Podcasts about Ballard Spahr

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.

In the latest Clarity podcast, the Thomson Reuters Institute's Bill Josten and Isaac Brooks speak with Belinda Jones, CFO of Ballard Spahr, about the impact of current economic volatility on law firms' financial performance, exploring such issues as aggressive firm rate hikes, a sudden surge in client demand due to the global trade war, and the challenges of managing rising expenses.

In this podcast interview, the speaker will provide a key overview of the build vs buy decision in uncovering Ballard Spahr's new AI tool "Ask Ellis." In addition, we will discuss what initial work they had to do with clients if they are using any of their client documents for fine tuning or RAG style solutions. Finally, we will highlight the various three assistants, which are chat, draft and analyze features.  Moderator: Chris Hockey, Manager, Information Risk & Governance, Alvarez & Marsal Speaker: Lisa Mayo Haynes, Director of Technology Innovation, Ballard Spahr LLP

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.

Our podcast show being released today is Part 1 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 began with Jon and Evan chronicling the initiatives beginning on February 3 by CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent, Russell Vought and DOGE to shut down or at least minimize the CFPB. These initiatives were met with two federal district court lawsuits (one in DC brought by the labor unions who represents CFPB employees who were terminated and the other brought in Baltimore, MD by the CFPB and others) challenging one or more of these initiatives. Jon and Evan described the lawsuits in detail. While the Baltimore lawsuit was dismissed on the basis of lack of ripeness under the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a TRO freezing the CFPB from terminating more CFPB employees through the end of March while she decides whether to enter a further injunction with respect to the CFPB's initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners, Rich Andreano and John Culhane, then gave an up-to-date status report on CFPB (a) final rules being challenged in litigation and/or eligible to be challenged under the Congressional Review Act; (b) final rules not being challenged in litigation which may be repealed or amended or whose effective or compliance dates may be extended under the Administrative Procedure Act; (c) proposed rules; and (d) non-rule written guidance. Rich and John paid particular attention to the following final rules: 1.  The Small Business Loan Data Collection and Reporting Rule under Section 1071 of      Dodd-Frank 2.  The Non-bank enforcement order Registry Rule 3.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act “Data Broker” Rule 4.  The Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Rule 5.  The Residential Mortgage Servicing Proposed Rule 6.  Credit Card Penalty fees under Reg Z (Late Fee Rule) 7. Personal Financial Data Rights (Open Banking) Rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank 8.  Overdraft Lending Rule Applicable to very large financial institutions 9. Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies reporting medical debt under Reg V Part 1 of our podcast concludes with Rich and John describing the fact that supervision and examination of banks and non-banks is apparently on hold. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel.

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

Creating deep connections with clients can lead to new opportunities for law firms to gain a greater understanding of client goals. In today's episode of the CMO Series Podcast, Will Eke is joined by Ian Ribald, Chief Marketing and Business Development Officer at Ballard Spahr, to discuss how legal teams can benefit hugely from taking a more holistic approach to their marketing and business development efforts.  Ian and Will cover:  What Ian hopes to bring to his role and the surprises he's faced  How Ian's approach to marketing and business development shifted after running previous client programs The importance of legal teams seeing clients from multiple perspectives Ian's strategies for keeping everyone on the same page and motivated when taking a new approach, especially when it comes to buy-in How Ian encourages his team to understand the pressures of the different areas of the business as a way to build empathy and improve the client experience Advice for others looking to take a more holistic approach to legal marking and get their team on board

In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, Ballard Spahr partners Mike Kilgarriff and Joseph Schuster break down the seismic shifts in consumer financial regulation following the dramatic changes at the CFPB. With the Bureau's enforcement and supervisory activities on hold, state attorneys general are stepping in to fill the regulatory void. Mike and Joseph explore what this means for financial institutions, how businesses should navigate the evolving landscape, and the increasing role of state AGs in consumer protection enforcement. Tune in for insights on what's next in the world of financial regulation.

