, while emphasizing that defaults will continue to be reported to credit bureaus and that borrowers should proactively work with their default loan servicers during the delay. For more information, click here.
On January 16, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, speaking at the New England Economic Forum, said that after three 25-basis-point cuts since September 2025, bringing the federal funds rate to 3½–3¾%, she now sees inflation (excluding one-off tariff effects) moving close to the 2% target while the labor market has become “increasingly fragile” and poses the greater macroeconomic risk. She noted that real GDP growth in 2025 was supported by strong AI- and data-center-related investment and productivity gains, even as consumer spending and housing softened, and emphasized that underlying core services inflation is now roughly consistent with 2%, leaving elevated goods inflation largely tariff-driven and likely to fade. Bowman warned that hiring has slowed, unemployment has risen to 4.4%, job gains are concentrated in a few noncyclical service sectors, and more workers are in involuntary part-time or multiple jobs — conditions she believes could deteriorate quickly if demand weakens further — so she favors a proactive, forward-looking approach that continues to bring policy “closer to neutral” unless labor market data show a clear and sustained improvement. She also outlined a deregulatory-leaning supervisory agenda since becoming vice chair, highlighting steps to focus exams on material financial risks, recalibrate capital and leverage requirements (including the enhanced SLR and community bank leverage ratio), withdraw climate-related guidance, support innovation and implementation of the GENIUS Act for stablecoins, and improve transparency, stress testing, payments-fraud responses, and M&A and reporting processes, all with the goal of maintaining a safe, sound, and resilient banking system while reducing unnecessary burdens. For more information, click here.
On January 16, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould, speaking to the American Bar Association (ABA) Banking Law Committee, sharply questioned the legal basis, effectiveness, and cost of current U.S. bank “living will” and resolution-planning regimes, especially the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) covered insured depository institutions (CIDI) plans, which he argued lack explicit statutory authorization and improperly shift the FDIC’s core receivership responsibilities onto banks while allowing the FDIC to influence banks’ day‑to‑day structures and operations. By contrast, he acknowledged that Dodd‑Frank § 165(d) plans for large bank holding companies have a clear statutory mandate and make more conceptual sense in a bankruptcy context, but criticized how the Fed and FDIC have used binding “guidance” and complex, assumptions‑heavy constructs to drive costly compliance exercises that may offer little practical value in an actual failure, as recent resolutions suggest. Gould warned that an entrenched “resolution planning industry” in agencies, banks, and consulting firms now sustains this burden without clear benefits and urged fundamental reform: scaling back 165(d) plan frequency and content, subjecting de facto requirements to proper rulemaking or rescission, and, in the case of CIDI plans, moving away from bank-authored plans in favor of rebuilding the FDIC’s own resolution execution capabilities, including better auction and receivership tools, while assuring that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) will provide the FDIC timely information needed to resolve national banks. For more information, click here.
On January 15, the federal banking agencies — the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and FDIC — published in the Federal Register their joint report to Congress on differences in accounting and capital standards, concluding that as of September 30, 2025, they had identified no material differences in the accounting or regulatory capital frameworks applicable to insured depository institutions. The agencies explain that their 2013 harmonized capital rule, as subsequently amended, has largely aligned capital requirements, and that only a handful of technical or statutorily driven differences remain, such as slightly different wording around pre‑sold construction loans, the Board’s allowance for dividends from related surplus at the holding company level, the FDIC’s explicit requirement to deduct examiner‑identified losses from common equity tier 1, special capital treatment and tangible capital requirements for savings associations under the Home Owners’ Loan Act, and differing scope provisions for the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio tied to global systemically important bank holding companies. None of these residual differences are viewed as having practical, material consequences for the capital or accounting standards applied to the banks each agency supervises. For more information, click here.
On January 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published in the Federal Register a Privacy Act notice proposing modifications to its “CFPB.019 — Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) and Registry” system of records, with comments due by February 17, 2026. The revised notice clarifies that the system supports both registration of mortgage loan originators (MLOs) employed by federally regulated institutions and administration of the NMLS registry, including U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)‑required identity verification for users who perform administrative functions or serve as primary contacts for covered institutions. It expands the categories of individuals covered to include those primary contacts, institution‑designated administrative users, and other authorized federal users, and expands the categories of records to include additional MLO data elements and identifying information (such as contact details, government IDs, and criminal history‑related data) for those users. The CFPB also updates the records‑retention schedule (generally five years after an account becomes inactive), adds a new routine use permitting disclosures to the National Archives and Records Administration for records‑management inspections, and makes nonsubstantive edits to align the notice with the model format in OMB Circular A‑108. For more information, click here.
