Consumer Finance Monitor

On today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast our host, Alan Kaplinsky, discusses the rapidly evolving landscape of federal financial supervision with Sherra Brown, Head of Regulatory Research and Analysis for the Americas at Vixio Regulatory Intelligence. Our conversation focuses on what may be a fundamental shift in supervisory practices at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the implications of parallel changes at the federal banking agencies. Recent reports suggest that the CFPB may dramatically scale back its supervisory program—potentially reducing the number of examinations from roughly 600 annually to about 70, conducting examinations entirely virtually, narrowing the scope of reviews, and even Introducing a so-called "humility pledge" for examiners. If implemented, these developments would represent a significant departure from the Bureau's prior supervisory posture. At the same time, the federal prudential banking regulators—the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Federal Reserve Board—are moving toward a more risk-focused examination model, eliminating "reputation risk" as a supervisory category and signaling a broader effort to reduce regulatory burden. Below are several key themes from our discussion. Possible Structural Changes to CFPB Supervision Sherra and Alan discussed reports that the CFPB could significantly reduce the scope and frequency of its supervisory examinations. The Bureau may move toward a model involving: 1.     Fully virtual examinations 2.     A dramatically smaller number of exams each year 3.     Narrower, risk-focused review areas 4.     Greater reliance on institutions' internal compliance testing The shift could also reflect staffing reductions and broader policy priorities under the current administration. While virtual examinations are not new, as they were widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential reduction in exam scope and volume would mark a major change. As Sherra noted, a narrower supervisory footprint raises an important question: is the Bureau fundamentally redesigning its supervisory model or simply doing the minimum necessary while its future remains uncertain? What a Virtual Examination Looks Like For institutions that have not experienced a virtual exam, the process is procedurally similar to traditional on-site supervision. Institutions typically receive a document request list and must provide materials electronically. Interviews and meetings with examiners occur via videoconference. However, the key difference is relational. Virtual supervision makes it harder for examiners and institutions to build the working relationships that often facilitate dialogue and clarification during an on-site review. Data integrity, document accessibility, and centralized record management become even more important in a virtual environment. Likely Areas of CFPB Focus Although the Bureau has not yet clearly identified which institutions will be examined, Sherra suggested that the focus will likely be on large banks rather than non-bank entities. She also noted that several areas historically emphasized by the CFPB appear unlikely to receive the same attention going forward. For example, the Bureau has backed away from certain fair-lending theories such as disparate impact. One area that appears likely to remain a priority is protections for service members, including compliance with the Military Lending Act. Prudential Regulators: A Parallel Shift While the CFPB's future direction remains uncertain, the prudential regulators have continued their examination programs. One of the most notable developments is the elimination of "reputation risk" as a supervisory category. The OCC has already removed it from examination practices, and both the FDIC and Federal Reserve have indicated similar intentions. Historically, reputation risk sometimes served as a catch-all category allowing regulators to pressure institutions even when no specific legal violation was identified. Its removal is part of a broader effort to focus supervision on clearly defined financial, operational, and compliance risks. At the same time, regulators appear to be tailoring examination intensity more carefully based on institutional size and risk profile, potentially reducing the burden on community banks. Compliance Should Not Be Relaxed Despite the apparent reduction in federal supervisory activity, Sherra emphasized that institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. Several factors make continued vigilance essential: 1.     State attorneys general remain active in consumer protection enforcement. 2.     Private litigation risk persists. 3.     Future administrations could revive aggressive federal supervision, potentially accompanied by look-back reviews. Strong documentation, robust complaint management processes, and clear audit trails remain essential. The Growing Role of States Another important theme from our discussion is the expanding role of state enforcement. Several states, including New York, California, and Massachusetts, have signaled their intention to fill any perceived gaps left by reduced federal oversight. State regulators and attorneys general continue to focus on issues such as fair lending, consumer protection violations, and deceptive practices. Accordingly, institutions operating nationally must consider not only federal expectations but also evolving state regulatory priorities. Five Practical Takeaways Five key takeaways for financial institutions navigating this changing supervisory environment are: 1.     Fewer examinations do not mean less regulatory risk. 2.     Complaint management and data analytics will become increasingly important. 3.     Documentation discipline is even more critical in a virtual examination environment. 4.     Institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. 5.     Board and senior management oversight remain essential. In short, while federal supervision may be evolving, the fundamental expectations for sound compliance and risk management remain unchanged. Listeners can access the full discussion on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, where Sherra Brown provides valuable insight into what may be one of the most significant shifts in federal financial supervision in recent years. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the consumer financial services industry. From underwriting and fraud detection to customer engagement and collections, financial institutions are increasingly deploying advanced AI tools to automate processes, personalize services, and improve operational efficiency. We are releasing today, on our Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast show, a discussion of what may be the next major technological shift for the industry: Agentic AI in Consumer Financial Services — AI systems capable of acting autonomously, making decisions, and interacting directly with consumers. The discussion featured Professor Oren Bar-Gill of New York University School of Law, along with Ballard Spahr partners Joseph Schuster and Adam Maarec.  The discussion was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel. The panel examined how agentic AI differs from earlier forms of automation, the benefits it offers financial institutions and consumers, and the significant legal and regulatory risks it may create. Below are the key takeaways from the discussion. What Is Agentic AI? Agentic AI refers to AI systems that can independently take actions on behalf of users or organizations. Unlike traditional automation, which performs predefined tasks, or generative AI, which primarily produces content, agentic AI systems can: ·                 Make autonomous decisions ·                 Interact directly with consumers ·                 Initiate actions such as transactions or communications ·                 Learn from prior interactions In financial services, these systems may soon conduct customer service interactions, initiate collections calls, execute payments, or manage purchasing tasks for consumers. While these capabilities promise major efficiencies, they also raise complex legal questions regarding accountability, fairness, and consumer protection. Understanding AI-Driven Consumer Harm Professor Bar-Gill framed the discussion by examining potential consumer harms associated with AI-powered decision-making. Drawing on his recent book with Cass Sunstein, Algorithmic Harm: Protecting People in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, he explained that the impact of AI depends largely on the type of market in which it operates.  The book is available on Amazon here. Sophisticated vs. Unsophisticated Markets Bar-Gill distinguishes between: ·                 Sophisticated markets, where consumers are generally able to make informed decisions ·                 Unsophisticated markets, where consumers are more likely to misunderstand complex products In sophisticated markets, AI-driven personalization, such as individualized pricing, can increase efficiency and expand access to products by offering lower prices to consumers with lower willingness to pay. In contrast, in markets involving complex financial products, such as credit cards, mortgages, or insurance, AI-powered personalization may harm consumers who misjudge product costs or benefits. For example, if a consumer mistakenly overestimates the value of a financial product, an AI system may set the price just below that mistaken valuation, leading the consumer to pay more than the product is actually worth. Algorithmic Price Discrimination One area of growing concern is AI-enabled price discrimination, where algorithms tailor prices to each consumer's willingness to pay. Examples cited during the discussion included: ·                 Airlines experimenting with AI-based pricing strategies ·                 Online retail platforms offering individualized prices for identical products ·                 Insurance companies using algorithms to optimize premiums While pricing based on individual risk, such as in insurance underwriting, is widely accepted, pricing based on willingness to pay raises significant consumer protection concerns. As these practices expand, they are likely to attract increased attention from regulators and lawmakers, particularly at the state level. AI Use Cases in Consumer Finance The panel also highlighted several areas where AI is already being deployed across the consumer financial services lifecycle. Marketing and Customer Acquisition Financial institutions are using AI to analyze large data sets and create highly personalized marketing campaigns. Large language models can generate customized messaging tailored to specific demographic groups or individual consumers. While this personalization improves targeting and engagement, it also creates compliance challenges related to: ·                 Misleading advertising ·                 Disclosure requirements ·                 Potential discriminatory targeting Underwriting and Credit Decisions AI-driven underwriting tools allow lenders to analyze alternative data, such as cash-flow information, to assess creditworthiness. These tools may expand access to credit for consumers who previously lacked traditional credit histories. However, they also raise fair lending concerns under laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. Because many AI models operate as "black boxes," institutions may struggle to explain how decisions are made, an issue that can complicate discrimination analyses and regulatory oversight. Fraud Detection AI is particularly powerful in fraud detection, where pattern recognition is essential. Advanced models can analyze transaction behavior in real time to identify suspicious activity while minimizing unnecessary transaction declines. These tools also allow financial institutions to communicate with customers instantly, confirming transactions or investigating suspicious activity through automated interactions. Servicing and Collections Agentic AI may soon conduct both inbound and outbound customer interactions, including: ·                 Customer service conversations ·                 Dispute resolution ·                 Collections calls In some cases, AI-driven voice systems can conduct conversations that are indistinguishable from human interactions. While this technology may improve efficiency and reduce costs, it raises legal concerns about consumer deception, harassment, and compliance with debt collection laws. Core Legal Risks Despite the novelty of the technology, many of the key legal risks arise from existing laws, not new AI-specific statutes. Liability for AI Actions As Joseph Schuster emphasized, AI is a tool, not a liability shield. Institutions remain responsible for the actions of AI systems just as they would for the actions of employees or third-party vendors. Traditional legal doctrines, including agency law, vicarious liability, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, continue to apply. UDAP Risks AI systems interacting with consumers may create risks under federal and state UDAP laws if they: ·                 Provide inaccurate information ("hallucinations") ·                 Fail to deliver required disclosures ·                 Exhibit overconfidence in uncertain responses ·                 Engage in manipulative behavioral targeting. Fair Lending and Discrimination AI models can unintentionally produce discriminatory outcomes, even when protected characteristics are not used as inputs. As Professor Bar-Gill noted, future litigation may increasingly focus on disparate impact analysis, which examines whether outcomes disproportionately affect protected classes regardless of the model's internal logic. Governance and Risk Management Given these risks, institutions are increasingly adopting governance frameworks for AI deployment. Common practices include: ·                 AI governance committees with cross-functional participation ·                 Model inventories and risk-tiering systems ·                 Vendor due diligence for AI providers ·                 Data mapping and validation processes ·                 Continuous monitoring of AI outputs. Financial regulators are already asking supervised institutions detailed questions about how AI is being used. Institutions that implement structured governance processes are better positioned to respond to these inquiries. The Rise of Agentic Commerce One emerging application of agentic AI involves autonomous purchasing. For example, a consumer might instruct an AI assistant to plan and purchase supplies for a birthday party. The AI would then select vendors, place orders, and initiate payments using the consumer's stored payment credentials. But what happens if AI makes a mistake, such as ordering supplies for 1,000 guests instead of 10? Such scenarios raise difficult questions involving: ·                 consumer authorization ·                 merchant liability ·                 payment network rules ·                 dispute resolution These issues are only beginning to receive attention from regulators and industry participants. Key Takeaways for Financial Institutions The panel concluded with several recommendations for institutions exploring AI deployment. First, distinguish beneficial uses from harmful ones. AI can deliver significant consumer benefits, but firms must remain vigilant about potential misuse or unintended harm. Second, prioritize governance. Robust policies, oversight structures, and risk management processes are essential. Third, remember that existing laws still apply. AI systems must comply with the same consumer protection, fair lending, and disclosure requirements that govern traditional processes. Finally, institutions must recognize that failing to adopt AI also carries risks. As fraudsters increasingly deploy advanced technology, financial institutions may need AI tools simply to keep pace. As AI technology continues to evolve, the legal framework governing its use in financial services will also develop. For now, however, the most important lesson is that innovation must proceed hand-in-hand with careful legal and compliance oversight. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