Today's podcast show is a repurposing of the second half of a webinar we produced on January 17, 2025. That webinar was Part 3 of our webinar series entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB and Others.” In Part 3, we focus on the role of state attorneys general in a rapidly shifting CFPB environment. Our previous podcast show, released on Tuesday February 11th, was a repurposing of the first half of our January 17th webinar in which Alan Kaplinsky had a “fireside chat” with Matthew J. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General. See here. The importance of Part 3 is underscored by the recent actions taken by President Trump to fire Rohit Chopra as Director of the CFPB and to appoint new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, and then new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, Russell Vought, as Acting Directors, Messrs. Bessent, and Vought have essentially stopped all activities of the CFPB for the time being. During today's podcast show, Mike Kilgarriff, Joseph Schuster, Adrian King and Jenny Perkins of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group discussed in detail the following issues, among others: •           CFPB post-election messaging to state attorneys general providing a roadmap to them on powers they may exercise under federal law, including the use of the UDAAP provision of Dodd-Frank (particularly the “abusive” prong) •           The probable decline in collaboration with the CFPB following the change in administration •           More networking of state attorneys general •           What can we expect from state legislatures in enacting new consumer financial services protection laws? •           What can we expect from state attorneys general and other state agencies in promulgating new consumer financial services protection laws? •           The continuing need for companies to maintain a robust compliance management system Parts 1, 2 and 3 of our webinar series appear here, here, and here. Our podcast shows (repurposing Parts 1 and 2 of our webinar series) appear here, here, here, and here. The title of Part 1 is: “The Impact of the election on the CFPB: Regulations and other written guidance, which featured Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with David Silberman who held senior positions at the CFPB for almost 10 years during the Directorships of Cordray, Mulvaney, and Kraninger. Part 2 is: “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB: Supervision and Enforcement, which featured Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with former Director Kathy Kraninger during Trump‘s first term in office. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Our podcast show today features John Culhane and Mike Kilgarriff, partners in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services group. They discuss what supervision and enforcement will look like under a new acting director/director appointed by President Trump. This episode is a repurposing of the second half of a webinar that was produced on January 6. On January 23, we released the first half of the webinar, which consisted of Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with Kathy Kraninger, the former Director of the CFPB during Trump 1.0., linked here. With respect to supervision, we consider, among others, the following issues with respect to the CFPB's leadership under Trump 2.0: (a) Will it be business as usual or more relaxed? (b) Will it focus on compliance with the Federal consumer financial services laws and less on UDAAP? (c) Will there be reduced staffing and fewer exams? (d) Will there be fewer PAAR letters and more use of MRAS and MRIAs? With respect to enforcement, we consider, among others, the following issues with respect to the CFPB's leadership under Trump 2.0: (a) Will there be an exhaustive review of all existing investigations and lawsuits and a dismissal of those which involve “regulation by enforcement” or “pushing the envelope”? (b) Will they focus more on fraud and scams and less on UDAAP? (c) What position will they take on whether the CFPB has been unlawfully funded because the Federal Reserve Banks have had no combined earnings since September 2022? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of Alan Kaplinsky's “fireside chat” with Kathy Kraninger, the Director of the CFPB during the second half of President Trump's presidency from December 2018 until January 2021. (This was originally the first half of a webinar we did on January 6, 2025 which was entitled “The Impact of the Election on the CFPB - Supervision and Enforcement.” The January 6 webinar is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Next Thursday, we will release the second half of that webinar which will feature Ballard Spahr partners, John Culhane and Mike Kilgariff, who will take a deep dive into the expected changes in CFPB supervision and enforcement during President Trump's second term in office.) During her “fireside chat” with Alan, Kathy discussed the following things: (a) How she was nominated by Trump to be the Director and succeeded Mick Mulvaney, the acting Director appointed by Trump to succeed Richard Cordray as Acting Director; (b) Organizational and other changes made by Mulvaney and/or Kraninger, including a hiring freeze, appointments of new heads of departments, etc; (c) The practical impact on CFPB operations of the Supreme Court's opinion in the Seila Law case in which the Court held that the President had the right to remove the CFPB director without cause; (d) Her priorities as Director, including her regulatory, supervisory and enforcement agendas; (e) Her policy statements on “abusiveness”, supervisory expectations and COVID-19; (g) Her thoughts on what she anticipates will change at the CFPB once a new acting director chosen by Trump succeeds Rohit Chopra; and (h) Her thoughts on whether Congress should re-structure the CFPB's governance and funding. The “fireside chat” provides stakeholders in the CFPB insight into what may happen at the CFPB during Trump 2.0. There will, however, be some important differences between the circumstances that existed during the transition from Cordray to Mulvaney Kraninger during Traump 1.0 and the transition from Chopra to a new acting Director during Trump 2.0.. At the time when Mick Mulvaney became Acting Director, there were no pending lawsuits challenging CFPB final regs and other actions. During Mulvaney's term in office, a trade association of payday lenders sued the CFPB challenging the CFPB's payday lending rule and, in particular, its “ability to pay” requirement. The acting director appointed by Trump will inherit multiple pending lawsuits against the CFPB challenging many of the regs issued by the CFPB under Rohit Chopra's last two years as Director. The Acting Director will need to develop legislative (Congressional Review Act), judicial and regulatory strategies for dealing with the slough of regs, proposed regs and other written guidance issued by Chopra. The Acting Director will also need to quickly decide what position the CFPB will take with respect to the defense raised in at least 13 enforcement lawsuits claiming that the CFPB has been disabled from conducting business since September 2022 when there was no longer any “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” - a prerequisite to the Federal Reserve Board funding the CFPB under the Dodd-Frank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

In today's episode, we discuss the CFPB's recent proposed data broker rule—a proposal that would greatly expand the reach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On December 3, the CFPB issued a proposed rule promoted as one that would require companies that sell data about income or financial tier, credit history, credit score or debt payments to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The proposal would make it clear that when data brokers sell certain sensitive consumer information, they are “consumer reporting agencies” under the FCRA. That would require them to comply with accuracy requirements. It also would require them to provide consumers access to their information. However, the proposal is much broader than a data broker rule, and the podcast explores the significant breadth of the proposal. The rule might face an uncertain future, since it was issued by current CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and pushes beyond the boundaries of the FCRA. Chopra's aggressive regulatory regime is opposed by the Trump Administration. Joining us today is Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents the consumer data reporting industry. The host of the discussion is Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years, and now senior counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr. Joining the discussion are two Ballard Spahr partners: Richard Andreano, the practice leader of our mortgage banking group at Ballard Spahr and John Culhane. In this episode, we will discuss the key aspects of the landmark proposed rule, such as: 1.    The proposal being much broader than one addressing the sale of personal information to various parties, including stalkers, spies and scammers.  2.    The fact that the proposal does not even define what is a data broker.  3.    How the proposal would significantly change the concept of what constitutes a consumer report, including the proposal to treat credit header information as a consumer report.  4.    How the proposal would change the concept of what constitutes a consumer reporting agency.  5.    Requirements that the proposal would add to the written authorization permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report, including requirements regarding revocation of the authorization.  6.    How the proposal would modify the requirements to rely on the legitimate business need permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report.  7.    Whether the CFPB actually has legal authority to essentially rewrite the FCRA.

Today's podcast episode is part two of our December 16th webinar, where we discussed the impact of the election on CFPB rulemaking. Part one consisted of a “fireside chat” with David Silberman, who held several senior-level positions at the CFPB for almost ten years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In part two, Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Joseph Schuster address the following questions: 1.      What will happen to CFPB regulations issued before January 20, such as the CFPB's credit card late fee rule, which is currently being challenged in a Texas federal court? 2.      What will happen to proposed regulations that may still be finalized before January 20, such as the interpretive rule on earned wage access plans and the proposed contract clause registry? 3.      What will happen to other written guidance from the CFPB, such as the circular on unenforceable contract terms and the advisory opinion on requests for information under Section 1034(c) of Dodd-Frank?  4.      What will be the impact of the Congressional Review Act? 5.      What will be the impact of litigation challenges? 6.      What will rulemaking look like under the new Director? 7.      What will be the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises which repealed the Chevron judicial deference doctrine? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Today's podcast episode is a repurposing of part one of our December 16 highly-attended and praised webinar consisting of Alan Kaplinsky's exclusive interview of David Silberman, who held several senior positions at the CFPB for almost 10 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Part two of our December 16 webinar, featuring Ballard Spahr partners John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, is to be released on January 9. They focus their attention on the impact of the election on the CFPB's regulations (final and proposed). Our December 16 webinar is the first part of our three-part intensive look at this transitional period for the CFPB. The goal of our three-part series is to help us predict what is in store for the CFPB during the next four years. As a former senior leader at the CFPB during the only other transition of the CFPB from a Democratic to a Republican administration led by former President Trump, Mr. Silberman has special insight about what is likely to happen to the CFPB during Trump 2.0. While nobody yet knows who Trump will nominate as the next CFPB director, Mr. Silberman makes the point that, of potentially greater importance, at least initially, is who Trump selects as the acting director. If what happened in Trump 1.0 is any indication, the acting director may end up serving for a lengthy period of time just like Mick Mulvaney served as acting director for a lengthy period of time before Kathy Kraninger was nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate and sworn-in as director. Under the Vacancy Reform Act, the acting director must be either a current senior officer of the CFPB or someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate for a different position. Among other things, Mr. Silberman addressed the following topics during his interview: 1.               What were some of the first steps that Mr. Mulvaney took when he became acting director and will they be replicated by a new acting director? 2.               How will a new acting director deal with the many lawsuits brought by trade groups challenging CFPB final rules issued by Director Chopra?  Will there be a distinction made between final rules in which district courts have ruled on motions for preliminary injunction and those where courts have not so ruled. Will there be distinctions made between final rules where courts have granted or denied injunctive relief?  Finally, will there be distinctions made between final rules mandated by Dodd-Frank and so-called discretionary rules? 3.               Which final rules are still subject to being overridden by the Congressional Review Act and what are the odds of that happening with respect to any of such rules? 4.               How will the new acting director deal with proposed rules as of January 20? 5.               How will the new acting director deal with CFPB enforcement investigations and lawsuits initiated by Chopra, including those which arguably “push the envelope” with respect to the CFPB's jurisdiction? 6.               Will the new acting director agree with many industry pundits that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Federal Reserve Board since September, 2022 in light of the language in the Dodd-Frank Act which permits funding of the CFPB only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have been no such combined earnings since September 2022 and the likelihood that no such combined earnings are anticipated in the near future.  Does this impact actions taken by the CFPB since September 2022? 7.               What role, if any, will the White House play in directing or influencing CFPB policy?  What impact, if any, might the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have on the CFPB? 8.               Do you expect the new acting director to initiate any rulemakings other than those required by Dodd-Frank? 9.               Will the new acting director be more supportive of innovation than Chopra and, if so, how will that be reflected? Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