On January 15, the defendants in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought filed a letter with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit informing the court that the CFPB has received the funds it recently requested from the Federal Reserve pursuant to Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s December 30, 2025, order clarifying the preliminary injunction. The letter recounts that the government previously notified the district court and the D.C. Circuit of an anticipated lapse in CFPB funding and of the CFPB’s submission of the report required by 12 U.S.C. § 5497(e)(1)(B), and explains that, following the district court’s directive, the CFPB submitted a funding request to the Federal Reserve (as reflected in the defendants’ January 9 notice to the district court). The defendants now advise the court that the CFPB has informed them it is in receipt of the requested funds. For more information, click here.
On January 14, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a proposed rule that would repeal its Fair Housing Act (FHA) “discriminatory effects” (disparate impact) regulations and leave the development and application of disparate impact standards entirely to the courts. The proposed rule makes two key changes. First, HUD would revise 24 C.F.R. § 100.5(b), the general scope provision, by deleting the sentence that ties the examples in part 100 to discriminatory‑effect liability and cross‑references the disparate impact standard in § 100.500. Second, HUD would “remove and reserve” subpart G of part 100 — currently consisting of § 100.500 — which is the central regulatory provision setting out HUD’s disparate impact standard. Section 100.500 now defines discriminatory effect, describes when a practice may nevertheless be lawful if supported by a “legally sufficient justification,” and specifies how the burdens of proof are allocated in disparate impact cases. If the rule is finalized as proposed, HUD will no longer have a codified regulatory test for disparate impact under the FHA. In the Federal Register notice preamble, HUD does not state that disparate impact claims are invalid as a matter of law. Instead, it takes the position that whether and how disparate impact applies under the Act are questions for the courts to decide rather than for agency regulation. Comments are due February 13, 2026.For more information, click here.
On January 14, the CFPB published its FY 2024 Annual Performance Report, covering October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024, and explicitly characterizing the period under former Director Rohit Chopra and President Joe Biden as one of “overreach” and “weaponization” of the agency’s mandate, with aggressive rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, and DEIA initiatives that the new leadership now labels inappropriate. The report documents high supervisory and enforcement activity (e.g., 691 supervisory events in FY 2024, $507 million in consumer relief and $754 million in civil money penalties ordered, and a 100% success rate in resolving public enforcement actions), extensive stakeholder engagement and outreach (including 152 Office of Stakeholder Management-facilitated engagements and 16.8 million users of CFPB educational resources), and robust research and market-monitoring output, while also noting shortfalls on certain timeliness and cybersecurity maturity metrics. The introduction emphasizes that Acting Director Russell Vought has begun “remedial” actions — rescinding or revising rules and guidance, terminating or narrowing some consent orders and cases, and ending “unlawful DEIA practices” in line with Executive Order (EO) 14173 — and signals that a new strategic plan for FY 2026–2030, aligned with a narrower view of the CFPB’s statutory mandate, is expected by March 2026. For more information, click here.
On January 13, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) announced the third round of proposals under its Deregulation Project, inviting public comment on four rulemakings intended to streamline and modernize credit union regulation by eliminating obsolete, duplicative, or overly burdensome provisions. The agency proposes to repeal 12 CFR 701.31 (its standalone nondiscrimination rule), clarifying that this will not change credit unions’ obligations under the FHA or Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) but should reduce confusion, and to rescind three interpretive rulings and policy statements — IRPS 08‑2 (Service to Underserved Areas), IRPS 10‑1 (Community Chartering Policies), and IRPS 11‑2 (Federal Corporate Credit Union Chartering)— on the grounds that their standards are already reflected elsewhere and are therefore redundant. Collectively, the changes are framed as easing compliance by reducing the number of separate sources federal credit unions must consult on chartering, field‑of‑membership, and nondiscrimination requirements, while keeping the focus on safety, soundness, and resilience. Stakeholders are encouraged to file comments through the Federal Rulemaking Portal using the docket numbers listed in the Federal Register notices. For more information, click here.
