On July 7, 2020, the CFPB issued its much-anticipated final rule (the “Revocation Rule”) on small dollar lending rescinding the mandatory underwriting provisions of its 2017 rule governing payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans (the “2017 Rule”). Consistent with its proposal last year, the Revocation Rule rescinds the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the
Okay. Let’s huddle and talk TCPA for a moment. On July 6, 2020, in Barr v. AAPC, the Supreme Court upheld the TCPA and simply severed the unconstitutional 2015 government-debt exemption from the broader statute. So, here we are. Many of you likely already know our TCPAWorld defense team led by the Czar himself,
The California Attorney General has submitted comments on the final proposed CCPA regulations. Our sister blog, Security & Privacy Bytes has published a summary of the key guidance that can be garnered from these materials including, expectations regarding “user-enabled privacy controls” (and Do Not Track signals), rules governing service provider use of personal information, jurisdictional
In Denan v. Trans Union LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14930 (7th Cir. May 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit joined the First, Ninth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the FCRA and its implementing regulations do not obligate a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA), such as Trans Union, to determine the legality of a disputed
Last week, in Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transp., Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13215 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020), the Ninth Circuit rejected a former employee’s argument that his employer violated the FCRA by providing the required FCRA disclosure together with other application materials, holding that such a “novel” interpretation of the FCRA “stretches the statute’s requirements beyond the limits of law and common sense.”
Continue Reading A Bridge Too Far: Ninth Circuit Rejects Former Employee’s “Novel” Interpretation of the FCRA
Kelly v. Quicken Loans Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68570 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2020), highlights the difficulties a creditor faces when a debtor files for bankruptcy. In that case, even though the creditor’s communications acknowledged the plaintiff’s bankruptcy and contained disclaimer language, a district court largely rejected defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FCRA and state-law claims.
As an initial matter, defendant only moved to dismiss plaintiff’s FCRA claim to the extent that it was based on allegations that defendant was trying to collect a discharged debt. However, because the court concluded that the FCRA claim was based on allegedly impermissible account reviews and credit pulls and not on attempting to collect a discharged debt, it summarily denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the FCRA claim.