This Day in Legal History: First Year with No LynchingsOn December 30, 1952, the Tuskegee Institute released a landmark report marking the first recorded year without a lynching of African Americans in the United States since the institute began keeping records in 1881. The grim practice of lynching—extrajudicial killings often carried out by mobs to enforce racial subjugation—had claimed thousands of lives, becoming a chilling emblem of racial terror, particularly in the Southern United States. Tuskegee's data captured the scope of this violence, documenting nearly 4,000 lynchings of Black individuals over the prior seven decades.The significance of 1952 as a year without reported lynchings underscored the impact of growing civil rights activism, the waning influence of vigilante groups, and increasing legal accountability. This milestone also reflected shifts in public attitudes and the effectiveness of organizations like the NAACP, which tirelessly campaigned against lynching and for federal anti-lynching legislation. Despite this progress, racial violence and discrimination persisted in other forms, underscoring that the end of lynching did not mean the end of systemic racism."Strange Fruit," a haunting protest song famously recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, had kept the horrors of lynching at the forefront of public consciousness. Its stark imagery of "black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze" served as a chilling reminder of the atrocities endured by Black Americans. While the 1952 milestone was a cause for solemn reflection, it was also a call to sustain the fight for racial justice and equality in a nation still grappling with deep-seated prejudices.Rupert Murdoch and other senior leaders of Fox Corporation will face claims from investors alleging personal responsibility for financial harm stemming from false election conspiracy theories aired by Fox News. Delaware Chancery Court's Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster denied Fox's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs had sufficiently argued that Murdoch could likely be held liable for knowingly permitting defamatory content to be broadcast. The lawsuit follows Fox's record-breaking settlement with Dominion Voting Systems and comes as Smartmatic pursues a separate $2 billion defamation suit. The investors claim that the leadership's actions and decisions led to significant economic fallout, asserting that corporate governance failures allowed reputational and financial damage to occur. While the court's decision enables the case to proceed, it does not guarantee success for the plaintiffs, leaving the ultimate outcome of the claims to trial.Fox, Murdoch, Execs Must Face Election Defamation Payout SuitA federal appeals court upheld a $5 million verdict against Donald Trump in a case brought by E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist, who accused him of sexual assault and defamation. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stems from a 2023 jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and defaming her in a 2022 Truth Social post. While jurors did not find Trump guilty of rape, they awarded Carroll $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation.Carroll has also secured an $83.3 million defamation verdict from a separate jury in January 2024, which Trump is appealing. These legal battles persist despite Trump's return to the presidency following his 2024 election victory. Trump's defense argued that the trial judge improperly allowed testimony from two other women alleging past misconduct and included the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape as evidence. Both trials were overseen by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. This case continues to highlight the lack of immunity for sitting presidents in civil litigation unrelated to their official duties, following a precedent set during Bill Clinton's presidency.Trump loses appeal of E. Jean Carroll $5 million defamation verdict | ReutersThe oil and gas industry is facing increasing legal and legislative pressure over its role in climate change. States like New York and Vermont have enacted “climate Superfund” laws, with New York's targeting $75 billion from major polluters over 25 years to fund climate mitigation efforts. Meanwhile, multiple states and cities have filed lawsuits alleging misinformation campaigns by fossil fuel companies about climate change and plastic pollution. These efforts, while separate, are creating a coordinated front against the industry and building evidence to attribute emissions to specific companies.Experts suggest that legislative efforts like climate Superfund laws and lawsuits may bolster each other by generating an evidentiary record for liability. However, there are concerns about overstepping legal boundaries, as courts may reject overlapping claims for damages under federal laws like the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Fossil fuel companies argue that climate-specific laws conflict with existing federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and may face challenges in implementation.The American Petroleum Institute and energy companies have expressed resistance to these legal actions, with a preference for fighting rather than settling claims. While states hope to hold polluters accountable, the success of these strategies remains uncertain as courts, lawmakers, and the industry test the boundaries of new legal frameworks.Climate Liability Laws, Litigation Add to Oil Industry HeadacheThe legal industry is set for another wave of consolidation in 2025, with several major law firm mergers scheduled for January 1. Among these, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders will merge with Locke Lord to create Troutman Pepper Locke, a firm with 1,600 attorneys and projected annual revenues exceeding $1.5 billion. Similarly, Womble Bond Dickinson is merging with Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, combining to form a 1,300-lawyer firm with $742 million in revenues. Taft Stettinius & Hollister is joining with Sherman & Howard, projecting revenues of $810 million for the merged entity.Philadelphia-based Ballard Spahr will combine with Lane Powell, forming a 750-lawyer firm operating in 18 U.S. offices. These moves follow 41 law firm mergers in the first nine months of 2024, with industry analysts predicting continued activity next year. Firms are responding to client demand for broader services and geographic reach, as businesses increasingly consolidate their legal needs with fewer providers. Smaller and midsize firms are pursuing mergers to access new markets and clients, while the most profitable firms focus on lateral hires and internal growth. Rising costs, including attorney salaries and investment in generative AI technologies, are also pressuring firms to consolidate. Transatlantic mergers are gaining momentum as well, with U.K.-based firms like Allen & Overy and Herbert Smith Freehills expanding into the U.S. market through deals with Shearman & Sterling and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, respectively. These global mergers highlight the evolving competitive landscape in the legal sector.Law firms' quest for market share drives New Year's merger wave | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