On January 13, the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence held a hearing titled “Delivering for American Consumers: A Review of FinTech Innovations and Regulations,” focused on how fintech products fit within the U.S. financial system and regulatory framework and how bank-fintech partnerships can expand offerings, especially for smaller institutions. Witnesses addressed earned wage access (EWA), payments innovation, and AI. The majority noticed four discussion drafts of particular interest to financial firms: the Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act, which would create a federal framework for EWA and clarify that advances and associated fees/tips are not “credit” or finance charges; the FUTURES Act, requiring prudential regulators to assess and report on their supervisory technology, data practices, and upgrade plans; the Financial Services Innovation Act of 2026, directing agencies to establish Financial Services Innovation Offices and offer “enforceable compliance agreements” for innovative products under alternative compliance plans; and the Model Risk Management Modernization Act, instructing regulators to clarify and update model risk guidance for AI-heavy activities. In opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Bryan Steil emphasized that fintech innovations like EWA, buy-now-pay-later, and AI can improve households’ financial well‑being and support bank-fintech partnerships, but underscored the need for “fit‑for‑purpose” regulation that is activity‑based, provides clear legal pathways for compliant products, and maintains strong consumer protections. For more information, click here and here.
On January 13, Senate Republicans released a series of fact sheets on the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, a forthcoming Senate Banking Committee market-structure bill that would create a comprehensive U.S. regulatory framework for digital assets. The materials emphasize four pillars: stronger investor protections (enhanced disclosures, antifraud and insider-abuse limits, coordinated oversight, and financial literacy initiatives); clear jurisdictional lines between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) plus a tailored disclosure regime to replace “regulation by enforcement” and give responsible projects a workable path to raise capital; protections for software developers and peer‑to‑peer activity coupled with risk‑management, cybersecurity, and compliance standards for centralized intermediaries engaging with DeFi; and a “hardline” illicit finance regime that subjects centralized intermediaries to sanctions and anti-money laundering requirements and provides law enforcement new tools against money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion, while keeping legitimate crypto activity onshore under U.S. oversight. For more information, click here.
On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Howard v. Republican National Committee (RNC) offering two important interpretations of the applicability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to certain text message communications: (1) text messages are “calls” under the TCPA; and (2) a text message that merely includes a video file with a prerecorded voice — requiring the recipient to press play — does not constitute “initiating” a “call using an artificial or prerecorded voice.” The more novel issue was whether a text message that includes a video file is a prohibited “call using an artificial or prerecorded voice.” The court began by reaffirming that “voice” in the TCPA means audible sound, not text alone. However, the court held that sending an embedded video did not constitute “making” or “initiating” a call “using … an artificial or prerecorded voice.” Looking to ordinary dictionary definitions, the court determined that these provisions regulate how the call begins. From that, the court concluded that the TCPA limits the use of artificial or prerecorded voices to begin a call, not any subsequent, optional use of a recording once the connection is established. Because the plaintiff’s voluntary decision to press play was an intervening step, any playing of the prerecorded voice was not part of the manner in which the call was made or initiated. For more information, click here.
On January 13, President Donald Trump nominated David MacNeil of Florida to serve as a federal trade commissioner for a seven-year term beginning September 26, 2025, succeeding Melissa Holyoak, whose term has expired. MacNeil is the chief executive officer of an Illinois-based company selling automotive accessories. Last year, Trump nominated MacNeil to be the ambassador at large for Industrial and Manufacturing Competitiveness. He was never confirmed. For more information, click here.
On January 13, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget a proposed, economically significant rule titled “Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives,” moving it into EO 12866 regulatory review and signaling that guidance is imminent on how ERISA fiduciaries should analyze and recommend alternative investments in defined contribution plans. The proposal, developed in response to Trump’s August EO directing DOL to ease access to alternatives such as private equity, real estate, and cryptocurrency in 401(k)s, is expected to clarify advisors’ duties and the standards for including such options as designated investment alternatives in participant‑directed plans, in coordination with the SEC and other regulators. For more information, click here.
