Case Law

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced a settlement with Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. regarding violations of cybersecurity regulations.

The violation in question involved a cybersecurity breach in 2019 the company failed to report until its July 2020 DFS exam, almost 18 months after the fact.

For more details from the consent order, read on. Read on »

Ten individual and corporate defendants have agreed to settle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on charges they participated in, controlled, or illegally benefitted from marketing of a real estate scam regarding the Sanctuary Belize development.

According to the FTC, the scheme took more than $120 million from consumers.

Read on for more details. Read on »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision stating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was not required to start an investigation into Seila Law “from scratch”.

This ruling is a follow-up to the U.S. Supreme Court case in which the CFPB’s organizational structure was deemed unconstitutional. CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger then ratified the bureau’s actions after the Supreme Court’s decision, which sparked several challenges across the country on whether this ratification was appropriate.

For more details from the decision, read on.  Read on »

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a consent order against a mortgage servicer for violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and Regulation X.

The consent order requires the servicer to pay redress to harmed consumers, imposes a civil money penalty, and injunctive relief that would apply should the company engage in mortgage servicing in the future.

For more details, read on.  Read on »

Another lawsuit has been filed concerning the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) payday loan rule.

The complaint challenges the 2020 repeal of the underwriting provision of the rule and alleges the CFPB relied on “arbitrarily truncated analysis” and executed the repeal without observance of the rulemaking procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

To learn more about the plaintiff’s argument, read on. Read on »

In a case regarding the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay provisions, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the defendant bank violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by erroneously relying on the verbal statements from the plaintiff and his ex-wife regarding his income and failing to verify those statements with documentation.

For details on the case, read on.

Read on »

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it reached a stipulated final judgment with the last two defendants of a case it filed in September.

The case involved allegations against a foreclosure relief services company based in Texas and the company’s president and CEO.

Read on for more details.

Read on »

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court struck down the for-cause protection provided to the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the Dodd-Frank Act, saying it is “incompatible with the structure of the Constitution.”

In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court declined to strike down the entire Dodd-Frank Act, as Seila Law, LLC, had asked it to do if the court found the structure unconstitutional.

Read on for details and reaction on the long-awaited decision.

Read on »

The American Securities Association touted a victory for market exchanges in a recent court case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the SEC did not have authority to implement its Access Fee Pilot, which was created to gather data so the SEC might be able to determine in the future whether regulatory action was necessary.

Read on for more details from the case, and reaction from the association.

Read on »

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge have filed a lawsuit accusing several companies of helping to broker contracts that offered high-interest credit to disabled veterans and other consumers.

The case built on several previous bureau actions and charged the defendants with four counts of deceptive acts and one count of unfair acts.

Read on for more details about the latest enforcement action.

Read on »