  In today's podcast episode, we're joined by Alex Johnson, Founder of Fintech Takes, and Paige Paridon, Senior Vice President, Senior Associate General Counsel & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs at Bank Policy Institute, to take a deep dive into the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Open Banking Rule. The CFPB has issued a groundbreaking final rule implementing Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, significantly expanding consumer access to their financial data. This new Open Banking Rule will have far-reaching implications for financial institutions, fintech companies, and consumers alike. In this episode, we'll explore the key aspects of this landmark regulation, such as: 1. The scope, rule requirements, and compliance deadlines 2. Complexities of implementing new interfaces and data security measures 3. Potential pitfalls and best practices to mitigate risks, including a lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule 4. How the rule can foster innovation and enhanced consumer experiences 5. The impact of presidential election and presumed appointment of new Acting Director of CFPB Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Gregory Szewczyk and Hilary Lane, Partners in Ballard's Privacy and Data Security Group.

In today's podcast episode, we are joined by Raj Date, who has served in a variety of roles at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including as the acting head of the agency and as it's first-ever Deputy Director. He recently wrote a thought-provoking article in a new online publication, Open Banker, entitled “Banks Aren't Over-Regulated, They Are Over-Supervised.” Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, and is joined by Joseph Schuster, a partner in the Group. By way of background, Mr. Date described how bankers have almost uniformly complained to him that banks are over-regulated. Mr. Date responds to these complaints in his article as follows: At the time, in the still-smoldering ruins of the financial crisis, this struck me as bizarre. Banks are the beneficiaries of an array of government privileges: subsidized leverage (through insured deposits), liquidity (through the discount window and the home loan banks), exclusive access to payment rails (both through the central bank and bank-only private networks), and even choice of law (through federal preemption). Given all that, safeguards on capital, liquidity, credit exposure, market and interest rate exposure, cybersecurity, and consumer protection seemed like a fair trade to me. More than a decade later, I realize that those bank CEOs were not exactly wrong, they were imprecise: Banks are not over-regulated, but they are — quite dramatically — over-supervised.  Mr. Date makes the following points in support of his thesis that the banking industry is over-supervised: 1.       Bank examination tries to cover too many areas and, as a result, sometimes fails to see the forest through the trees. 2.       Bank examination obsessively focuses on process rather than substance.  That focus is evidenced by the supervisors' requirements that the banks document everything. 3.       It takes far too long for banks to receive examination reports after exams are completed, sometimes years later. The final exam reports are often anachronistic. 4.       Bank examinations often stultify bank innovation because supervisors' examinations are often critical of banks offering new products and services and this results in bank management being reluctant to innovate out of fear that they will be downgraded. 5.       Examiners' focus on process rather than risk itself has resulted in a bank management brain drain. Mr. Date then explains how the examination process should be changed. Mr. Date first calls for immediate changes even though the banking industry is largely thriving.   Mr. Date suggests the following approach in his article and during the podcast: The regulatory agencies are, probably justifiably, proud of their long histories of public service. But that pride breeds cultures that are strikingly conservative and resistant to change. As importantly, unlike private sector firms, they do not have the crucible of a profit imperative to burn away unproductive practices and orthodoxies. And it shows. It is not as though bank examiners cannot articulate the most important issues facing their regulated charges; it is just that they often just have no reason to stop working on things other than the most important issues. The only solution is strong top-down leadership that imposes ambitious goals. Without stretch goals that will feel strikingly out of reach at the outset, real change will not be possible. If it were me, I would set out, in a pilot with a handful of mid-sized banks, to structure a supervisory exam strategy that costs 75% less (in combined bank and agency costs) and is 75% faster from first-day letter to final report than today's norms.[9] I would embrace pilot uses of new technology tools in pursuit of those goals. And then I would iterate on those initial (almost certainly unsuccessful) results. This will be difficult, and even painful. But I very much believe it will be worth it. While acknowledging the issues with over-supervision, Joseph directs significant attention to the problem of over-regulation. He argues that modern regulatory practices have become more complex, restrictive, and less clear, creating barriers to innovation and access to credit. Joseph highlights how over-regulation stifles the development and availability of consumer finance products. Joseph explains how products like "Buy Now, Pay Later" (BNPL) face regulatory hurdles despite addressing consumer needs effectively. Joseph also discusses the potential negative impact of proposed changes to late fee regulations, warning that such measures could limit access to credit and push consumers toward higher-cost alternatives. Joseph criticizes the heavy-handed approach taken by regulators, such as the CFPB's issuance of circulars, which adds further uncertainty and complexity for institutions attempting to innovate in this space. Joseph advocates for a return to a more structured and transparent regulatory framework. He suggests that agencies recommit to the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), emphasizing the importance of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Drawing parallels to the Federal Reserve Board's process during the implementation of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, Joseph argues that meaningful engagement with the industry could lead to clearer regulations that balance consumer protection with innovation and operational feasibility. Joseph endorses Raj Date's call for clear and focused priorities in the supervisory process, and emphasizes that both banks and examiners benefit from a more straightforward understanding of the rules. Joseph concludes by warning against the trend of "regulation through enforcement," which undermines transparency and predictability, ultimately harming consumers and financial institutions alike.