On January 12, CFPB and DOJ formally withdrew their October 2023 joint statement on creditors’ consideration of immigration status under the ECOA. The agencies state that the CFPB’s prior statement may have created the misimpression that ECOA or Regulation B impose additional limits on the consideration of immigration or citizenship status beyond the existing regulatory text. The agencies also state that additional guidance on this topic goes beyond Regulation B, so it is unnecessary and appropriate for rescission. The withdrawal of the joint statement does not change ECOA, Regulation B, or creditors’ underlying fair lending obligations. Instead, it simply removes the agencies’ prior, nonbinding policy articulation. For more information, click here.
On January 12, America First Legal Foundation (AFL) filed a petition for rulemaking asking the CFPB to rescind Regulation C (12 C.F.R. § 1003) and Appendix B, which require mortgage lenders to collect and report applicants’ ethnicity, race, and sex under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The petition argues that this demographic data collection is a “surveillance tool” that facilitates race- and sex-based discrimination by government and private actors, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions and President Trump’s EO 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, and exceeds HMDA’s statutory mandate, which focuses on institutional disclosure of aggregate lending patterns rather than standardized, applicant-facing data collection (including visual-observation coding when borrowers decline to self-identify). AFL contends that continued use of Regulation C is an unconstitutional vestige of affirmative action that pressures lenders away from merit-based lending, enables disparate-impact enforcement that the EO seeks to curb, and violates federal civil rights protections, and therefore urges the CFPB to initiate rulemaking to eliminate the race, ethnicity, and sex data fields and Appendix B, and to confirm receipt and outline the process for considering the petition. For more information, click here.
On January 12, the CFTC announced that Chairman Michael S. Selig has launched the Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC) — the renamed and repurposed Technology Advisory Committee — to advise the agency on how emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and cloud computing are reshaping derivatives, commodity, and broader financial markets. Selig, who will sponsor the IAC, plans to designate participants in the new CEO Innovation Council as charter members and is soliciting additional nominations from industry, regulators, fintech providers, public-interest groups, academia, and market infrastructure firms by January 31, 2026. Under its charter, the IAC will recommend how the CFTC should approach “fit‑for‑purpose” market-structure regulation for innovative products, platforms, and business models; how new technologies are being used by market professionals and end users; and what level of technology investment the CFTC itself needs to meet its surveillance and enforcement responsibilities, with the goal of developing clear “rules of the road” for what Selig describes as a new “Golden Age” of American financial markets. For more information, click here.
On January 12, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R‑AR) announced that bipartisan negotiations on crypto market structure legislation have made “meaningful progress,” but that the committee will delay its planned markup to the last week of January to finalize remaining details and build broader support. He emphasized his continued commitment to advancing a bipartisan bill and highlighted the leadership and engagement of Senator Cory Booker (D‑NJ) and his team in working through the complex policy issues involved. For more information, click here.
On January 9, the CFPB released its 13th Annual Report of the Private Education Student Loan Ombudsman, analyzing complaints received from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, and highlighting record student loan complaint volumes and growing servicing problems. The CFPB received approximately 22,900 private and federal student loan complaints (plus 2,100 related debt collection complaints), including about 4,500 private loan complaints (up roughly 33% year over year and the fifth‑highest annual total) and about 18,400 federal loan complaints (up roughly 36% and the highest annual total on record). Roughly 20% of complaints were not answered by companies in a timely manner — double the 10% untimely rate in the prior award year — and although companies closed about 78% of complaints with an explanation or relief, 91% of consumers who provided feedback said the response did not address all concerns. The report links these servicing gaps to increased vulnerability to frauds and scams in the student loan market and, pursuant to the ombudsman’s statutory mandate under Dodd‑Frank, recommends that policymakers and enforcement agencies: (1) undertake coordinated consumer education campaigns on scams and rigorously measure their effectiveness; (2) coordinate enforcement and prosecution of fraudsters and widely publicize results; and (3) address persistent delays and poor responsiveness in company complaint handling. For more information, click here.