We are releasing today on our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast our host Alan Kaplinsky's discussion with Marisa Calderon, President and CEO of Prosperity Now, about two high-profile policy proposals raised or embraced by President Trump as part of a broader populist affordability agenda: 1.         A nationwide 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year. 2.         The Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), long championed by Senator Dick Durbin which would require large credit card issuers to enable at least two unaffiliated payment networks (only one of which could be MasterCard or VISA) on their cards. Each proposal is framed as pro-consumer. Each has generated significant pushback from banks, card issuers, and trade associations. However, even consumer advocacy groups have raised serious questions about the wisdom of such initiatives. Prosperity Now is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing economic mobility, with a focus on those facing economic barriers. Each raises fundamental questions about how to balance affordability and access in the consumer credit market. Our discussion focused on a central theme: affordability is a real and pressing concern, but policy design matters enormously. Credit Card APRs: A Real Affordability Pressure As Calderon emphasized, policymakers are not wrong to focus on credit card interest rates. Average credit card APRs now hover around 22%, up sharply from roughly 13% a decade ago. Approximately half of cardholders carry a balance, and many rely on credit cards not for discretionary spending, but as liquidity bridges, covering emergency medical bills, car repairs, groceries, and other essentials. For lower and moderate-income households, credit cards are often the only readily available, regulated source of short-term liquidity. That makes rising APRs particularly painful. Calderon's formulation is apt: policymakers have identified the right problem. The harder question is whether they have identified the right solution. The 10% Interest Rate Cap: Lessons from History The proposal to impose a flat 10% nationwide cap on credit card interest rates for one year would represent an unprecedented federal intervention into unsecured revolving credit markets. Credit cards are unsecured and priced for risk. Interest margins help issuers cover expected charge-offs, volatility, and operational costs. If pricing flexibility is removed, lenders cannot simply absorb the loss, they adjust. Historically, those adjustments take predictable forms: •                 Tighter underwriting standards •                 Higher minimum credit scores •                 Lower credit limits •                 Reduced rewards programs •                 Increased non-interest fees •                 Exit from higher-risk market segments The likely result, as Calderon noted, is credit contraction, particularly affecting marginal and lower-income borrowers. The most relevant historical example may be the 1980 credit controls imposed during the Carter Administration, which were rescinded within months after causing severe market disruption. A more targeted example is the 36% APR cap under the Military Lending Act, which illustrates both the importance of bipartisan legislative design and the reality that even well-intentioned caps can reduce access at the margins. Recent Federal Reserve research on state usury caps reinforces this concern: when interest rate ceilings are imposed, credit to higher-risk borrowers contracts, credit to lower-risk borrowers expands, and delinquency rates do not meaningfully improve. In other words, credit is reallocated, not necessarily improved. Even a "temporary" cap may have durable consequences. Issuers that exit certain segments or reduce credit lines are not obligated, and may not be economically inclined, to restore them once the cap expires. Credit score impacts and reduced access can linger well beyond the formal life of the policy. As Calderon put it, blunt price controls are a chainsaw when what is needed is a scalpel. Affordability in Context: What Drives Household Budgets? An additional consideration is scale. Research recently highlighted by the Consumer Bankers Association shows that the fastest-growing household expenses from 2013–2024 were healthcare, shelter, food, and vehicles. Credit card interest represents a relatively small share of average household expenditures. This does not minimize the pain of high APRs, especially for households carrying persistent balances, but it does raise an important structural question: can credit card rate caps meaningfully solve broader affordability challenges rooted in housing, medical costs, food inflation, and transportation? Credit cards are often the mechanism households use to cope with those rising costs. Constraining access to that liquidity may exacerbate, rather than relieve, financial stress. The Credit Card Competition Act: Structural Reform or Indirect Price Control? The second proposal we discussed, the Credit Card Competition Act (the "CCCA"), takes a different approach. Rather than capping interest rates, the CCCA would require large issuers to offer merchants at least two unaffiliated network routing options (only one of which could be Visa or Mastercard). The theory is that routing competition would reduce interchange fees ("swipe fees"), lowering merchant costs and ultimately consumer prices. Merchants have generally supported the proposal. Banks and card issuers have strongly opposed it. The consumer-facing promise is straightforward: lower merchant fees should translate into lower retail prices, but history complicates that assumption. The Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act imposed caps on debit card interchange fees for large issuers and included routing requirements. While interchange revenue declined, Calderon pointed out that empirical evidence suggests that cost savings were not consistently passed through to consumers in the form of lower prices. At the same time, banks offset lost revenue through higher account fees and reduced benefits. A similar dynamic could unfold in the credit card market. Interchange revenue helps fund: •           Rewards programs •           Fraud detection and prevention •           Customer service infrastructure •           Risk management If that revenue is compressed, issuers may respond with tighter underwriting, reduced rewards, or new fee structures. As Calderon observed, although the CCCA operates through indirect price pressure rather than a direct APR ceiling, downstream effects could look similar. Distinguishing Populist Framing From Durable Reform Both the rate cap and the CCCA are framed as pro-consumer, populist reforms. The political appeal is clear, but distinguishing headline appeal from durable consumer benefit requires careful analysis. Calderon suggested several guideposts policymakers should consider: •                 Access – Does the reform preserve or expand access for low- and moderate-income borrowers? •                 Incidence – Who actually captures the gains? Consumers, merchants, intermediaries, or some combination? •                 Substitution effects – Does the policy push consumers toward higher-cost, less-regulated alternatives such as payday or fringe products? •                 Durability – What happens after implementation? Do markets rebound, or do credit line reductions and underwriting changes persist? These questions are not ideological. They are structural. Affordability and access are not opposing values. The policy challenge is designing reforms that alleviate financial strain without narrowing the regulated credit tools families rely on when emergencies arise. The Bottom Line Affordability concerns are real. Rising APRs are real. Financial stress among many households is real. But blunt price caps may reduce rates on paper while reducing access in practice. Structural competition mandates may promise savings that do not materialize at the checkout counter. Durable consumer protection requires careful calibration — the scalpel, not the chainsaw. For industry participants, policymakers, and advocates alike, the takeaway is straightforward: evidence and market mechanics matter. Populist framing may win headlines, but long-term financial stability depends on policy design that accounts for how credit markets actually function. As always, we will continue to monitor these proposals and their evolution in Congress and the Administration.  It may be noteworthy that President Trump did not mention either proposal during his almost two-hour State of the Union Address on January 24th. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In a recent episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, Alan Kaplinsky was joined by Nick Bourke, Kate Griffin, and Ballard Spahr partner Joseph Schuster to discuss a groundbreaking new report from the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program: United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams. The episode builds on Nick and Kate's prior appearance on the podcast last July, when the report was still in development. Now finalized, the report offers one of the most comprehensive frameworks to date for addressing what has become a systemic threat to American households and the broader financial system. The Scope of the Problem: A Systemic Threat Frauds and scams are no longer isolated consumer protection issues. According to the report, U.S. households are losing an estimated $196 billion annually to scams — roughly $1 billion every couple of days. One in five American adults reports having lost money to an online scam. As Nick Bourke explained, today's scams are: ·                 Technology-enabled ·                 Highly organized and industrialized ·                 Often operated by transnational criminal organizations ·                 Accelerating due to AI and faster payment systems The so-called scam "lifecycle" includes four stages: 1.     Lead – Hooking the victim 2.     Deceive – Building trust (often through impersonation or relationship-building) 3.     Bleed – Extracting funds 4.     Clean – Laundering proceeds, often through cryptocurrency or offshore channels Different sectors see only fragments of this lifecycle; social media platforms may see the "lead," financial institutions the "bleed," and law enforcement the "clean." That fragmentation allows criminals to scale operations while defenders remain siloed. Why Scams Are Rising Despite Heavy Investment As Kate Griffin noted, industry and government are investing heavily in prevention. Yet scams continue to grow. Why? ·                 Fragmentation across sectors: No single actor sees the entire attack sequence. ·                 Outdated reporting infrastructure: Federal systems at agencies like the FBI and FTC remain manual and technologically antiquated. ·                 Regulatory uncertainty: Financial institutions and technology platforms face unclear expectations about what data they can use and share. ·                 Speed of modern payments: Faster money movement means faster losses. Joseph Schuster emphasized that many financial institutions are strongly incentivized to prevent fraud as they often bear reputational and financial risk when scams succeed. But legal ambiguity, especially under statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, can chill data-sharing and innovation. Core Recommendations from the Aspen Report The report outlines both high-level national reforms and granular operational improvements with more than 180 specific ideas. 1. Elevate Scam Prevention to a National Priority The report calls for: ·                 A designated federal lead (or "czar") to coordinate strategy ·                 A whole-of-government approach ·                 Clear national goals and metrics Without centralized leadership, enforcement and regulatory actions remain fragmented.  2. Modernize Law Enforcement Reporting Systems Federal reporting portals, including Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the FBI's complaint systems, and the FTC's databases, require modernization. The report recommends: ·                 Streamlined, automated reporting ·                 Backend data interoperability across agencies ·                 Advanced analytics and AI tools for enforcement 3. Establish Clear Duties to Act Paired with Safe Harbors One of the most important themes discussed was the need for: ·                 Clear expectations for banks, telecom companies, and digital platforms ·                 Safe harbors that protect companies when sharing scam intelligence in good faith Countries like Australia have already codified such frameworks. The U.S. has yet to establish similarly coordinated standards. 4. Build a Cross-Sector Information-Sharing Ecosystem Effective scam prevention requires: ·                 Exchange of scam indicators (malicious URLs, compromised phone numbers, device patterns) ·                 Interoperable information-sharing platforms ·                 Privacy-preserving architecture ·                 Legal clarity to mitigate antitrust and consumer reporting concerns Joseph noted that industry appetite for collaboration is strong but clarity and guardrails are essential. 5. Consider a U.S. National Anti-Scam Center The report explores the idea of a centralized "front door", potentially something like stopscams.gov, that would: ·                 Serve as a national reporting hub ·                 Provide victim resources ·                 Facilitate coordination among law enforcement ·                 Support public education campaigns Social Media and Platform Responsibility The discussion also addressed the evolving role of digital platforms. Scam activity frequently originates through: ·                 Paid advertisements ·                 Dating applications ·                 Direct messaging ·                 Fake investment websites Compared to banks, social media companies operate within a less clearly defined regulatory structure. Courts are increasingly developing theories of "platform liability," but statutory clarity is lacking. The report urges policymakers to define reasonable expectations for platforms — paired with safe harbors and practical tools that empower prevention rather than merely assign blame. What Happens Next? The key question: who implements this strategy? Kate Griffin emphasized that this is a whole-of-society problem requiring coordinated action by: ·                 Federal leadership ·                 Congress ·                 Financial institutions ·                 Telecom and digital platforms ·                 Law enforcement ·                 Civil society There have been encouraging developments, including: ·                 Treasury and State Department sanctions targeting transnational scam networks ·                 A joint DOJ–FBI–Secret Service initiative targeting Southeast Asian scam operations o   But much more remains to be done. Nick Bourke suggested that, one year from now, real success would include: ·                 A designated federal anti-scam lead ·                 A congressional commission ·                 Measurable national prevention goals ·                 Corporate adoption of formalized anti-scam strategies Joseph Schuster added that industry innovation is ongoing, particularly in artificial intelligence, biometrics, and authentication, but warned that fragmented state-level regulation could complicate progress. Key Takeaways Alan Kaplinsky closed the episode with several important observations: ·                 Fraud and scams are now a systemic threat, not a niche compliance issue. ·                 Prevention, not just reimbursement, must be the organizing principle. ·                 Coordination matters as much as authority. ·                 Good-faith companies need regulatory clarity, not just enforcement pressure. ·                 Reducing scams strengthens trust in the U.S. financial system and digital economy. The Aspen report reframes the debate. Rather than assigning blame, it calls for aligned incentives, shared responsibility, and coordinated national action. If the title of the report, United We Stand, becomes reality, the United States may finally begin to bend the curve on one of the most costly and fast-growing threats facing consumers today. For more insights on consumer financial services developments, visit Ballard Spahr's Consumer Finance Monitor blog and explore the full Aspen Institute report here. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