Today's podcast episode is a re-purposing of a webinar we recorded on November 12, 2024. Our special guests for that webinar were Colin Carr, Vice-President of Congressional affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association and Ian Katz, Managing Director at Capital Alpha Partners. John Culhane, a partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm. The webinar begins with Colin giving us an overview of President-Elect Trump's victory and the Senate and House elections which resulted in the Republicans achieving close majorities in both chambers. As a result, the Republicans may not have too much difficulty in confirming Trump nominees for various positions and may also be able to override final rules published in the Federal Register by the CFPB and other agencies after August 1 of this year under the Congressional Review Act. (This includes the so-called “open banking” rule pertaining to consumer control of their records at banks under Section 133 of Dodd-Frank. Ian then addresses certain leadership changes at the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, FRB and FTC and the possibility of Trump using recess appointments to nominate the leaders of those agencies. John Culhane then takes a deep dive into the current status and expected outcome of agency regulations (both legislative and interpretive), proposed regulations and other written but less formal guidance and circulars. This includes the CFPB's $8. credit card late fee rule, the small business data collection rule under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, the Buy-Now, Pay-Later interpretive rule, “open banking “ rule, and the changes to the UDAAP Exam Manual which described any form of discrimination as being an unfair trade practice, all of which are the subject of pending litigation. We also discuss the FTC's “CARS” rule and the “Click to Cancel” rule, which are also subject to pending litigation. Finally, we discussed the FDIC's “brokered deposits” rule. We explain how final legislative rules can only be overturned or modified through Congressional Review Act override (if they were adopted after August 1, 2024) or by proposing a repeal or modification under the Administrative Procedure Act (which is the same lengthy procedure utilized to promulgate the regulation) or by a final judgment of a court invalidating the rule. We also discuss whether the new CFPB Director may concede that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded under Dodd-Frank since the FRB may only fund the CFPB out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and because there have been no such combined earnings since September, 2022. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr hosts the episode.  

On January 4 of this year, we released a podcast show entitled; “A look at a new approach to consumer contracts”. Our special guest at that time was Professor Andrea Boyack, a Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. That podcast was based on a then recent law review article published by Professor Boyack entitled “The Shape of Consumer Contracts, 101 Denv L. Rev. 1 (2023). Today, we are joined again by Professor Boyack who has written a follow-up article entitled: “Abuse of Contract: Boilerplate Erasure of Consumer Counterparty Rights,” University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-03, which is the subject of our new show. The abstract of her article accurately describes the points that Professor Boyack made during the podcast show: Contract law and the new Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts generally treats the entirety of the company's boilerplate as presumptively binding. Entrusting the content of consumer contracts to companies creates a fertile legal habitat for abuse through boilerplate design. There is no consensus on how widespread or severe abuse of contract is. Some consumer law scholars have warned of dangers inherent in granting companies unrestrained power to sneak waivers into their online terms, but others contend that market forces adequately constrain potential abuse. On the other hand, in the absence of adequate consumer knowledge and power, market competition might instead fuel the spread of abusive boilerplate provisions as companies compete to insulate themselves from costs. The new Restatement and several prominent scholars claim that existing protective judicial doctrines siphon off the worst abuses among adhesive contracts. They are willing to accept those abuses that slip through the cracks as the unavoidable cost of a functioning, modern economy. The raging debate over how to best constrain contractual abuse relies mainly on speculation regarding the proliferation and extent of sneak-in waivers. This article provides some necessary missing data by examining the author's study of 100 companies' online terms and conditions (the T&C Study). The T&C Study tracked the extent to which the surveyed companies' boilerplate purported to erase consumer default rights within four different categories, thereby helping to assess the effectiveness of existing market and judicial constraints on company overreach. Evidence from the T&C Study shows that the overwhelming majority of consumer contracts contain multiple categories of abusive terms. The existing uniformity of boilerplate waivers undermines the theory that competition and reputation currently act as effective bulwarks against abuse. After explaining and discussing the T&C Study and its results, this article suggests how such data can assist scholars and advocates in more effectively protecting and empowering consumers. We also discuss two separate CFPB initiatives pertaining to consumer contracts. On June 4 of this year, the CFPB issued Circular 2024-03 (“Circular”) warning that the use of unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in contracts for consumer financial products or services may violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act. We previously drafted a blog post and Law360 article about this circular. The CFPB has also issued a proposed rule to establish a system for the registration of nonbanks subject to CFPB supervision that use “certain terms or conditions that seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce their rights.” Arbitration provisions are among the terms that would trigger registration. The CFPB has not yet finalized this proposed rule and it seems likely that it will never be finalized in light of its very controversial nature and the fact that Director Chopra will be replaced on January 20 with a new Acting Director. Alan Kaplinsky, the former Chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group for 25 years and now Senior Counsel, hosts this episode.

This summer, the CFPB issued its long-awaited proposed rule amending the mortgage servicing rules under Regulation X, with a focus on loss mitigation procedures, foreclosure protections, and language access. These changes were previewed by the CFPB as a means to streamline, and add flexibility to, the loss mitigation process, in light of the industry's successful efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the CFPB's proposal also significantly expands borrower protections during the loss mitigation process, creates extensive new operational challenges for servicers, and leaves many concerning questions based on the proposed language. The mortgage servicing industry responded by submitting numerous comment letters, appropriately voicing a range of concerns with the proposed changes. We now await further action from the CFPB. On this episode, Ballard Spahr lawyers discuss the regulatory and litigation impacts of the proposed rule, including: 1.         Detailed analysis of the proposed changes 2.         Potential approaches to loss mitigation, under the revised scheme 3.         Practical impacts on loss mitigation and foreclosure from an operational, cost, and liability standpoint 4.         Specific pain points under the proposed language, and topics requiring clarification, refinement, or pushback 5.         Language access requirements, and the impact from an operational, cost, and liability standpoint 6.         Implications of the rulemaking in a post-Chevron world Rich Andreano, a Partner and Leader of Ballard Spahr's Mortgage Banking group, moderates today's episode, and he is joined by Reid Herlihy and Matt Morr, Partners in the Group.