On January 9, the Congressional Research Service published a brief history of federal student loan origination fees, explaining how and why the Department of Education charges upfront fees on most direct loans and tracing the policy tradeoffs over time. The report notes that, under current law, borrowers pay a statutory 1% fee on direct subsidized and unsubsidized loans and 4% on PLUS loans, with effective rates somewhat higher since 2013 due to sequestration (e.g., 1.057% and 4.228% for loans first disbursed on or after October 1, 2020), and that these amounts are deducted from disbursements even though interest accrues on the full principal. Origination fees, first authorized in 1981 in the FFEL program to help offset federal subsidy costs and preserve lender participation, were carried into the direct loan demonstration in 1992 and the permanent direct loan program in 1993, then repeatedly adjusted — most recently by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which phased direct subsidized/unsubsidized fees down to 1% while maintaining 4% on PLUS. Throughout this history, Congress has wrestled with whether these fees reduce students’ available funds and increase their cost of borrowing versus whether the loan programs can remain financially viable, and continue to offer below‑market benefits, without them. For more information, click here.
On January 9, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, speaking in Minnesota, announced a suite of Treasury initiatives to combat what he described as rampant government benefits fraud in the state, including complex fraud rings that allegedly diverted billions of dollars from child nutrition, housing, and social services programs. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has opened investigations into four Minnesota money services businesses, issued a geographic targeting order requiring banks and money transmitters in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties to provide enhanced reporting on certain cross‑border transfers of $3,000 or more, and released an Alert with “red flags” to help financial institutions detect fraud involving federal child nutrition programs. The IRS is auditing financial institutions that facilitated laundering of Minnesota funds and will launch a task force focused on pandemic-era tax incentives abuse and misuse of 501(c)(3) status tied to the schemes. Treasury is also convening roundtables with financial institutions, victims, and law enforcement and providing on‑the‑ground training to Minnesota-based federal, state, and local agencies on using financial data — such as suspicious activity reports — to identify, investigate, and prosecute benefits fraud and recover laundered funds. For more information, click here.
On January 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit published its decision in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Corpay, Inc., largely upholding the FTC’s enforcement action against fuel-card issuer Corpay (formerly FleetCor) and its CEO Ronald Clarke for deceptive advertising and unfair billing practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The court affirmed summary judgment against Corpay on all five counts, finding overwhelming, undisputed evidence that its “per‑gallon” savings, “fuel only,” and “no transaction fees” marketing was materially misleading, and that the company unfairly charged small‑business customers undisclosed add‑on and late fees. It also affirmed summary judgment against Clarke on four counts, holding that, as Corpay’s ultimate decision-maker, he had “some knowledge” of the unlawful practices based on internal emails, complaints, and reports, but vacated judgment on Count II (the “fuel only” ads) as to him for lack of record evidence tying him specifically to that conduct. Finally, the court upheld a robust permanent injunction against Corpay — requiring “express informed consent” for each fee, “unavoidable” electronic disclosures, and a ban on hiding material terms behind hyperlinks — as a proper exercise of the district court’s equitable power to “fence in” a company whose deceptive and unfair practices were longstanding and intentional. For more information, click here.
State Activities:
On January 14, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that Nexo Capital Inc. will pay $500,000 in penalties for violating the California Financing Law (CFL) and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law by making thousands of crypto‑backed consumer and commercial loans to at least 5,456 Californians without a CFL license and without assessing borrowers’ ability to repay. DFPI found that Nexo generally failed to review income, existing debt, credit history, or other financial information before originating loans between July 26, 2018, and November 22, 2022, and cited the firm for engaging in unlawful acts and offering financial products not in conformity with consumer financial law. In addition to the monetary penalty, Nexo must, within 150 days, transfer all funds belonging to California residents to its U.S. affiliate Nexo Financial LLC, which holds a CFL license and must comply with California’s licensure and disclosure requirements. DFPI noted this is its second major action involving Nexo, following a 2022 multistate $22.5 million settlement over Nexo’s crypto-interest‑earning program for state securities law violations. For more information, click here.