On today's Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, we are releasing an episode about a timely and wide-ranging discussion on one of the most significant and fastest-evolving developments in commercial finance: the rapid "consumerization" of small business lending law. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky welcomes Louis Caditz-Peck, Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition (RBLC), for an in-depth conversation about the proliferation of state small business lending protection statutes, the policy debates driving them, and what they mean for lenders, fintechs, banks, and small business borrowers. From Self-Regulation to State Law: How We Got Here For decades, commercial lending operated under a fundamentally different regulatory framework than consumer credit. The prevailing assumption was that business borrowers were sophisticated, negotiated their transactions, and did not need standardized disclosures or suitability-type protections. That assumption has eroded. As Louis explains, since the financial crisis, and particularly with the growth of online and fintech lending, small business financing has changed dramatically. Community banks have pulled back. Non-bank online platforms have expanded. New products, including merchant cash advances and other revenue-based financing arrangements, have proliferated. At the same time, concerns have grown about: Opaque pricing structures Misleading "interest rate" representations Broker incentives that steer borrowers into higher-cost products Repeated refinancing of unaffordable obligations These concerns led to the development of the Small Business Borrower's Bill of Rights, a set of industry standards first launched in 2015 at the Aspen Institute by a coalition of lenders, small business groups, and nonprofit advocates. What began as a voluntary, self-regulatory effort quickly became a blueprint for legislation. California's SB 1235 in 2018 marked the first major small business truth-in-lending law. Since then, according to Louis, 19 small business financial protection laws have been enacted across multiple states, with California and New York leading the way. The "Consumerization" of Small Business Lending A central theme of the episode is whether we are witnessing the "consumerization" of small business lending. Many of the new state laws borrow heavily from consumer credit concepts, including: APR-style cost disclosures Total cost of financing disclosures Payment schedule requirements Prepayment and fee transparency Restrictions on certain contractual provisions Some states have layered on licensing or registration requirements for small business finance providers. Others incorporate or supplement state UDAP (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) standards, which may apply to certain business-to-business transactions as well as consumer transactions. The policy rationale is straightforward: many "Main Street" businesses are effectively sole proprietorships or closely-held operations without in-house finance or legal teams. Legislators increasingly view these borrowers as closer to consumers than to large corporations with treasury departments and inside or outside counsel. As Alan and Louis discuss, the regulatory shift raises serious operational and compliance challenges, particularly given the state-by-state patchwork of requirements. The Compliance Conundrum: Patchwork and Harmonization A recurring concern is whether the proliferation of state laws imposes disproportionate burdens on smaller lenders and startups, especially compared to large institutions with robust legal and compliance infrastructures. Louis emphasizes that RBLC has actively worked to promote interstate harmonization, particularly between California and New York. For example: Advocating for standardized disclosure forms that can be used in multiple states Aligning definitions and disclosure triggers Encouraging estimated APR calculations for revenue-based financing However, not all states have followed a harmonized approach. Some laws, particularly those focused narrowly on merchant cash advances, have created divergent requirements, complicating multi-state compliance. As Alan notes, the trend presents both risk and opportunity for lenders and their counsel. The regulatory environment is no longer static. Companies offering small business financing must assume that: Cost disclosures will likely be required in more states Registration or licensing may apply Enforcement risk—particularly under state UDAP statutes—will increase Section 1071 and Federal Uncertainty The episode also explores the role of the CFPB under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires data collection on small business lending to: 1.     Identify potential discrimination, and 2.     Assess whether certain markets are underserved. The CFPB finalized its 1071 rule in 2023 under then Director Rohit Chopra. Multiple legal challenges followed. Under the current administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking has sought to scale back and slow implementation. At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission has signaled an interest in using its enforcement authority to address unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting small businesses—underscoring an intriguing tension within federal regulatory policy. As Louis observes, the debate is not simply about reducing or expanding government. It is about how government authority will be used and whether transparency and enforcement will be advanced through rulemaking, litigation, or state initiatives. Merchant Cash Advances and Revenue-Based Financing A particularly nuanced part of the discussion focuses on merchant cash advances (MCAs) and other sales-based financing products. These arrangements typically involve: An advance of funds in exchange for a fixed repayment amount Payments tied to a percentage of daily or periodic sales Variable duration depending on business performance RBLC's position, as Louis explains, is product neutral. The coalition does not advocate banning product categories or imposing rate caps. Instead, it focuses on responsible practices, including transparent pricing and assessment of ability to repay. Importantly, none of the major state lending protection laws impose interest rate caps. The emphasis is on disclosure and market transparency rather than price regulation. Who Is Covered—and Who Is Not? Most state small business truth-in-lending statutes apply to financing of $500,000 or less (with some variation, such as New York's $2.5 million threshold following gubernatorial revision). Coverage often includes: Closed-end loans Open-end lines of credit Sales-based financing/MCAs Factoring (in some states) Banks are generally exempt from these statutes, though non-bank "providers" presenting the offer of credit may still have disclosure obligations even in bank partnership models. As Alan highlights, this raises interesting competitive and policy questions about level playing fields across banks and non-banks. Looking Ahead to 2026 Both speakers agree: this trend is not going away. With significant percentages of small business owners reporting difficulty accessing affordable capital—and a substantial minority reporting harm from predatory practices—state legislators remain motivated to act. The key policy question is not whether regulation will expand, but how. Well-designed transparency frameworks can: Promote price competition Reward responsible innovation Improve borrower decision-making Poorly harmonized or overly rigid frameworks, however, risk increasing compliance costs and reducing credit availability. As Alan notes in his closing remarks, small business finance regulation is becoming a core area of growth for law firms and compliance professionals historically focused on consumer financial services. The line between consumer and commercial finance continues to blur.  Alan noted that the Consumer Financial Services Group which he founded and chaired for 25 years has counseled and represented small business lenders for decades. For lenders, fintechs, banks, and their advisors, understanding these developments is no longer optional—it is essential. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In the episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast we are releasing today, we examine what may be the most consequential development in New York consumer protection law in nearly half a century: the enactment of the New York State Fair Business Practices Act (the FAIR Act). Signed into law in December 2025 and taking effect on February 17, 2026, the FAIR Act represents the first comprehensive overhaul of New York General Business Law § 349 in almost 50 years. Long focused primarily on deceptive acts and practices, Section 349 has now been expanded to expressly prohibit unfair and abusive business practices as well—bringing New York law far closer to the federal UDAAP framework under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. To explore what changed, why it matters, and how the law will be enforced in practice, Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former leader of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP and now Senior Counsel and host of Consumer Finance Monitor) is joined by two senior officials from the New York Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection who were directly involved in shaping and implementing the statute: ·        Jane Azia, Chief of the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection ·        Alec Webley, Assistant Attorney General and one of the attorneys who helped shepherd the FAIR Act through the legislative process What followed was a wide-ranging and unusually candid discussion of the statute's origins, scope, enforcement implications, and practical lessons for businesses operating in, or affecting, New York. From Deception to Unfairness and Abusiveness For decades, New York's consumer protection regime lagged behind most other states and federal regulators by focusing almost exclusively on deception. As Jane Azia explained, deception alone often fails to capture conduct that is plainly harmful to consumers, particularly where disclosures technically exist but are obscured, consumers are subjected to high-pressure tactics, or businesses exploit significant informational or power asymmetries. The FAIR Act closes those gaps by expressly prohibiting: ·        Unfair practices, modeled closely on the FTC's longstanding unfairness framework ·        Abusive practices, drawing heavily on more than a decade of CFPB enforcement experience Importantly, while the statute borrows from federal concepts of unfairness and abusiveness, New York is not bound to follow future CFPB reinterpretations. As Alec Webley emphasized, the legislature carefully chose its language, expressly incorporating only certain federal elements (such as the FTC's "substantial injury" concept) while deliberately declining to tether New York law to future federal regulatory shifts. Broader Scope Than Federal Law One of the most significant differences between the FAIR Act and federal consumer protection law is scope. Jane Azia pointed out that unlike the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act, which applies primarily to financial services, the FAIR Act applies to all business activity occurring in, or affecting consumers in, New York. That means unfair or abusive conduct by non-financial businesses now squarely falls within the Attorney General's enforcement authority. The statute also avoids many of the preemption constraints that can limit state enforcement against national banks under federal law, because it is a law of general application rather than a banking regulation. No Rulemaking—But Clear Signals The FAIR Act does not grant the Attorney General rulemaking authority, and the AG's office does not currently plan to issue formal regulations or written guidance. Instead, businesses should expect the meaning of "unfair" and "abusive" to be fleshed out through enforcement actions, settlements, and existing federal precedent. That said, the Attorney General has already identified categories of conduct likely to draw scrutiny, including: ·        Steering borrowers into unnecessarily costly repayment options ·        High-pressure sales tactics ·        Obscured or misleading pricing ·        Exploitation of consumers with limited English proficiency ·        Misleading marketing in health care, auto sales, and emerging financial products Several examples discussed on the podcast, including enforcement actions involving e-cigarettes, earned wage access products, and savings account practices, illustrate how the AG's office has already been applying unfairness and abusiveness theories under existing authority, and how the FAIR Act now allows those claims to be brought directly under state law. Remedies and Enforcement Tools The FAIR Act does not dramatically alter the remedies available to the Attorney General, but it reinforces a powerful enforcement arsenal, including: ·        Injunctive relief ·        Restitution ·        Civil penalties ·        Disgorgement ·        Expedited "special proceedings" that can allow the AG to move quickly in court to halt unlawful conduct As a reminder, recent amendments to Article 22-a of the general business law also significantly increased civil penalties for violations of section 349 occurring during disasters or abnormal market disruptions, an issue businesses should not overlook. Extraterritorial Reach and Coordination with Other Regulators The discussion also addresses a recurring compliance question: when New York law applies beyond New York's borders. In general, the statute applies where conduct occurs in New York or where New York consumers are harmed. It can also apply to out-of-state consumers harmed by New York-based businesses. By contrast, purely out-of-state conduct with no meaningful New York nexus typically falls outside the statute's reach. The episode also explores how the Attorney General coordinates with: ·        Other state attorneys general in multi-state investigations, ·        The New York Department of Financial Services, ·        The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, and ·        Federal agencies such as the FTC. Even as federal consumer protection enforcement ebbs and flows, the states, and New York in particular, remain active and increasingly influential. Practical Takeaways for Businesses A central theme of the discussion was that the FAIR Act is not a reason to relax compliance efforts—quite the opposite. As Alec Webley noted, statutes like this create an opportunity for companies and their counsel to step back, reassess business practices, and ask hard questions: ·        Are consumers complaining about this practice? ·        Is it genuinely necessary to the business? ·        Does it obscure costs or risks? ·        Would the company be comfortable seeing it described on the front page of a major newspaper? Practices that may have survived under a narrow deception standard could now pose real enforcement risk under broader unfairness and abusiveness principles. Looking Ahead Both guests emphasize that the FAIR Act was drafted with care and restraint, and that early enforcement actions are likely to fall squarely within the statute's text and intent. At the same time, emerging technologies, particularly digital marketing, fine-print disclosures on mobile devices, and the use of AI, are clearly on the Attorney General's radar. The bottom line is clear: the FAIR Act marks a fundamental shift in New York consumer protection law. With its February 17, 2026 effective date now here, businesses operating in or affecting New York should be taking this development seriously by reviewing practices, strengthening compliance frameworks, and preparing for a more expansive and assertive enforcement environment. We will continue to track developments under the FAIR Act and report on key enforcement actions and interpretations as they unfold. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

On this episode of the Ballard Spahr Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, we examine consumer debt and bankruptcy through the lens of Debt's Grip: Risk and Consumer Bankruptcy (University of California Press, 2025), by Pamela Foohey, Robert M. Lawless, and Deborah Thorne. Based on decades of research from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project, the nation's most comprehensive study of bankruptcy filers, Debt's Grip goes beyond aggregate data to document the lived experience of financial distress. The book shows how illness, job loss, aging, family structure, debt collection, and racial inequality converge to push households toward bankruptcy and what that reveals about how financial risk is allocated in the U.S. economy. Rather than treating bankruptcy as a personal failure, the authors demonstrate how policy choices over time shifted economic risk from institutions to individuals, leaving many households one unexpected expense away from crisis. Those risks fall unevenly, with Black families, single mothers, and older Americans disproportionately affected. The Authors Pamela Foohey, Allen Post Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law, is a principal investigator with the Consumer Bankruptcy Project and a leading scholar on bankruptcy and financial distress. Robert M. Lawless, Max L. Rowe Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law, is a nationally recognized empirical scholar of bankruptcy and consumer finance and a principal investigator of the Consumer Bankruptcy Project. Deborah Thorne, Professor of Sociology at the University of Idaho, brings a critical sociological lens, foregrounding the voices and experiences of bankruptcy filers. She also is a principal investigator of the Consumer Bankruptcy Project. Podcast Highlights In the episode, we discuss: ·        Why people actually file for bankruptcy ·        The debts most likely to lead to financial collapse ·        How households struggle to stay afloat before filing ·        The role of debt collection and litigation ·        How people come to see bankruptcy as a solution ·        Policy reforms that could reduce reliance on credit during hardship Key Takeaways ·        Bankruptcy is rarely about irresponsibility. It is often the endpoint of systemic risk-shifting. ·        Financial distress is structurally unequal. Race, age, gender, and health matter. ·        Filers exhaust alternatives before filing. Bankruptcy reflects resilience under pressure, not moral hazard. ·        Policy choices matter. Stronger safety nets and a more humane bankruptcy system can reduce financial harm. Conclusion Debt's Grip offers a rigorous, data-driven, and deeply human account of consumer bankruptcy in America. It challenges entrenched myths and provides valuable insight for policymakers, regulators, and industry participants alike. We thank Professors Foohey, Lawless, and Thorne for joining the podcast and for their important contribution to the field. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, we examine one of the most closely watched and increasingly controversial developments in consumer finance: earned wage access (EWA) products. EWA products allow workers to access a portion of wages they have already earned before their scheduled payday. Proponents describe these products as a valuable financial tool that helps consumers manage cash-flow shortfalls without resorting to traditional payday loans. Critics, including the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), argue that EWA products function as high-cost credit, often involving opaque fees that can trap consumers in cycles of debt. Our panel brings together industry and advocacy perspectives to explore the research, legal arguments, and regulatory uncertainty surrounding EWA, a market that has grown rapidly but remains unevenly regulated. Meet the Speakers ·        Alan Kaplinsky – Host and moderator. Founder and former Practice Group Leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; now Senior Counsel. ·        Lucia Constantine – Senior Researcher at the Center for Responsible Lending, focusing on mortgage lending and predatory debt practices. ·        Yasmin Farahi – Deputy Director of State Policy and Senior Policy Counsel at CRL, specializing in small-dollar lending and state consumer protection initiatives. ·        Joseph Schuster – Partner in Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, with extensive experience advising on earned wage access products and their legal and regulatory treatment. Key Topics Covered in the Episode ·        What Is Earned Wage Access? An overview of EWA products, how they operate, and why they have become a focal point for regulators and consumer advocates. ·        Consumer Protection vs. Industry InnovationCRL presents research suggesting that EWA products operate as high-cost credit and may contribute to debt accumulation, while industry participants argue the products provide needed liquidity and differ fundamentally from traditional loans. ·        Fees, Tips, and Consumer Understanding A discussion of common pricing models, including expedited access fees and voluntary "tips," and whether consumers fully understand the true cost of using EWA services. ·        Research Findings CRL reviews studies conducted by it based on anonymized transaction data indicating frequent repeat usage, escalating fees, and increased overdraft activity among some users. ·        The Regulatory and Legal Landscape An examination of ongoing litigation, divergent state approaches, and federal regulatory ambiguity. While some states regulate EWA as credit, others have carved out exemptions. Courts are increasingly being asked to determine whether EWA products constitute "loans" under existing law. ·        Industry Responses and SafeguardsDiscussion of non-recourse structures, voluntary fee models, and industry-led efforts to mitigate consumer harm. ·        Policy Outlook Consideration of congressional interest, state-level reform efforts, and the likelihood of future regulatory intervention. Why This Episode Matters The debate over earned wage access is still in its early stages, but the outcome will have significant implications for fintech providers, employers, consumers, and regulators. This episode provides essential context and analysis for financial services professionals seeking to understand how EWA fits within existing consumer credit frameworks, and how that framework may change. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr and founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We invite you to subscribe on your preferred podcast platform for weekly insights into key developments in consumer financial services law and regulation. Since its recording, there have been a few developments relevant to this episode. For instance, on December 22, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued an advisory opinion that states the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) does not apply to certain "earned wage access (EWA) products," and it rescinds a proposed interpretive rule issued under former CFPB Director Chopra that classified these products as credit subject to TILA with their fees considered finance charges. The Center for Responsible Lending expressed opposition to this latest advisory opinion. On January 13, 2025, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on financial technology that included consideration of draft legislation on "Earned Wage Access," which CRL refers to as "payday loan apps." Around 200 nonprofits have written to Congress about their opposition to the version of this bill as introduced last session of congress.