Our podcast listeners are very familiar with federal fair lending and anti-discrimination laws that apply in the consumer lending area: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA). Those statutes prohibit discriminating against certain protected classes of consumer credit applicants. For example, the ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); the applicant's use of a public assistance program to receive all or part of their income; or the applicant's previous good-faith exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The FHA prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, pregnancy or having children. The FTC sometimes relies on the “unfairness” prong of its UDAP (Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices) authority to bring other types of discrimination claims against companies subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. The CFPB has tried to use the unfairness prong of its UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) authority in a similar manner with respect to companies and banks subject to its jurisdiction. A Federal District Court has invalidated the portion of the CFPB's UDAAP Exam Manual provision upon which such authority was previously predicated and the case is now being considered by the Fifth Circuit. Our focus during this podcast show is not on these Federal anti-discrimination statutes, but rather on the fact that an increasing number of states have either enacted or are considering enacting legislation requiring financial institutions to provide persons (both existing customers and prospective customers) who are not ordinarily protected by the federal anti-discrimination statutes with fair access to financial services. The first broad fair access requirements appeared in a Florida statute enacted in 2023, which generally prohibits financial institutions from denying or canceling services to a person or otherwise discriminating against a person in making available services on the basis of enumerated factors, commonly including factors such as political opinions, or any other factor that is not quantitative, impartial, and risk-based. Because this topic is very controversial, I invited individuals who support and oppose these new types of state statutes: Brian Knight, Senior Research Fellow at Mercatus Center of George Mason University, Professor Peter Conti-Brown of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Peter Hardy who co-leads our Anti-Money Laundering (AML) team at Ballard Spahr. (Brain was previously a guest on our May 23, 2024 podcast which focused on the related topic of Operation Chokepoint.) Brian is generally supportive of these state fair access laws. Professor Conti-Brown and Peter Hardy generally oppose these types of laws. We cover the following sub-topics, among others: 1.              Why were these laws enacted? 2.              What financial institutions are subject to these laws? Do they cover only depository institutions or do they also cover non-banks? Do they cover only consumer transactions or do they cover business transactions as well? Do they cover out-of-state financial institutions doing business with residents of the states that have enacted these statutes? Are there exemptions based on small size? 3.              Since banks are not public utilities, and have shareholders and employees to whom they owe duties, why should they be forced to do business with people or companies who generate fossil fuel or who manufacture or sell firearms, to take just two examples of industries protected by these statutes? 4.              What are the private and public remedies for violating these statutes? 5.              Does the National Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act and the Federal Credit Union Act preempt these state laws? 6.              Do these laws run afoul of AML laws as the Treasury suggests? Brian believes that these state statutes don't force any financial institution to do business with a particular person or company. The statutes simply say that you must give a good reason for a declination. A good reason would be one based on risk to the institution such as a lack of experience in evaluating the company's business. Another good reason would be that the company is engaged in an unlawful business. A bad reason for a declination would be that the bank doesn't like the political or cultural positions of the company. Peter Conti-Brown believes that banks should be able to decide with whom they desire to do business as long as they don't violate existing federal laws that prohibit discrimination, like ECOA and the FHA. Peter expresses skepticism that there was or is a need for these statutes. The “bottom line” is that the state statutes are bad public policy. Peter also believes that these state statutes are preempted by the National Bank Act. Peter Hardy believes that these state statutes throw a monkey wrench into banks' efforts to comply with AML requirements and the Bank Secrecy Act. He explains how these statutes could help bad actors evade the BSA. We have previously blogged about these statutes. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the conclusion of a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. Part One, which was released last week, focused on the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. We open with a discussion of EWA products, briefly describing and distinguishing direct-to-consumer EWAs and employer-based EWAS. We review some of the consumer-friendly features that are common to EWAs, including that there is no interest charged and they are typically non-recourse, and discuss expedited funding fees and tips, neither of which is required to access EWAs. We also provide an overview of how some states have attempted to regulate (or specifically not regulate) EWAs. We then transition into a discussion of the CFPB's history with EWA products, including the Bureau's advisory opinion in 2020 that took a markedly different approach to EWAs, essentially taking the position that a certain subset of EWAs fell outside of the definition of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The CFPB's proposed interpretive rule, on the other hand, states that EWAs are “credit” and that expedited funding fees and optional tips, in most circumstances, are part of the finance charge that must be disclosed under TILA and Regulation Z. We explore the Bureau's reasoning in support of these conclusions and some of the compliance difficulties that the proposed interpretive rule would create were it to go into effect as written. Since this recording took place, the CFPB has posted over 148,000 comment letters that it has received on the proposed interpretive rule, many of which are from consumers who use EWAs to access a portion of their earned wages prior to their scheduled payday and are concerned that the proposed interpretive rule could limit or jeopardize their access to EWAs. The high number of responses demonstrates the level of interest that the CFPB's proposed interpretive rule has generated. We conclude with thoughts about vulnerabilities with both the proposed interpretive rule for EWAs and the interpretive rule for BNPLs that we described in Part One of this podcast, as well as how these rules could potentially be challenged. One notable development that has occurred since our recording is that the Financial Technology Association has filed a complaint asking a D.C. federal court to strike down the interpretive rule for BNPLs because of the alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act that we discuss in this episode. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane and Michael Guerrero, Partners in the Group, and John Kimble, Of Counsel in the Group.

Welcome to Connect, a podcast featuring one-on-one interviews with some of the top movers and shakers in the mortgage industry. This week we welcome Richard J. Andreano, Jr., Partner, Ballard Spahr Episode discussion timestamps:   1:36 - What are some of the latest fair lending issues lenders should be aware of? 6:11 - What advice would you give lenders to strengthen their fair lending policies? 9:42 - Earlier this year the CFPB finalized a nonbank enforcement order registry. What should our industry members who are subject to a covered order be doing to prepare? 13:49 - I see that your firm is merging with Lane Powell.  How does that strengthen Ballard Spahr? 16:15 - Can you share with our listeners why you choose to participate and volunteer for our organization?   To learn more about the California MBA, visit cmba.com

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the first in a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. Part Two, which will be available next week, will focus on the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. We open with an overview of what interpretive rules are and how they differ procedurally and substantively from legislative rules. The intended use of interpretive rules is to explain the meaning of an existing provision of law, while legislative rules, which require a more complicated and time-consuming procedure, including a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act, are intended to be used to expand or implement a provision of law. We also discuss why the CFPB chose to use an interpretive rule and why they decided to include a request for comments when that is not required for interpretive rules. We then discuss BNPL products, including how they work and some of the features that have made them popular with consumers and merchants. We point out that the interpretive rule seems to represent a change in the views of the CFPB with regard to BNPL. After providing an overview of the CFPB's history with the product, including a report issued by the Bureau back in 2022, we delve into the details of the CFPB's interpretive rule. We discuss how the CFPB seems to be expanding the definition of a “credit card” to include what the Bureau calls a “digital user account,” which is how consumers access their BNPL information. We conclude with thoughts about the implications of the CFPB's interpretive rule and some of the difficulties that BNPL providers will have complying with the interpretive rule. This includes a discussion of the timing of billing statements and written notice requirements for billing error disputes and merchant disputes. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane, Michael Guerrero, and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group. The webinar was recorded before the CFPB issued an FAQ, which purports to answer a number of open questions raised by the BNPL interpretive rule. We recommend that you review the FAQ after listening to this podcast.  