On January 14, Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown announced a settlement with KVS Title, LLC and six affiliated joint venture title companies resolving allegations that they paid unlawful referral fees to real estate agents and brokers for steering consumers to purchase title insurance, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Maryland Real Estate Settlements Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Under the settlement, the joint ventures will be dissolved, KVS Title is barred from forming new joint ventures with real estate professionals for referral payments on Maryland title insurance business, and KVS Title and the joint ventures must pay $850,000 in restitution to affected Maryland consumers plus $200,000 to the AG’s Consumer Protection Division for enforcement and education. Eligible consumers will be identified and automatically issued restitution within 90 days. For more information, click here.
On January 13, New York Governor Kathy Hochul delivered her 2026 State of the State address outlining a broad policy agenda with several items directly affecting financial services, insurance, and fintech markets. She proposed cracking down on fraud to reduce auto insurance premiums, new accountability and transparency measures for home insurers (including expanded automatic discounts), and “sweeping reforms” to protect ratepayers from rising utility costs, including an Affordable Utilities Omnibus bill to strengthen oversight of utility finances. On the consumer-protection and data side, she called for creating a new Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity & Trust (DIGIT); “cracking down on shadowy data brokers” to better protect personal information; requiring clear labeling of AI‑generated content; and prohibiting misleading “discounts” offered to consumers. The agenda also includes eliminating state income tax on tips, enhanced enforcement against workers’ compensation fraud and wage theft, improved disclosures for student loan refinancing and new co-signer standards, requiring data centers to “pay their fair share” for energy usage, and targeted innovation initiatives — such as Empire AI and support for quantum, biotech, and semiconductor design — that signal continued state engagement in technology, payments, and digital-asset-adjacent sectors. For more information, click here.
On January 12, the California DFPI issued a second invitation for comments on potential regulations under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) that would require registration and reporting by firms engaged in consumer reporting and related data activities. Although DFPI poses nearly 30 questions, there appears to be four main themes: (1) consumer and market concerns, i.e., what practices by consumer-reporting providers benefit consumers and which cause harm; (2) definitions and coverage, i.e., how the CCFPL definition in § 90005(k)(9) compares to definitions in federal and state laws such as the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act; (3) registration, reporting, and oversight requirements, i.e., what an eventual registration regime for consumer-reporting providers would look like; and (4) reasonable alternatives and scope, i.e., suggestions on reasonable alternatives, including whether some other product or service (other than consumer reporting) should be the subject of this rulemaking, and whether there are less burdensome but equally effective ways to achieve the CCFPL’s purposes (such as promoting consumer welfare, fair competition, and transparency). Comments are due by February 26. This is a prerulemaking process, but it is an important signal that DFPI is preparing to extend its new CCFPL registration regime to consumer reporting and data players operating in California. For more information, click here.
On January 9, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s intermediate appellate decision upholding the constitutionality of the Idaho Patient Act (IPA) and rejecting Ridgeline Medical, LLC’s constitutional challenges to the statute’s medical-debt collection rules. Ridgeline had sued a patient for an unpaid $777 bill. The patient counterclaimed for statutory penalties under the IPA, arguing Ridgeline failed to provide the required final billing statement before filing suit. After the Idaho attorney general intervened to defend the law, the magistrate court, on reconsideration, upheld the Act and awarded the patient statutory penalties, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the IPA’s restrictions on reporting medical debts and filing collection lawsuits regulate commercial speech and satisfy intermediate scrutiny, do not violate the First Amendment rights to free speech, petition, or any “prepetitioning” right, and do not offend equal protection or procedural or substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also found the act’s $3,000 statutory penalty not “wholly disproportioned” to the offense. The court therefore affirmed dismissal of Ridgeline’s complaint and denied attorney’s fees to both parties on appeal. For more information, click here.
On January 8, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it adopted new regulations that will extend New York’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) obligations to certain nonbank mortgage lenders operating in the state. Effective July 7, 2026, the rule will require New York DFS‑licensed nondepository mortgage bankers that have originated 200 or more New York State mortgage loans in the prior calendar year to demonstrate that they are providing fair and equitable access to home loans, especially for low‑ and moderate‑income New Yorkers. The new rules are intended to create greater parity with banks, which have long been expected to help meet the credit needs of the communities they serve. The announcement comes at a time when, according to the DFS superintendent’s press release, nonbank mortgage companies accounted for about 64% of mortgage originations nationwide in the second quarter of 2025. For more information, click here.