Our podcast show this week consists of a webinar we produced on November 10, 2025, titled, "Breaking Developments in National Bank Act Preemption." Join our panel of top legal experts as they break down how landmark court rulings are changing the rules for national banks, examine the growing application of state law, and discuss what these changes mean for compliance, risk, and the future of consumer financial services. Meet the Panelists: ·                 Alan Kaplinsky (Host & Moderator): Senior Counsel and former Practice Group Leader and Founder of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr ·                 Professor Arthur Wilmarth: Professor Emeritus at George Washington University Law School, widely recognized for his scholarship on National Bank Act preemption. ·                 John Culhane, Jr.: Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr specializing in national bank compliance and regulatory strategy. ·                 Ronald Vaske: Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr advising financial institutions on regulatory and compliance matters. ·                 Joseph Schuster: Partner of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr guiding national banks on state law adaptation and implementation. Key Points Covered: ·                 Landmark Court Decisions: Recent cases like Cantero in the Supreme Court and Conti in the First Circuit Court of Appeals have moved National Bank Act preemption away from blanket coverage, requiring courts to carefully assess each state law's impact on national banks. ·                 Dodd-Frank's Transformative Impact: The Dodd-Frank Act codified the legal standard established by the Supreme Court in the Barnett Bank Case that state laws are only preempted if they "prevent or significantly interfere" with national bank authority, and curtailed the OCC's sweeping preemption powers. ·                 Erosion of Uniform Federal Standards: National banks now face the reality of complying with an increasing patchwork of state laws, which challenges the traditional advantage of a federal charter. ·                 Compliance Strategies in Practice: Banks are proactively reviewing and updating their products, disclosures, and processes to ensure compliance with varying state requirements using robust legislative tracking methods. ·                 What's Next - Regulatory and Litigation Outlook: The panel anticipates ongoing legal and regulatory developments and urges institutions to prepare for further changes by starting comprehensive compliance reviews now. This episode delivers vital updates and practical guidance on the evolving landscape of national bank preemption, making it essential listening for anyone involved in consumer financial services, banking compliance, or regulatory strategy.  Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Join us for a timely and insightful conversation on the evolving landscape of anti-money laundering (AML) compliance in consumer financial services. In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, Alan Kaplinsky, founder and senior counsel of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts Terence Grugan, co-chair of Ballard Spahr's AML team and a recognized authority in financial crimes compliance. Together, they deliver a comprehensive discussion on the latest regulatory developments, enforcement trends, and strategic implications for institutions across the industry. Episode Overview and Key Takeaways: 1.     Regulatory Streamlining: Explore how AML and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) compliance requirements are being recalibrated, with a focus on reducing unnecessary burdens, modernizing supervisory practices, and emphasizing substance over form. 2.     Bank Examination Modernization: Learn how recent policy changes are promoting risk-based, targeted examinations for community banks, enabling institutions to allocate resources more effectively while maintaining compliance. 3.     Non-Bank Financial Institution Developments: Gain insights into emerging proposals from FinCEN and the Treasury aimed at gathering industry feedback and potentially scaling back AML obligations for non-bank entities such as casinos, money services businesses, and others. 4.     SAR Reporting Reforms: Hear about FinCEN's clarifications that are refining suspicious activity reporting (SAR) requirements, streamlining documentation, and reducing operational complexity for financial institutions. 5.     Evolving Crypto Regulation: Assess the regulatory retreat within the cryptocurrency sector, implications for AML risk, and anticipated impact of new regulatory initiatives including upcoming Stablecoin rules. 6.     Enforcement Trends: Review notable shifts in enforcement priorities, with fewer high-profile AML fines this year and an increased focus on targeting substantive violations rather than technical compliance failures. 7.     National Security and Economic Policy Alignment: Understand how AML and financial crime policies are aligning with broader national security priorities, including sanctions compliance, immigration enforcement, and efforts to disrupt international cartels. 8.     Future Outlook: Preview possible future developments, including greater centralization of AML enforcement within the Treasury Department and continuing modernization of compliance obligations. This episode equips financial institutions, compliance professionals, and industry leaders with expert perspectives on the regulatory, operational, and strategic changes transforming AML compliance. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

This week on the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, host Alan Kaplinsky is joined by Senior Counsel Mark Levin and special guest Professor Mohsen Manesh for a powerful roundtable on one of today's most consequential topics: the SEC's new position on mandatory arbitration in corporate governance documents and how state law and market realities are shaping the future for consumer financial services companies, investors, and legal counsel. Meet the Speakers: Alan Kaplinsky - Host and Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, Alan brings decades of expertise in arbitration and class action waivers to the table. Mark Levin - A leading authority on arbitration provisions and regulatory compliance, Mark (now retired) was a seasoned attorney at Ballard Spahr and long-time collaborator with Alan. Mohsen Manesh - The L.L. Stewart Professor of Business Law at the University of Oregon, Mohsen is a nationally recognized legal scholar and co-author of a widely cited NYU Law Review article on shareholder arbitration clauses. In This Episode, the Panel Explores: The SEC's Policy Shift: Why the SEC now allows mandatory arbitration provisions in registration statements, and how the focus has moved to disclosure, not the substance, of arbitration clauses. State Law Challenges: How Delaware's SB 95 (DGCL 115(c)) bans arbitration provisions for federal securities law claims in corporate charters, and the legislative backstory behind this move. Federal vs. State Authority: The panel debates whether states like Delaware can lawfully prohibit shareholder arbitration in corporate charters without being preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Practical Guidance for Issuers: The importance for issuers of providing clear, plain-language disclosures about arbitration clauses and drafting these provisions conservatively while preserving statutory remedies to address current legal and regulatory challenges. Market Realities and Investor Response: Despite ongoing legal debates, public companies thus far have shown little interest in reincorporating elsewhere to enable arbitration provisions, as both shareholder demand for mandatory arbitration and management support for such proposals remain limited. Issuer and Investor Impact: While arbitration can offer faster, more efficient, and confidential dispute resolution and reduce costly class actions, it may also limit options for class-wide remedies and restrict investor recourse. What's Next? With the SEC's new stance and ongoing uncertainty about the interplay with state laws, the landscape for shareholder arbitration is in flux—and this episode breaks down the key issues you need to watch. Whether you're a legal professional, corporate executive, or investor, this episode delivers sharp insight and practical takeaways on regulatory trends that could reshape the field of consumer financial services. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry. Following this episode, Professor Mohsen Manesh released a new article, The Past, Present, and Likely Future of Shareholder Arbitration, which builds directly on the insights he shared on the podcast. The full paper is available here.

Join host Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former longtime leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group and one of the foremost thought leaders in the industry, as he welcomes two special guests for a timely and insightful conversation about the most significant deregulatory developments in banking law during 2025. Alan is joined by his Ballard Spahr colleague Scott Coleman, a partner with more than 30 years of experience guiding banks and bank holding companies through mergers, acquisitions, and all facets of regulatory compliance, especially in the community banking sector. They're also joined by Dr. Sean Campbell, Chief Economist and Head of Policy Research at the Financial Services Forum, where he represents the eight U.S. global systemically important banks. Dr. Campbell is a distinguished economist, former senior Federal Reserve official, and published academic. In this episode, Alan, Scott, and Sean break down the latest developments and ongoing trends in bank regulation and supervision, and digital innovation. You'll get expert analysis and practical takeaways on: ·                 The Deregulatory Wave: How the Trump administration's aggressive deregulatory agenda is streamlining exams, reducing supervisory burdens, and shifting the focus toward core financial risk-while eliminating reputational risk as a part of President Trump's Debanking Executive Order. ·                 Supervision and Stress Testing Reform: Why new Federal Reserve proposals to increase transparency in stress testing mark a turning point for large banks, moving away from a "check-the-box" approach to a laser focus on tangible risks like capital, liquidity, and asset quality. ·                 Deposit Insurance Debate: The pros, cons, and historical lessons of raising FDIC insurance limits-especially in the wake of recent bank failures and how the right balance can preserve market discipline. ·                 Community Reinvestment Act in the Digital Age: Why the CRA's geography-based model is due for an overhaul as banking goes mobile and regulatory priorities shift. ·                 Crypto, Stablecoins, and Regulatory Parity: What the Bipartisan Enactment of the GENIUS Act (regulating stablecoins) means for banks and fintechs, and why applying anti-money laundering rules across the board could level the playing field. ·                 Eliminating Reputational Risk: How regulators are eliminating the use of "reputational risk" as a catch-all supervisory and enforcement tool and what this means for fair access and bank governance. ·                 Looking to the Future: The group reflects on what's next for the bank regulatory landscape, Wall Street's view on the industry, and the practical impacts on banks and consumers. Whether you're a banker, regulator, or just want to understand how Washington and Wall Street are shaping the future of finance, this episode delivers the highlights of 2025 and insights you need going into 2026. Tune in for expert opinions, real-world examples, and a roadmap to what's ahead! Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the banking and the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode features Part 2 of our November 4 webinar, "The CFPB's Most Ambitious Regulatory Agenda Ever."  (Part 1 of this series was released on December 18. We encourage you to listen to that episode as well). In Part 2, we continue to unpack the far-reaching implications of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) regulatory ambitions. The CFPB has published a sweeping agenda that promises to reshape the landscape for consumer financial services, and our panel of seasoned attorneys offers vital context and actionable insights for industry professionals, regulators, and informed consumers alike.   Key Topics Discussed:  ·        CFPB's Pre-Rule and Long-Term Actions - What's on the regulatory horizon, including advance notices and rulemaking targets that could reshape consumer finance. ·        Clarifying "Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive" Practices - Will the CFPB issue new rules or guidance to define these critical terms? The panel reviews statutory definitions and industry implications. ·        Identity Theft and Coerced Debt Regulation - Proposed amendments to Regulation V including new protections for survivors of identity theft and economic abuse. ·        Redefining Large Market Participants - Examination of thresholds for CFPB supervision in areas like auto financing, debt collection, consumer reporting, and international money transfers, aiming to target the largest market players. ·        Qualified Mortgage Rules & Loan Originator Compensation - What changes might be coming to mortgage rules and compensation methods, especially for small-dollar loans? The industry's wishlist and regulatory challenges are explored. ·        The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) & Disparate Impact - Is the CFPB shifting its stance on disparate impact liability in lending? Hear the latest on the Trump administration's influence and evolving regulatory language. ·        CFPB's Withdrawal of Guidance Documents- A look at the Bureau's move away from guidance towards formal rulemaking and the impact on regulated entities. ·        Industry Feedback and Uncertainty - Lively discussion about compliance burdens, regulatory rescissions, and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the CFPB's future funding and priorities. Meet Your Speakers from Ballard Spahr:   ·        Alan Kaplinsky (Host & Moderator): Senior Counsel and Founder and former leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group  ·        Rich Andreano, Jr.: Partner and head of the firm's Mortgage Banking Group  ·        John Culhane, Jr.: Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group  ·        Kristen Larson: Of Counsel, Consumer Financial Services Group   ·        Daniel Wilkinson: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group   ·        Rob Lieber: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group   ·        Aja Finger: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group   Tune in as our expert panel breaks down the complexities, anticipated impacts, and the road ahead under the CFPB's ambitious agenda. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode features Part 1 of our November 4 webinar, "The CFPB's Most Ambitious Regulatory Agenda Ever." In this packed episode, our expert panel breaks down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's largest and boldest regulatory agenda to date. Discussing an unprecedented lineup of 24 rulemaking items that could reshape the consumer financial services industry. What's Included: Unprecedented Regulatory Activity: We unpack why this semi-annual agenda stands out, the record number of proposed rules, and what this means for financial institutions, FinTechs, and consumers alike. Hot Topics Covered: From sweeping changes in mortgage servicing to open banking (1033 of Dodd-Frank/personal financial data rights), small business lending rules (1071 of Dodd-Frank), and the rollout of the Financial Data Transparency Act, we cover all the major initiatives and legal battles on the horizon. Industry Insight: Hear why certain rules are stirring up controversy, what compliance challenges lie ahead, and how litigation and funding woes at the CFPB might impact the pace of change. Practical Impact: Learn about technical corrections in remittance transfer rules, new standards for data sharing, and what these changes mean for day-to-day business operations. Meet Your Speakers from Ballard Spahr: Alan Kaplinsky (Host & Moderator): Senior Counsel, founder and former leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group  Rich Andreano, Jr.: Partner and head of the firm's Mortgage Banking Group  John Culhane, Jr.: Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group  Greg Szewczyk: Chair of the firm's Privacy and Data Security Group  Mudasar Pham-Khan: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group  Kristen Larson: Of Counsel, Consumer Financial Services Group  Daniel Wilkerson: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group  Rob Lieber: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group  Aja Finger: Associate, Consumer Financial Services Group  Tune in for strategic insights and practical tips to help you prepare for the CFPB's evolving rulebook. Whether you're a compliance leader, financial executive, or simply interested in how Washington's boldest moves will impact your world, this episode is your essential guide to what's next in consumer financial services. Don't miss Part 2, coming next week with even more updates and expert perspectives! Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's podcast brings listeners a timely and insightful discussion as our panel examines the CFPB's proposed amendments to Regulation B under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). As our regular listeners know, we released an episode yesterday, and we are providing this additional special episode in light of a development we consider both time-sensitive and exceptionally important. The discussion is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel, founder and former chair for 25 years of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and features these distinguished experts in the field: ·       Bradley Blower, Founder of Inclusive Partners LLC. ·       John Culhane, Jr., Senior Partner and charter member of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team. ·       Richard Andreano, Jr., Practice Group Leader for Ballard Spahr's Mortgage Banking Group and the head of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team.  Together, the panel takes listeners through the sweeping changes proposed to Reg B, including the elimination of the longstanding disparate impact provisions, significant revisions to discouragement standards, and new limitations on special purpose credit programs for for-profit entities. The conversation covers the legal and political motivations behind the proposal, references to recent Supreme Court decisions, and the implications for lenders, regulators, and consumers. The group also addresses the unusually short 30-day comment period and speculates on why the CFPB may be moving quickly to finalize the rule. Tune in for expert analysis, must-know takeaways, and predictions about industry impact and possible legal challenges. This episode is essential listening for anyone invested in the future of consumer financial services and fair lending. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode features Part 2 of our October 30, 2025 webinar, "AI in Financial Services: Understanding the White House Action Plan – and What It Leaves Out." In this installment, our panel dives deeper into the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence, regulation, and innovation in financial services. Moderated by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel, founder and former longtime leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Greg Szewczyk, chair of the firm's Privacy and Data Security Group, the discussion cuts through hype and uncertainty to provide clear, practical insights. Alan and Greg lead a lively discussion exploring the practical and policy-driven challenges posed by AI, particularly how existing legal frameworks often struggle to keep pace with rapid technological advancement. Our panel includes: Charley Brown, leader of Ballard Spahr's technology and patents teams, who explains how institutions can protect and capitalize on AI-enabled technologies; Dean Ball, former White House senior advisor and one of the architects of the White House AI Action Plan, who provides a rare inside look at the policy landscape; Kristian Stout, Director of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, who examines the intersections of AI, regulation, and competition; and Charlie Bullock, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Law and AI, who outlines practical frameworks for responsible, compliant AI governance. Throughout the episode, the panel addresses crucial topics including privacy challenges, explainability requirements for AI-driven decisions, and the potential for AI to level the playing field for smaller institutions. Whether you're in the C-suite, a compliance officer, or simply interested in how Washington's decisions shape the future of finance, this episode delivers a clear-eyed look at what the White House action plan covers and what crucial issues still need attention. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr and founder of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe on their preferred podcast platform for weekly insights into the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode features Part 1 of our October 30, 2025 webinar, "AI in Financial Services: Understanding the White House Action Plan – and What It Leaves Out." In this installment, a panel of leading experts breaks down the rapidly evolving role of artificial intelligence in financial services—from foundational concepts to the latest regulatory developments. Moderated by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel,  founder and former longtime leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Greg Szewczyk, chair of the firm's Privacy and Data Security Group, the discussion cuts through hype and uncertainty to provide clear, practical insights. Alan and Greg guide an energetic conversation about how AI has become a strategic priority for banks, credit unions, payments companies, and fintechs. Our panel includes: Charley Brown, leader of Ballard Spahr's technology and patents teams, who explains how institutions can protect and capitalize on AI-enabled technologies; Dean Ball, former White House senior advisor and one of the architects of the White House AI Action Plan, who provides a rare inside look at the policy landscape; Kristian Stout, Director of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, who examines the intersections of AI, regulation, and competition; and Charlie Bullock, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Law and AI, who outlines practical frameworks for responsible, compliant AI governance. Together, they unpack the complex patchwork of state, federal, and international rules now shaping AI deployment in financial services. The discussion highlights how automated decision-making laws, privacy requirements, and emerging definitions of "artificial intelligence" are forcing institutions to rethink compliance programs, manage risk differently, and anticipate new regulatory expectations. You'll also hear real-world examples of how organizations are grappling with these challenges in practice. This episode provides an essential foundation for understanding where AI and financial services intersect, and where the regulatory environment is headed. Be sure to tune in next Thursday for Part 2, where our experts delve even deeper into the future of AI, innovation, and legal risk in the financial sector. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr and founder of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe on their preferred podcast platform for weekly insights into the consumer finance industry.