Our podcast today focuses on negative option consumer contracts, i.e., agreements that allow a seller to assume a customer's silence is an acceptance of an offer. Such contracts are ubiquitous in today's marketplace. Today's guests are Kaitlin Caruso, a professor at the University of Maine Law School, and Prentiss Cox, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. They have written an article entitled, “Silence as Consumer Consent: Global Regulation of Negative Option Contracts.” The article is available on SSRN and will soon be published in the American University Law Review. The Professors first describe what they perceive to be some of the consumer harms resulting from the use of negative option contracts – consumers signing up for “free trial” offers that convert to term contracts requiring consumers to pay periodic fees after the free trial period has expired; credit card “add-on” products which are sold through telemarketing, like credit life and disability insurance; subscription contracts which make it difficult for consumers to cancel; subscription contracts for services, which are not used for lengthy periods of time while the consumer continues to pay periodic fees. The Professors then describe the existing federal and state statutes and FTC regulations and why they are inadequate to protect consumers. They point out that the current FTC negative option rule was promulgated decades before the development of the Internet and obviously does not begin to deal with online sales of goods and services. Instead, the FTC rule is intended to deal with mail order sales like the “Book-of-the-Month” club. While the FTC has proposed a new negative option rule which is a vast improvement over the existing FTC rule, it is unclear when or if a final rule will be promulgated. The Professors also describe the federal Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, and the FTC‘s Telemarketing Sales Rule which tangentially pertain to negative option contracts. Finally, the professors discuss a patchwork quilt of state laws (mostly part of state UDAP statutes) which deal with negative option contracts. After surveying the existing federal and state laws, as well as negative option laws enacted in many foreign countries, the Professors describe the core elements of what a negative option law (be it state or federal) should contain in order to protect consumers. The core elements are: 1.  A prohibition against converting a “free trial” offer into a term contract; 2. A prohibition against automatically converting a negative option contract into another term contract with the contract instead becoming a month-to- month contract.  Alternatively, the negative option contract could convert to a term contract, which could then be canceled during the first 90 days after the consumer sees a charge on a credit card statement. 3. If a subscription to services is not used by the consumer for at least one year, then the seller must notify the consumer of the dormancy, and if the service remains dormant for another three months thereafter, then the seller must cease charging the consumer for the service.  Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts today's episode.

In today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, we examine the impact, if any, of a landmark opinion rendered by Judge Daniel Domenico of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado in a case challenging recently enacted Colorado legislation on interstate loans made from outside Colorado to Colorado residents. We also address the effects this decision and the outcome of this litigation may have on interstate rate exportation by state-chartered banks across the country. We open with a brief history of the interest rate exportation authority of national and state-chartered banks, and theories developed by opponents to attack those exportation powers. Next, we turn to a discussion of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), the federal legislation adopted to create competitive equality between state-chartered banks and national banks by giving state banks the ability to export the interest rates and late fees allowed by the laws of the state where the bank is located, notwithstanding interest rate and late fee limitations imposed by the borrower's state. We then focus on the “opt-out rights” conferred on states under Section 525 of DIDMCA, and states that have attempted to exercise (or broaden) this right, including Colorado's recent adoption of an opt-out statute. We then delve into the details of the current court challenge to the Colorado opt-out statute, including a close examination of the statute itself, the state's enforcement position, and the complaint filed by the plaintiff trade associations seeking to strike down the statute. We review the briefs filed and oral arguments made, including amicus briefs filed by the FDIC, supporting the state, and by the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association, supporting the plaintiffs (the latter of which was submitted on behalf of these amici by Ballard Spahr, LLP). We point out that the position taken by the FDIC in its amicus brief is the exact opposite of the position taken by the FDIC in 1991 in the Greenwood Trust Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts case in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a Massachusetts opt-out statute. In that case, the FDIC agreed with Greenwood, a Delaware state-chartered bank, that the Massachusetts opt-out statute had no effect on the power of a state-chartered, FDIC-insured bank like Greenwood to charge Massachusetts credit card holders the “interest” permitted by Delaware law. The FDIC never acknowledged or explained this flip-flop in its amicus brief filed or during oral argument in the Colorado statute. We proceed with an in-depth discussion of the thorough and thoughtful opinion issued by Judge Domenico granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its opt-out statute against their members not located in Colorado who are making loans to Colorado residents from outside Colorado, pending the outcome of the litigation, holding that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits. This order is currently on appeal in the Tenth Circuit and is in the process of being briefed. We then conclude with thoughts about the potential effect of the Colorado litigation on Iowa's opt-out statute, in place since 1980, a survey of opt-out legislation pending in other states, and how the Colorado litigation might affect the future of opt-out laws in these and other states. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Burt Rublin, Joseph Schuster, and Ron Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

On July 25, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the agencies) issued a “Joint Statement on Banks' Arrangements with Third Parties to Deliver Bank Deposit Products and Services” to “note potential risks related to arrangements between banks and third parties to deliver bank deposit products and services to end users”. On the same day, the agencies issued a “Request for Information on Bank-Fintech Arrangements Involving Banking Products and Services Distributed to Consumers and Businesses” (the RFI) The RFI “solicits input on the nature of bank-fintech arrangements, effective risk management practices regarding bank-fintech arrangements, and the implications of such arrangements, including whether enhancements to existing supervisory guidance may be helpful in addressing risks associated with these arrangements.” The comment period for this RFI has been extended through October 30, 2024. In today's podcast episode, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and featuring Ballard Spahr Partners John Culhane, Jr. and Ronald Vaske, we explore the significance of these agency actions, what they may portend for banks and their non-bank partners, and the agencies' likely next steps and future areas of scrutiny. We also discuss tactics banks may want to consider in response to these actions and in preparation for potential future developments. Topics addressed in this wide-ranging episode include the scope and coverage of the RFI; which banks and other entities are likely to provide information in response, and why; and the type of input that would be most valuable for banks to provide to the agencies. We review past agency pronouncements, enforcement, and other activity in connection with bank – service provider arrangements. We list and discuss in detail those risks to banks arising in connection with third-party relationships that cause regulators the greatest concerns. We further provide some practical thoughts as to approaches banks may wish to consider now if they are contemplating a new fintech relationship, as well as ways to shore up practices and procedures in connection with existing third-party arrangements. We then conclude with some thoughts about how fintechs and other bank service providers should react to these agency initiatives