Step into the intersection of consumer finance law and the solar energy industry with host Alan Kaplinsky, senior counsel at Ballard Spahr, and special guest Steven Burt, attorney and former public policy leader at major residential solar companies. In this episode, listeners will get an insider's look at today's solar landscape. Discover the key market segments, from utility-scale projects to commercial installations, community solar, and residential rooftop systems. Explore how recent shifts in federal policy under the Trump administration have changed energy priorities, from cancelling critical programs and phasing out residential solar tax credits, to redirecting support toward fossil fuels. Learn why understanding new requirements around foreign entities of concern (FEOC) is now urgent for companies relying on global supply chains. Benefit from practical legal insights covering consumer financial services law, such as FICO checks, leasing regulations, and credit disclosures, and see how these shape the way solar powers American homes. Despite evolving policy headwinds, the outlook for solar remains strong. Hear expert perspectives on state-level hotspots like California and Texas, emerging trends such as net metering reforms and battery storage, and the growing role of "virtual power plant" models that are reshaping residential solar's future. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode marks the second of a two-part series, with Part One having been released on November 13th. In this installment, we continue our conversation on the many changes in fair lending policy and enforcement under the second Trump administration. The discussion is moderated by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel, founder and former chair for 25 years of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and features these distinguished experts in the field: Bradley Blower, Founder of Inclusive Partners LLC. John Culhane, Jr., Senior Partner and charter member of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team. Richard Andreano, Jr., Practice Group Leader for Ballard Spahr's Mortgage Banking Group and the head of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team. In this week's episode our expert panel unpacks the fast-changing landscape of fair lending in consumer finance. With candid discussion from leading attorneys and industry insiders, we cover how federal policy swings, especially between recent administrations, have left lenders and businesses searching for direction on compliance, risk management, and best practices. Hear insights on the evolving standards for disparate impact claims, the high stakes of Supreme Court challenges, and how regulatory shifts are changing the rules of the road for everyone. Learn why the future of lending is increasingly tied to artificial intelligence, what it means for fairness and oversight, and why receiving clear guidance is more vital than ever. Our hosts tackle the challenges posed by executive orders on 'de-banking' and fair access, ongoing delays and debates surrounding the small business lending data rule, and the persistent struggle to address appraisal bias. Find out how states are stepping up where federal agencies may leave gaps and get practical advice for keeping your compliance management systems strong in uncertain times, particularly in view of how a future Presidential Administration may seek to reverse Trump Administration initiatives. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode marks the first of a two-part series, with Part Two scheduled for release on November 20th. In this installment, we examine the sweeping changes in fair lending policy and enforcement under the second Trump administration. The discussion is moderated by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel, founder and former chair for 25 years of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and features these distinguished experts in the field: Bradley Blower, Founder of Inclusive Partners LLC. John Culhane, Jr., Senior Partner and charter member of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team. Richard Andreano, Jr., Practice Group Leader for Ballard Spahr's Mortgage Banking Group and the head of Ballard Spahr's fair lending team. Listeners will gain essential insights on how federal agencies are scaling back oversight, phasing out the use of statistical disparities and disparate impact theory in fair lending cases. The conversation illuminates how redlining investigations are now driven by clearly expressed intent rather than just the numbers, and why states are stepping in as the federal role diminishes. The episode also tackles potential regulatory changes, the move back to the 1995 Community Reinvestment Act rule, and what these shifts mean for institutions and the communities they serve. In addition, the hosts unpack high-profile cases like Townstone Financial, diving into the ongoing debate about whether discouraging would-be applicants is covered under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. They also address the intersection of AI and the economy, examining the Trump administration's focus on rapid innovation over regulatory restrictions and its implications for consumer protection. With actionable information for professionals in consumer financial services, banking, compliance, and advocacy, this episode keeps you informed on the latest policies shaping fair lending in 2025 and beyond. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's podcast features the second part of a recent webinar produced on September 24, 2025, titled: "A New Era for Banking: What President Trump's Debanking Executive Order and Related State Laws Mean for Financial Institutions, Government, and Banking Customers." In Part 2, we discuss the following topics: 1.               What are the areas of uncertainty with respect to the Executive Order, including:  ·                 Defining an "unlawful business" or "religion and why those definitions are important.   ·                 What regulator or regulators will issue regulations or other guidance? 2.               What is the role of the Small Business Administration ("SBA") 3.               Intersection with AML/BSA 4.               Intersection with state debanking statutes and experience of the states 5.               Pending Federal legislation 6.               What should financial institutions be doing now to prepare for regulator review? 7.               Is the Executive Order good or bad policy? 8.               Is there a proven need for the Executive Order?  Is there any empirical evidence of need based on complaints submitted to states with debanking statutes, SBA or other federal banking prudential regulators or is it all anecdotal? Our presenters, who hold diverse views on the wisdom of the Executive Order, are: ·        Jason Mikula Founder and Publisher, Fintech Business Weekly Jason Mikula is an independent fintech and banking advisor, consultant, and investor. He also publishes Fintech Business Weekly, a newsletter analyzing trends in banking and fintech. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Brian Knight Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement, Alliance Defending Freedom Brian Knight serves as Senior Counsel on the Corporate Engagement Team at Alliance Defending Freedom. His work focuses on issues of financial access, debanking, and preventing the politicization of financial services. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Todd Phillips Assistant Professor of Law, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University Todd Phillips is an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University. His areas of expertise include bank capital and prudential regulation, deposit insurance, and the laws governing federal regulators. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Will Hild Executive Director, Consumers' Research Will Hild is the Executive Director of Consumers' Research, the nation's oldest consumer protection organization. He has led efforts to combat ESG and what he considers "woke capitalism," including launching the Consumers First campaign. He supports the Executive Order. ·        Graham Steele Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, U.S. Department of the Treasury Graham Steele serves as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He is an expert on financial regulation and financial institutions, with over a decade of experience working at the highest levels of law and policy in Washington, D.C. He opposes the Executive Order. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and first practice group leader and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm, moderated the webinar. We released Part 1of this webinar on October 30, 2025

Today's podcast features the first part of a recent webinar produced on September 24, 2025, titled: "A New Era for Banking: What President Trump's Debanking Executive Order and Related State Laws Mean for Financial Institutions, Government, and Banking Customers." In Part 1, we discuss the following topics: 1.     History of Debanking, including: o   Operation Chokepoint: An initiative by federal prudential banking regulators during the Obama administration aimed at discouraging banks supervised by them from providing services to companies engaged in payday lending. o   OCC Final Regulation on Debanking: Issued by Acting Comptroller Brian Brooks toward the end of President Trump's first term, this regulation applied only to the largest banks in the country. It was sent to the Federal Register but never published and, therefore, never became effective. 2.     Elements and Scope of the Debanking Executive Order 3.     Statutory Authority (or Lack Thereof) of the Executive Order, which was largely based on the unfairness prongs of UDAAP and UDAP, even though a federal district court in Alabama held a few years ago that such unfairness prongs do not cover discrimination. Our presenters, who hold diverse views on the wisdom of the Executive Order, are: ·        Jason Mikula Founder and Publisher, Fintech Business Weekly Jason Mikula is an independent fintech and banking advisor, consultant, and investor. He also publishes Fintech Business Weekly, a newsletter analyzing trends in banking and fintech. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Brian Knight Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement, Alliance Defending Freedom Brian Knight serves as Senior Counsel on the Corporate Engagement Team at Alliance Defending Freedom. His work focuses on issues of financial access, debanking, and preventing the politicization of financial services. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Todd Phillips Assistant Professor of Law, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University Todd Phillips is an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University. His areas of expertise include bank capital and prudential regulation, deposit insurance, and the laws governing federal regulators. He opposes the Executive Order. ·        Will Hild Executive Director, Consumers' Research Will Hild is the Executive Director of Consumers' Research, the nation's oldest consumer protection organization. He has led efforts to combat ESG and what he considers "woke capitalism," including launching the Consumers First campaign. He supports the Executive Order. ·        Graham Steele Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, U.S. Department of the Treasury Graham Steele serves as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He is an expert on financial regulation and financial institutions, with over a decade of experience working at the highest levels of law and policy in Washington, D.C. He opposes the Executive Order. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and first practice group leader and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm, moderated the webinar. We will be releasing Part 2 of this webinar on November 6, 2025.

Today's podcast features the second part of a repurposed webinar produced on September 3, 2025, which dives into the legal risks, compliance challenges, and emerging constitutional questions stemming from the GENIUS Act. The conversation examines the strict prohibition of deceptive claims regarding federal backing or insurance for stablecoins, highlighting the significant civil liabilities and penalty provisions attached to violations. Art Wilmarth delves deeply into areas such as federal preemption of state laws, consumer protections, and the power dynamics introduced by big tech and non-bank entities in the stablecoin market. Richard Rosenthal outlines the importance of building cross-functional teams, updating risk taxonomies, and adapting existing safety and soundness frameworks to the new environment presented by stablecoins. Peter Jaslow highlights legal risks for stablecoin issuers, such as the lack of explicit federal insurance, the reliance on monthly attestations of reserves, complex issues surrounding redemption policies, and significant civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. The speakers articulate the importance of rigorous compliance frameworks and the critical role finance teams will play in adapting to the new regulatory demands. Additionally, there is emphasis on the GENIUS Act's consumer protection priorities and its alignment with administration policy objectives. This episode also explores the business model impact of the GENIUS Act, discussing the growing demand for stablecoin and tokenized deposit solutions, and how institutions might leverage these technologies for treasury management and cross-border payments. Panelists provide perspectives on how innovation is being fostered, the implications for privately-held stablecoins, and the ways the GENIUS Act reflects the desires of the crypto industry. This session offers a holistic look at both the challenges and opportunities that financial institutions must consider as regulatory and market landscapes evolve. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's podcast features the first part of a recent webinar produced on September 3, 2025, which examined the key provisions of the GENIUS Act (“The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act”) and its regulatory impact on banks, fintechs and the future of stablecoins. The discussion covers critical definitions, licensing, oversight and enforcement requirements, the relationship to state stablecoin laws. Panelists offer insights into the role of federal banking regulators such as the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), highlighting the Act's efforts to establish a uniform regulatory framework and how financial institutions are responding to the new rules. The webinar features three expert speakers: Art Wilmarth, Professor Emeritus at George Washington University Law School, Richard Rosenthal, Principal in Deloitte's Risk and Financial Advisory practice and Peter Jaslow, Practice Co-Leader of Ballard Spahr's Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrency group Listeners will gain an understanding of how the GENIUS Act may reshape business stablecoin models.  The episode touches on compliance timelines, emphasizing the rapid pace of regulation, and previews issues of consumer protection and its ban on making interest payments. This dialogue sets the foundation for deeper analysis of legal risks and constitutional challenges, which will be explored in the upcoming second part of the series. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

We are pleased to share a new podcast episode, which was taken from our September 9, 2025, webinar featuring Malini Mithal, Associate Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Financial Practices. Malini has been a valued guest on our podcast in past years, and this session provided another timely and insightful discussion. In today's episode she gives her thoughts on the FTC's recent non-antitrust consumer protection initiatives. Major Key Topics Discussed 1.     Fintech oversight – Malini began with FTC activity involving fintechs, particularly companies promoting faster access to cash, and addressed related lending and payments cases. 2.     Subscription practices under ROSCA – She highlighted the FTC's enforcement of the Restore Online Confidence Shoppers Act, including lawsuits against Uber and LA Fitness and a settlement with Match. 3.     Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule – Effective May 12, 2025, this rule bans bait-and-switch pricing and hidden fees in industries such as live-event ticketing and short-term lodging. Malini explained how these practices harm consumers and distort competition. 4.     Auto finance transparency – Another area of focus for the FTC, reflecting the agency's broader emphasis on price transparency. 5.     Debt collection, debt relief, and credit repair – Malini reviewed recent FTC enforcement activity in these high-risk sectors. 6.     Crypto platforms – She concluded with a discussion of the FTC's work addressing crypto platforms that market banking-like services to consumers. After Malini left the webinar, John Culhane, a partner in our Consumer Financial Services Group, provided an update on developments at the FTC in terms of budget and staffing and the ongoing litigation challenging the Trump Administration's removal of two Democratic FTC Commissioners without cause and then discussed areas where we expect to see more FTC “regulation by enforcement” activity. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

As our regular podcast listeners know, we ordinarily release a new regular podcast show once each week on Thursday. On a very few occasions, we have released a special extra podcast show during the same week. We have only done that when a development occurs which we feel is of extraordinary importance and time sensitive. On September 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its unanimous opinion in Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A. in which it held, in the context of a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the Bank failed to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts in violation of a Rhode Island statute which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts, that the National Bank Act does not preempt the Rhode Island statute. The Bank had argued that the National Bank Act preempts the Rhode Island statute and that, as such, it was not required to pay any interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The District Court had also held that such Rhode Island statute was preempted. See our recently published blog about The First Circuit Opinion in Conti.  While the Conti case involves the narrow question described above, the implications of the opinion are sweeping in nature and will require national banks to comply with a vast litany of state consumer protection laws throughout the country which may no longer be preempted by the National Bank Act. Since 2004, the OCC has had a regulation which expressly purports to preempt state statutes, like the Rhode Island statute, which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts That same regulation purports to preempt most categories of other state consumer protection laws. Most national banks have been reasonably relying on the OCC preemption regulations and have not complied with most state consumer protection laws. The Conti opinion implicitly concludes that the OCC preemption regulations are invalid.   During our podcast show, we explain the history of the Conti case and the holding and reasoning of the First Circuit. We also discuss the Cantero opinion in the Supreme Court which led to the First Circuit opinion and similar cases in the Second and Ninth Circuits dealing with the same preemption issues. Most importantly, we will explain how we are helping national banks comply with state laws that are probably not preempted by the National Bank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and practice leader of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the webinar. He was joined by Joseph Schuster and Ron Vaske, partners in the Group who focus their practices in part on National Bank Act Preemption.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, host Alan Kaplinsky welcomes Pat Utz, CEO and co-founder of Abstract, a venture capital-backed AI company headquartered in New York. Pat brings extensive expertise on artificial intelligence. The podcast focuses on current developments in AI regulation and implementation, first covering President Trump's recent "Winning the Race: America's AI Action Plan" and its potential impact on federal policy. Alan and Pat discuss the evolving landscape of AI statutes, and developments at the state-level in places like Utah and Colorado. Pat and Alan Kaplinsky provide insights into bipartisan efforts at both state and federal levels to address issues ranging from consumer safety to business innovation. They highlight the practical challenges and opportunities for businesses leveraging AI, such as the need for transparency when AI is used in customer interactions and compliance with state-level enforcement. Pat explains how open-source models are increasingly being promoted, pointing to Trump's executive order and shifts in the industry. He also underscores the importance for businesses to track where data is processed—whether with major vendors or proprietary systems—and adapt to varying regulatory frameworks, notably those set by states like California that tend to influence national practice. The episode concludes by focusing on the wide array of AI usage in financial services, specifically credit scoring and underwriting; lending; and fraud detection. Pat provides key lessons institutions should be mindful of as AI adoption continues to grow in the industry Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's podcast episode is a continuation of a previous repurposed webinar held on August 12th, focusing on emerging opportunities in the consumer financial services sector under the Trump administration. The session aims to provide insights into the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for businesses and consumers. The first part of the webinar, released last Thursday, September 4, covered  the recently-passed GENIUS Act (which creates a federal infrastructure for Stablecoin); developments in crypto-backed lending and credit builder loans; the mortgage industry; developments in earned wage access and rent-to-own and lease-to-own financing products; and insights on income share agreements. Joining the podcast today are the following members of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group: Kristen Larson, of counsel, provides insights into the open banking rule; John Socknat, co-leader of the Group, speaks on home equity investment products; John Culhane, a partner in the group, relays insights on large installment loans at point of sale; and Dan Wilkinson, an associate, provides an overview of digital wallets. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years.  We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In the latest episode of our podcast, we explore the significant shifts in the regulatory landscape under the second Trump administration and how these recent deregulatory actions have opened new pathways for banks and FinTech companies by reducing barriers to entry and compliance costs. This evolving environment presents opportunities for innovation and market expansion, although state law oversight, including licensing and regulatory requirements. Today's episode is part one of a two-part series. Joining the podcast today are the following members of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group: Kristen Larson, of counsel, provides insights into the recently-passed GENIUS Act (which creates a federal infrastructure for Stablecoin); Ron Vaske, a partner, covers developments in crypto-backed lending and credit builder loans; John Socknat, co-leader of the Group, speaks on crypto and the mortgage industry; Dan Wilkinson, an associate, provides an overview of developments in earned wage access and rent-to-own and lease-to-own financing products; and John Culhane, a partner in the group, relays insights on income share agreements. Part two of this webinar will be released next Thursday, September 11.  In that episode, Kristen Larson, John Socknat, John Culhane, and Dan Wilkinson, return to continue the conversation, discussing open banking; home equity investment products; home equity loans; buy now, pay later; large installment loans at point of sale; payday loans; and digital wallets to access credit-like features. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years.  We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast is centered around a novel and thought-provoking article by David Horton, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis. The article, titled "Do Arbitrators Follow the Law? Evidence from Clause Construction," dives into the intriguing question of whether arbitrators render decisions that align with judicial rulings. Horton explores the longstanding debate on arbitration's adherence to legal standards, focusing on whether arbitrators have followed the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that class-wide arbitration is not permitted when an arbitration clause is silent or ambiguous on the matter.  The podcast episode explores the ramifications of Horton's finding that in about 27% of the arbitrations studied, the arbitrators did not follow Lamps Plus.  Horton interprets that finding as suggesting that a significant minority of arbitrators may be motivated by financial considerations in allowing a class arbitration to proceed, notwithstanding Lamps Plus, because it is more lucrative for them than an individual arbitration.    Mark Levin, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, also joins the program. Mark interprets Horton's findings differently, emphasizing that in his view Horton's data strongly supports the conclusion that arbitration is not lawless since an overwhelming majority of the arbitrators (73%) did follow Lamps Plus.  Mark also dismisses Horton's suggestion that some arbitrators' rulings may be swayed by financial considerations as pure speculation.  On the contrary, he observes, the fact that some arbitrators have not strictly followed Lamps Plus does not show they were not following the law since the issue of clause construction has a lengthy complex history and prominent courts such as the Second Circuit have themselves found reasons for distinguishing Lamps Plus.    Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today on our podcast, we're releasing a repurposed recording of our July 23, 2025 webinar titled “Student Lending Legislation and Litigation: 2025 Mid-Year Review.” The webinar features esteemed partners John Culhane and Tom Burke, who dive into the intricacies of student lending litigation and regulatory developments. As a senior partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, John Culhane shares his extensive knowledge on higher education finance, focusing on state legislation and private student loan litigation. Tom Burke, also a partner in the same group, brings his expertise in private class actions and state enforcement actions, providing insights into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its significant impact on federal loan servicers and discussing federal student loan litigation. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast offers an in-depth analysis of the unitary executive theory and its implications for terminations by President Trump of the Democratic members/commissioners of several so-called independent Federal agencies.  The episode features Lev Menand, an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School, who provides expert insights into financial institutions and administrative law and the validity of the Trump terminations. Professor Menand discusses the theory that President Trump may exercise complete control over independent federal agencies (which includes such terminations), despite statutes which permit terminations only for cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphries Executor which upheld the constitutionality of the “for cause” limitation on such terminations.  Professor Menand also discusses (i) the stay orders issued by the Supreme Court which have frozen preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts in litigation initiated by the terminated individuals which required the reinstatement of Democratic members of two agencies who had been fired by Trump and (ii) the dictum in such stay orders saying that the reasoning behind the stay orders  does not apply to the members of the Federal Reserve Board. This episode builds on another podcast released by Consumer Finance Monitor on July 10 featuring Patrick Sobkowski of Marquette University. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

We are releasing today a very interesting podcast show which is also breaking news. Before I read an article by Professor Charlotte Haendler of Southern Methodist University and Professor Rawley Z. Heimer of Arizona State University titled “The Hidden Costs of Financial Services: Consumer Complaints and Financial Restitution,” I never knew that the CFPB authorized outside third-parties access to non-public data collected about consumer complaints that it received so that those third-parties could conduct studies. Professors Haendler and Heimer used that data to determine the demographics of complainants who received the most restitution versus the demographics of those who received no or little restitution. The study they conducted is described in the abstract of the article which is available here on SSRN: Financial disputes are a widespread but understudied feature of consumer financial markets. Using confidential data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), we analyze nearly two million consumer complaints filed since 2014, which have led to an average payout of $1,470 per successful complaint. The volume of complaints and total restitution have increased substantially over time, suggesting significant scope for additional compensation. When understanding who secures restitution—and why—we find little evidence that differences across firms systematically drive restitution outcomes. Instead, product complexity and consumer engagement play key roles—consumers with higher income and education (high-SES) are more likely to explicitly request refunds, claim fraud, and submit supporting documentation, making firms more responsive. Leveraging previously unexamined CFPB monitoring reviews, where the agency systematically screens company responses and issues confidential reports highlighting deficiencies, we show that regulatory scrutiny increases restitution but disproportionately benefits high-SES consumers, reinforcing individual-specific mechanisms. Our results highlight the complementary nature of regulatory interventions and suggest that financial sophistication and self-advocacy are critical determinants of consumer redress. During the webinar, the Professors answered the following questions: 1.  Why did you conduct an in-depth CFPB consumer complaints study in the first place? 2.  Why did you basically use the CFPB complaint data as a proxy for consumer disputes in the entire industry? 3.  In your paper you mostly focus on the likelihood of a complaint resulting in financial restitution (i.e., some sort of monetary relief for the troubles endured). The title of your paper is “The hidden costs of financial services: consumer complaints and financial restitution”. First of all, what do you mean by hidden costs? 4.  Was the confidential data you received from the CFPB essential in better understanding the mechanisms behind the resolution of these consumer disputes? 5.  Did you find differences in complaint outcomes depending on the type of product involved? 6.  Is there a lot of variation across companies in the likelihood to award financial restitution to a complainant? 7.   Is the likelihood of a complainant receiving restitution more about the complexity of the product and potentially how the consumer relates to it than about there being some rogue companies? 8. Do certain consumer characteristics—like income, education, and even racial and ethnic background—correlate with greater likelihood of financial restitution. 9.   How do consumer characteristics end up influencing the likelihood of restitution? 10.  Does oversight from the CFPB change how firms handle disputes and award financial restitution? 11.  What should regulators, firms, and consumers take away from this research? This is how they answered that question: (a)  It is critical to recognize that the capabilities to navigate the dispute process aren't equal across consumers. (b)  For regulators, we see that scrutiny and nudging alone do not substitute for consumer engagement. Hence the challenge is to design systems that help level the playing field, perhaps by educating the consumer more, or by flagging poorly-articulated but potentially valid complaints for extra review and documentation. (c)  For companies, this study highlights the negotiating power of the consumer in disputes, and how this negotiating power hinges on self-advocacy and financial sophistication. It could also be a wakeup call to consider how certain demographics might be struggling to understand the financial product offered and how to cater to them to reach a greater customer base and higher levels of consumer satisfaction. (d)  For consumers, it's a reminder that being specific, using strong language, and submitting documentation really matters in getting your voice heard. Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former Chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted this podcast show.

The podcast show we are releasing today features Professor Jonathan Gould of University of California (Berkeley) Law School who discusses his recent article co-written with Professor Rory Van Loo of Boston University School of Law which was recently published in the University of Chicago Law Review titled “Legislating for the Future”. The introduction of the article describes “legislating for the future” as follows: Public policy must address threats that will manifest in the future. Legislation enacted today affects the severity of tomorrow's harms arising from biotechnology, climate change, and artificial intelligence. This Essay focuses on Congress's capacity to confront future threats. It uses a detailed case study of financial crises to show the limits and possibilities of legislation to prevent future catastrophes. By paying insufficient attention to Congress, the existing literature does not recognize the full nature and extent of the institutional challenges in regulating systemic risk. Fully recognizing those challenges reveals important design insights for future-risk legislation. During the podcast, we discuss the dynamics around enacting legislation through Congress that aims to increase the stability of the financial system and prevent financial crises. We discuss with Professor Gould about why passing this sort of legislation is so difficult and what Congress might be able to do about that. We consider the following questions: 1.  What are the basic dynamics that make it so hard to pass financial stability legislation? 2.    How does the structure of Congress affect the difficulty of passing financial stability legislation? 3.   We have seen some big bills lately, like Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and the big taxing and spending bill from Trump this year.  Why is financial regulation harder to enact than these other types of legislation? 4.   Has it gotten easier or harder over time to enact financial regulation? 5.  What happens after financial stability legislation is enacted? 6.   What can Congress do to enhance its capacity in this area? 7.   What types of legislative drafting techniques are likely to be especially promising? 8.   What role is there for federal agencies to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 9.  What role is there for states or private plaintiffs to play in augmenting congressional capacity? 10. What relevance does this all have beyond financial regulation? 11. In light of the fact that the article was published before the 2024 election and change in administration are any of Professor Gould's conclusions altered by more recent events? This podcast was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group.

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

The genesis of the podcast show we are releasing today was an article written by Nick Bourke titled “America Can Fix Its Scam Problem. But We Keep Gifting Billions to Transnational Criminals Because It Feels Too Hard” published on April 12, 2025 in Open Banker. We learned from that article about the great work being done by Aspen Institute's National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention. The purpose of the podcast is to describe the work of this Task Force  The Aspen Institute states the following about the Task Force: Every day, criminals steal $430 million from American families, with total fraud proceeds reaching $158 billion annually. They are a critical funding source for transnational criminal organizations, fueling drug cartels, human trafficking, and terrorism. Fraud losses reported to the FBI increased 15-fold over roughly the last decade, and the rise of new technologies like AI has made scams more sophisticated and easier to perpetuate to harm American families. The Aspen Institute Financial Security Program launched the National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention in 2024 to develop the first coordinated U.S. national strategy aimed at stopping financial fraud at its root. The guiding purpose of the Task Force is to bring together all parties with an interest in protecting consumers and restoring trust in our financial system. This is the first time such a broad collection of leaders from across government, law enforcement, private industry, and civil society are coming together to develop a nationwide strategy aimed at helping prevent fraud and scams. Our guests on this podcast are: Kate Griffin, Director of Programs, Aspen Institute Financial Security Program and Nick Bourke, Senior Policy Adviser, The Aspen Institute. Our guests covered the following topics: 1.  What is the Aspen Institute's Financial Security Program and how did the Aspen Institute come to launch the National Task Force on Fraud and Scam Prevention?  Who is participating in the Task Force?  Why is such a cross-sector (industry, consumer advocates and government) very important?  What is standing in the way of more robust, secure, cross-sector data-sharing today? 2.  How big is the fraud and scams problem in the United States right now? How has it changed over time?  3.  What are some of the implications of this problem? How should we be thinking about this beyond the consumer-level financial impacts? Where is all this money going, and what does that mean for our national security?  How do fraud/scams compare to other forms of organized crime? Why is it so difficult for victims to recover their financial losses? Are there any efforts ongoing in Congress to alleviate this?  Despite all the anti-fraud measures, educational resources, and even public media coverage, why do scammers still seem to be gaining ground?  What are some of the biggest gaps or weaknesses in the U.S. system that scammers exploit? Are there promising models from other countries or sectors the U.S. can learn from?  How is AI changing the landscape of scams — both in how they're perpetrated and how we might stop them? 4. What's the right balance between imposing duties on companies and offering legal safe harbors so they're not afraid to act?  5.  Some people still feel a stigma around sharing when they have been the victim of a scam. How do we shift the environment away from victim-blaming and toward support? 6.  The Task Force is driving toward developing a "national strategy" for fighting fraud and scams. What are some of the necessary components to make this truly effective?  What do you mean by the need for a "national front door for reporting”?   7.   Consumer education has to continue playing a role here. What kinds of public awareness campaigns or interventions have proven effective? What kinds of leadership or investment are needed from Congress, the White House, or federal agencies?  8.  Are there any incentives that could better align corporate interests around fraud and scam prevention? Are there examples of companies that are leading the way on this issue?  9.  What are the Task Force's next steps? When should we expect to hear more about the national strategy that's coming together? Alan Kaplinsky, founder of and former Chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show.

We are releasing today on our podcast show a repurposed webinar that we produced on June 11, 2025 entitled “What is happening at the federal agencies that is relevant to the residential mortgage and settlement service industries.” During this podcast, we will inform you about recent developments at federal agencies, including the CFPB, HUD/FHA, OCC, FDIC, FRB and USDA (collectively, the “Agencies”), as well as Congress, the White House, states and the courts. Some of the issues we consider are:   •     Changes in leadership and priorities at the CFPB, as well as efforts to significantly reduce the funding and staffing at the CFPB and related lawsuits. •     House Republican criticism of various CFPB actions under former Director Chopra. •     The rescission and revisiting of CFPB final rules, proposed rules and informal guidance, including the Nonbank Enforcement Order Registry final rule, Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing final rule, Residential Mortgage Servicing proposed rule, and FCRA “Data Broker” proposed rule. •     The termination of CFPB enforcement efforts and revisiting of CFPB redlining consent orders. •     The rescission of Community Reinvestment Act rule amendments. •     The White House directive for the federal government to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability. •     The status of the HUD disparate impact rule under the Fair Housing Act. •     HUD's reversal of various FHA policies adopted during the Biden Administration, including guidance regarding appraisal bias and reconsideration of value. •     Trigger leads bills. •     White House firings of independent agency board/commission members and efforts to exert control over independent agencies. •     State efforts to fill the void left by the actions at the CFPB.   John Socknat, co-head of our Consumer Financial Services Group, moderated and participated in the presentation, along with the following other members of the Consumer Financial Services and Mortgage Banking Groups: Richard Andreano, Jr., John Culhane and Matthew Morr.

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

Our podcast shows being released today and next Wednesday, June 18 feature two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future? 11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.”

Our podcast show being released today features two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Supervision Division under prior directors: Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford. Peggywas a founding executive of the CFPB when the agency was created in 2010 and led the development of the first federal supervision program over nonbank consumer financial companies. Beginning in 2012, as head of CFPB's Office of Supervision Policy, Peggy led the office responsible for developing supervision strategy for bank and nonbank markets and ensuring that federal consumer financial laws were applied consistently in supervisory matters across markets and regions. Paul served as head of the Office of Supervision Examinations for the CFPB from 2012-2020 with responsibility for ensuring the credible conduct of consumer protection examinations. The purpose of this podcast show was primarily to obtain the opinions of Peggy and Paul about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Supervision Priority documents which guided former directors and (ii) drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, the cancellation of all supervisory exams and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Supervision's staff to 50 employees) We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. Peggy and Paul describe in detail the CFPB Supervision priorities under Director Chopra and compare and contrast those priorities with the new priorities established by Paoletta which are: 1.  “Shift back” CFPB Supervision to the proportions focused on depository institutions to nonbanks to where it was in 2012 -- to a 70% depository and 30% nonbank, compared to the more recent 60% on nonbanks to 40% depositories.  2.  Focus CFPB Supervision on “conciliation, correction, and remediation of harms subject to consumer complaints” and “collaborative efforts with the supervised entities to resolve problems so that there are measurable benefits to consumers.” 3.  Focus CFPB Supervision on “actual fraud” where there are “identifiable victims with material and measurable consumer damages as opposed to matters where the consumers made “wrong” choices. 4. Focus CFPB Supervision on the following priorities: ·       Mortgages as the highest priority ·       FCRA/Reg V data furnishing violations ·       FDCPA/Reg F relating to consumer contracts/debts ·       Fraudulent overcharges, fees, etc. ·       Inadequate controls to protect consumer information resulting in actual loss to consumers. 5.  Focus CFPB Supervision on providing redress to service members and their families and veterans. 6. The areas that will be deprioritized by CFPB Supervision will be loans for “justice involved” individuals, medical debt, peer-to-peer platforms and lending, student loans, remittances, consumer data and digital payments.  7. Respect Federalism” and not prioritize supervision where States “have and exercise” ample regulatory and supervisory authority and participating in multi-state exams (unless required by statute). 8.  Eliminate duplicative supervision where other federal agencies have supervisory jurisdiction 9.  Not pursue supervision under “novel legal theories.” 10.  For fair lending, ignore redlining or “bias assessment” based solely on statistical evidence, and only pursue matters with “proven actual intentional racial discrimination and actual identified victims.” Peggy and Paul also discussed their skepticism as to whether CFPB Supervision will be able to comply with its statutory duties if the RIF is carried out and Supervision's staff is reduced to 50 employees. Alan Kaplinsky, former longtime Chair of the Consumer Financial Group and now Senior Counsel hosted the podcast.

We are releasing today on our podcast show a repurposed webinar which we produced on May 13, 2025 entitled “What is happening at the federal agencies (other than the CFPB) that is relevant to the consumer financial services industry.” During this podcast, we will inform you about recent developments at those other agencies, including the FTC, OCC, FDIC, FRB and DOJ (collectively, the “Agencies”) and the White House (through the issuance of Executive Orders). Some of the issues we consider are: •        What are the strategic priorities of the Agencies, including cryptocurrency (OCC, FRB and DOJ); reducing regulatory burden, promoting financial inclusion, embracing bank-fintech partnerships and expanding responsible bank activities involving digital assets (OCC); adopt a more open-minded approach to innovation and technology adoption (FDIC); public inquiry into anti-competitive regulations (FTC and DOJ); and regulation of AI technology, boosting protections for children and teens online and strengthening enforcement against companies that sell, transfer, or disclose Americans' geolocation information and other sensitive data to foreign adversaries, more emphasis on antitrust enforcement and less on consumer protection (FTC). •        What is the status of proposed or final regulations of the Agencies? (e.g., FTC CARS Rule, Click-to-Cancel Rule, Junk Fees Rule, and Rule banning Noncompetes; FDIC advertisement and brokered-deposit rules, OCC rule on bank mergers; and the Community Reinvestment Act final rule)? •        What is the status of enforcement investigations and litigation of the Agencies? •        What impact will staff cuts have on supervisory examinations? •        What is the impact of President Trump's executive order requiring the Agencies to obtain approval from the White House of all proposed and final regulations? •        Will the Supreme Court approve of President Donald Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the FTC and NCUA and other federal agencies (who have subsequently sued Trump to challenge the firings) and, if so, what are its implications? •        What is the significance of the FDIC and OCC agreeing to eliminate “reputation risk” as a basis for evaluating risks to banks? •        Will the OCC adopt a regulation or other guidance, or will Congress enact legislation pertaining to debanking/fair access? •        Will the OCC and/or FDIC issue any guidance or regulations pertaining to federal preemption of state law in light of the Supreme Court's opinion last term in Cantero and the impending Courts of Appeal decisions in Cantero, Kivett and Conti? •        What is the significance of the FDIC withdrawing its amicus brief in support of the Colorado Attorney General in the 10th Circuit in the lawsuit brought by industry against him challenging a Colorado statute which purported to opt out of Section 521 of DIDMCA? •        Will there continue to be fair lending and disparate impact enforcement at any of the Agencies? Alan Kaplinsky, former chair and now senior counsel of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderated the presentations of the following other members of the Consumer Financial Services Group:  Scott Coleman, Ronald Vaske and Kristen Larson.

Our podcast show being released today will focus on S.  919, the Guiding and Establishing  National Innovation for U. S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 or GENIUS Act which was reported out of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee by a bipartisan vote of 18-6. The bill would establish a regime to regulate stablecoins.  Our guest today, Professor Art Wilmarth of George Washington University School of Law, published an op-ed on March 6 in the American Banker in which he wrote that the “..bill would allow stablecoins, which are volatile deposit-like instruments, to be offered to the public without the essential protections provided by federal deposit insurance and other regulatory safeguards regarding banks that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. By placing the federal government's imprimatur on poorly regulated and unstable stablecoins, the …bill would greatly increase the probability that future runs on stablecoins would trigger systemic crises requiring costly federal bailouts to avoid devastating injuries to our financial system and economy.” Our podcast show was designed to be of interest to both crypto neophytes and experts. During this podcast, we explore the following issues:            1. What are stablecoins, and what are their present and potential use cases?            2.  How do stablecoins differ from other types of crypto like bitcoin?            3. How many companies issue stablecoins today?  4. What is the total volume in dollars of outstanding stablecoins?  Has it been growing?  Do all stablecoin issuers also issue other types of crypto?            5. Do any banks issue stablecoins?  If not, why not? 6.  Are there any federal or state regulations that apply to stablecoins today?  What about state money transmitter laws?  7.  Do stablecoins provide a better way to improve the speed and reliability of payments compared to other ways of making payments? Do they offer any benefits that are NOT currently offered by tokenized bank deposits and the instant payment and settlement services offered by FedNow and the Clearing House's Real Time Payment Network?  How do stablecoins on public blockchains compare to tokenized deposits held on private electronic bank ledgers, in terms of safety, reliability, and efficiency. 8.   Professor Wilmarth describes a typical stablecoin transaction and the fact that stablecoin issuers often pay interest on stablecoins that are the equivalent of money market mutual funds and way more than banks pay on passbook or statement savings accounts or checking accounts.            9.  How do stablecoin issuers generate revenue? 10.   What are the potential risks of stablecoins, especially if they can be offered by nonbanks and are not covered by federal deposit insurance?  Would they present the same risks as money market funds, which the Fed and Treasury bailed out in 2008 and again in 2020? Have there been any examples of these risks being realized?  Have there been any failures? What happens if a stablecoin issuer fails?  Does bankruptcy law (as amended by the GENIUS Act), provide a feasible process for dealing with failures of stablecoin issuers?  If nonbank stablecoin issuers become large financial institutions and get into serious trouble, would the federal government be able to finance another series of massive bailouts similar to those of 2007-09 and 2020-21 without risking a crisis in the Treasury bond market and/or another surge of inflation? 11.  Will Big Tech firms issuing stablecoins be able to dominate our banking system and economy and would that necessarily be a bad thing? 12. Which firms are likely to be the most significant issuers of stablecoins if nonbanks are allowed to conduct that activity?  If Big Tech firms are allowed to offer stablecoins, could they use stablecoins to offer banking services and eventually dominate the banking industry?  What should we learn from China's experience with Ant Financial Group (Alipay) and Tencent (WeChat Pay), China's two largest Big Tech firms, which became dominant providers of financial services to Chinese consumers and households? 13.  We then discussed the so-called GENIUS ACT which the Senate Banking Committee passed by an 18-6 bipartisan vote on March 13. What are the major features of the Act?            14.  What are your major concerns about the bill? 15. What would the stablecoin market look like if Congress passed the GENIUS Act in the form that it was approved by the Senate Banking Committee? 16.  Should we require all issuers and distributors of stablecoins to be FDIC-insured banks?  Why do you believe that federal banking laws governing FDIC-insured banks provide a far better approach for regulating issuers of stablecoins? [After the recording of this podcast, the bill ran into rough sledding on the floor for a couple of weeks with some Senators, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, raising consumer protection issues similar to those raised by Professor Wilmarth and other Senators raising concerns about President Trump's family substantially benefiting from enactment of the bill. However, on May 19, after negotiations among Senate Democrats and Republicans to amend the Bill to add consumer protections, limits on tech companies issuing stablecoins and ethics standards for special government employees, like Elon Musk, the Bill advanced on a bipartisan procedural vote to prevent filibustering in the Senate, 66-32, making it likely that the Bill will pass the Senate by a super-majority vote. The fate of the Bill in the House is less certain.] Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and formerly the Chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services, hosted the podcast show.

Today's podcast show is a repurposed webinar that we produced on April 22nd, titled “Navigating State AG Investigations: A Playbook For Financial Services Companies.” State Attorneys General (AG) investigations can present significant challenges for businesses and legal practitioners. We offer a detailed dive into effective strategies and practical tips drawn from our State AG Investigation Playbook. Our speakers, Mike Kilgarriff, Joseph Schuster, and Jenny Perkins from our Consumer Financial Services Group, Adrian King, Jr. from our Government Affairs and Public Policy Group, and Hank Hockeimer from our White Collar Defense and Investigations Group, will guide you through the key aspects of handling these investigations, from initial inquiry to resolution. Key topics include: ·        Understanding the scope and authority of State AGs ·        Compliance Readiness: Preparing for State AG scrutiny Before it Starts ·        Best practices for responding to State AG inquiries ·        Coordination with federal regulators ·        Strategies for negotiating settlements and resolutions ·        Managing public relations and media during an investigation ·        Case studies illustrating successful outcomes Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the podcast show.

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

The podcast we are releasing today is part 2 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions.  Our webinar focused on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We discussed the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: 1. Solar Litigation Trends (Ira, Melanie). 2. Increased volume of arbitrations and mass arbitrations (Ira, Dan). 3. A general emphasis on “unfair” practices, including a close look at alleged unlawful fees (Ira). 4.  Crypto industry practices -fees, deception and third-party responsibility (Ira). 5.  National Bank Act preemption and DIDMCA opt-out litigation (Joseph). If you missed listening to part 1 of this re-purposed webinar, you can access the podcast in the link to the following blog which appears here. The blog describes the topics we covered. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now the Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

The podcast we are releasing today is part 1 of a re-purposed webinar we produced on March 25 titled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Part 4.” As a result of the diminishing impact of the CFPB on enforcing the consumer financial services laws, we expect that void to be filled by state government enforcement agencies and private civil litigation, including class and mass actions. Our webinar will focus on private civil litigation. Our featured guest for this webinar was Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He was joined on the panel by Thomas Burke, Dan McKenna, Jenny Perkins, Joseph Schuster, and Melanie Vartabedian, litigators in our firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. The podcast began with Ira observing that state enforcement agencies and plaintiffs' class action lawyers will be taking a careful look at enforcement actions voluntarily dismissed by the CFPB to ascertain whether the complaints should be re-filed by them in federal or state court.  We then proceeded to discuss the following areas where the panelists are predicting an increase in private civil litigation during 2025 and beyond: Increased FCRA litigation, especially in ID Theft (Jenny, Ira). The use of AI and corporate responsibility for ensuring that it does not create unfair or discriminatory practices (Ira). Increased retail bank litigation, including EFTA claims (Ira, Tom). Part 2 of this re-purposed webinar will be released next Thursday, May 1. Alan Kaplinsky, the former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show. For our podcasts repurposed from webinars that we produced as part of our series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB” Part 1 (regulations and other written guidance), click here and here; Part 2 (supervision and enforcement),  click here and here; Part 3 (state AGs and departments of banking), click here and here. 

Our podcast show being released today is part 2 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24 featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show begins with Tom Burke, a Ballard Spahr consumer financial services litigator, describing in general terms the status of the 38 CFPB enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Rohit Chopra was terminated. The cases fall into four categories: (a) those which have already been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the CFPB; (b) those which the CFPB has notified the courts that it intends to continue to prosecute; (c) those in which the CFPB has sought a stay for a period of time in order for it to evaluate whether or not to continue to prosecute them where the stay has been granted by the courts; and (d) those in which the CFPB's motion for a stay has been denied by the courts or not yet acted upon. Alan Kaplinsky then gave a short report describing a number of bills introduced this term related to the CFPB. Alan remarked that the only legislative effort which might bear fruit for the Republicans is to attempt to add to the budget reconciliation bill a provision subjecting the CFPB to funding through Congressional appropriations. Such an effort would need to be approved by the Senate Parliamentarian. Finally, Alan expressed surprise that the Republicans, in seeking to shut down the CFPB, have not relied on the argument that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September 2022 because there has been no “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” beginning then through the present. (Dodd-Frank stipulates that the CFPB may be funded only out of such “combined earnings”). For more information about that funding issue, listen to Alan's recent interview of Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School who has written prolifically about it. On Monday of this week, Professor Scott published his third op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he concluded: “Since the bureau is operating illegally, the president can halt its work immediately by executive order. The order should declare that all work at the CFPB will stop, that all rules enacted since funding became illegal in September 2022 are void, and that no new rules will be enforced.” Joseph Schuster then briefly described what has been happening at other federal agencies with respect to consumer financial services matters. Joseph and Alan reported on the fact that President Trump recently fired without cause the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission leaving only two Republican members on the Commission. He took that action despite an old Supreme Court case holding that the language in the FTC Act stating that the President may remove an FTC member only for cause does not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution.  The two Democratic commissioners have sued the Administration for violating the FTC Act provision, stating that the President may only remove an FTC commissioner for cause. The President had previously fired Democratic members at the Merit Systems Selection Board and National Labor Relations Board. President Trump based his firings on the belief that the Supreme Court will overrule the old Supreme Court case on the basis that the “termination for cause” language in the relevant statutes is unconstitutional. After the recording of this webinar, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stayed, by a 2-1 vote, a District Court order holding that Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the NLRB and Merit Systems Selection Board was unlawful. That order was subsequently overturned by the court of appeals acting en banc. Subsequently, Chief Justice Roberts stayed that order. In light of these developments, it seems unlikely that the two FTC commissioners will be reinstated, if at all, until the Supreme Court decides the case. Also, after the recording of this webinar, the Senate confirmed a third Republican to be an FTC commissioner. For those of you who want a deeper dive into post-election developments at federal agencies other than the CFPB, please register for our webinar titled “What Is Happening at the Federal Agencies (Other Than the CFPB) That is Relevant to the Consumer Financial Services Industry?” which will occur on May 13, 2025. Joseph then discussed developments at the FDIC where the FDIC withdrew the very controversial brokered deposits proposal, the 2023 corporate governance proposal, the Change-in-Bank- Control Act proposal and the incentive-based compensation proposal. He also reported that the FDIC rescinded its 2024 Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions and delayed the compliance date for certain provisions in the sign and advertising rule.  Joseph then discussed developments at the OCC where it (and the FDIC) announced that it would no longer use “reputation risk” as a basis for evaluating the safety and soundness of state-chartered banks that it supervises. The OCC, also, conditionally approved a charter for a Fintech business model to be a national bank and withdrew statements relating to crypto currency risk. Finally, Joseph discussed how state AGs and departments of banking have significantly ramped up their enforcement activities in response to what is happening at the CFPB. The podcast ended with each participant expressing his view on what the CFPB will look like when the dust settles. The broad consensus is that the CFPB will continue to operate with a greatly reduced staff and will only perform duties that are statutorily required. It is anticipated that there will be very little rulemaking except for rules that the CFPB is required to issue - namely, the small business data collection rule under 1071 of Dodd-Frank and the open banking rule under 1033 of Dodd-Frank. The panel also felt that the number of enforcement lawsuits and investigations will measurably decline with the focus being on companies engaged in blatant fraud or violations of the Military Lending Act. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group. If you missed part 1 of our repurposed webinar produced on March 24, click here for a blog describing its content and a link to the podcast itself. In short, part 1 featured Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg, who chronicle the initiatives of CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent and Russell Vought and DOGE to dismantle the CFPB and the status of the two lawsuits brought to enjoin those initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Rich Andreano give a status report on the effort of Acting Director Vought to nullify most of the final and proposed rules and other written guidance issued by Rohit Chopra. The podcast concludes with John and Rich describing the fact that supervision and examinations of banks and non-banks is non-existent.