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. Part II opens with an in-depth discussion of the major questions doctrine (which bars agencies from resolving questions of great economic and political significance without clear statutory authority), how it has evolved, and its interaction with Chevron deference. Our experts offer predictions as to the likely role of the major questions doctrine in post-Chevron jurisprudence, and touch on the non-delegation doctrine (which prevents Congress from delegating legislative power). We also refer to the effects of another recent Supreme Court decision, Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which expands the time during which entities new to an industry may challenge longstanding agency rules. We then consider the practical effects of the Loper Bright and Corner Post decisions on pending and future litigation. Partners Richard Andreano and John Culhane discuss concrete examples of cases currently progressing through the courts that already are evidencing the effects of Loper Bright, and ways in which arguments now are being articulated or might be articulated in litigation challenging a number of regulatory rules and interpretations in the absence of Chevron deference. We proceed to explore other significant topics including the validity of prior decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts that were based exclusively on the Chevron doctrine. Our panel then opines on whether Loper Bright, both in its entirety and as to certain of its specific constituent elements, is “good” or “bad” for the consumer financial services industry and for regulated entities in general. In conclusion, Mr. Andreano cites concerns about how courts may apply alternative deference guidance that remains in place (including Skidmore deference, discussed in Part I of this podcast), and Mr. Culhane expresses hope that the outcome in Loper Bright might move agencies to engage in more thorough, thoughtful, and precise analysis in the rulemaking process.

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a statute if the statute was ambiguous regarding, or simply did not address, the issue before the court, as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. In Part I, we first review the history of judicial deference to agency interpretations in American courts throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the advent of Chevron deference.  We then discuss post-Chevron developments, including shifts in judicial and political views of the role courts should play in interpretation of agency action. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the majority opinion in Loper Bright, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, including its reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate Chevron deference and the opinion's numerous ambiguities that result in a “very, very fuzzy” outcome, leaving regulated industries facing uncertainty as to whether or not courts will uphold agency rules. We then explore other topics including the majority opinion's endorsement of an approach courts should take to review agency actions as described in a 1940's case, Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; what deference may or may not be given to agency policy-making and fact-finding in light of Loper Bright; and the divergent views of some legal scholars who suggest that many courts will continue to give broad deference to agency views notwithstanding Loper Bright.

On May 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cantero v. Bank of America, reversing and remanding the case to the Second Circuit. Rather than articulating a bright line test for preemption, the Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to conduct a “nuanced analysis” to determine whether the National Bank Act preempts a New York state law that requires the payment of 2% interest on mortgage escrow accounts. Per the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit must apply the preemption standard described in the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that a state consumer financial law is preempted “only if” it discriminates against national banks in comparison with state banks; is preempted by another Federal law; or “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,” as determined “in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States” in Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Nelson. See 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1). We open today's podcast episode, which repurposes a recent webinar roundtable covering the Cantero decision, with a new preface by moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group. This preface provides an update on an important post-Cantero development: a Ninth Circuit opinion issued on August 23 in another preemption case, Kivett v. Flagstar Bank. Alan explains why the Ninth Circuit's new opinion in Kivett applies a standard that is totally inconsistent with the instructions provided by the Supreme Court in Cantero. Today's episode then proceeds with a discussion featuring Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Partner Joseph Schuster, and four attorneys who each filed an amicus brief in Cantero. These experts share their reactions and explore potential next steps and possible outcomes as the Second Circuit and other courts proceed with efforts to comply with the Supreme Court's Cantero mandate.

The CFPB recently issued yet another final rule the agency says will help deter violations of consumer protection laws. This rule requires certain nonbank entities to register with the CFPB upon becoming subject to any order from local, state, or federal agencies or courts involving consumer protection law violations. The registry rule applies to any supervised or non-supervised nonbank that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service and any of its service provider affiliates unless excluded. The CFPB will require the nonbank entities that are subject to the rule to register the specific terms and conditions on an annual basis. There will be public access to this database. We also address the CFPB's recent circular in which the agency stated that certain terms in consumer financial product or service contracts may constitute violations of consumer protection law. Notably, the circular states that the use of prefatory language that often appears in consumer contracts—such as “subject to applicable law” or “to the extent permitted by law”—will not immunize contract language from being deceptive. We explain why practically every consumer contract in use today technically violates the CFPB circular. We also explain how we are helping several clients review and revise their consumer contracts to comply with the circular. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, and is joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, Joseph Schuster, and Reid Herlihy, partners in the Group.

A great number of fintechs are contemplating owning a bank or obtaining a banking charter—either a national bank charter, a state bank charter or a special purpose charter. In this episode, we are joined by our special guest Michele Alt, co-founder and partner of Klaros Group, an investment and advisory firm, and Scott Coleman, a partner in our Consumer Financial Services Group who leads our banking practice. Both Michele and Scott help banks and fintechs navigate the complicated regulatory issues that are critical to their growth and sustainability. We discuss the reasons why fintechs might want to become banks, and why regulators are reluctant to grant them charters. Alt says that a bank charter provides a fintech with low-cost funding in the form of FDIC-insured deposits and it eliminates the applicability of myriad state licensing requirements. On the other hand, she says, there are onerous capital requirements and regulators often are reluctant to embrace innovation. We discuss how some regulators fear that fintechs are fueled by growth over profits and how it could lead to lax management practices. Regulators have reason to be concerned about those risks, and if you charter a bank, you are responsible for it. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation.

The CFPB and state regulators and legislators have medical debt in their crosshairs. In this episode, we're joined by Chris Eastman, CEO of the Pendrick Group, a Cerberus portfolio company that specializes in financial services solutions for healthcare companies. We discuss the differences between medical debt and other types of debt, as well as how states have been regulating medical debt including the collection of medical debt. Mr. Eastman discusses his company's efforts to provide cash flows into hospitals and other healthcare providers that are operating at razor-thin margins. We also discuss the CFPB's assertion that medical debt is less predictive than other sources of debt in determining the creditworthiness of a consumer. Mr. Eastman discusses how medical debt may be a valuable indicator when assessing the financial stress of a consumer. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, and is joined by Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the group.

Rewards programs drive consumer choice and activity in connection with credit cards and other financial services. The CFPB has reported the most important element by far that influences a consumer's decision to apply for a specific credit card is the rewards program associated with the card. Further, rewards can affect the consumer's choice at the point of sale as to which card to use. In this podcast episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, we explore recent trends in scrutiny of credit card rewards programs and other rewards programs by state and federal regulators and lawmakers. We also address laws and regulations, enforcement, emerging pitfalls, and best practices applicable to rewards programs. We open with a review of how rewards have been treated in the CFPB's reports on the credit card market since 2013, and the significance of and learnings from these reports. We then focus on complaints and federal regulators' enforcement activity relating to rewards programs. Next, we turn to state law developments affecting rewards programs, including laws that specifically apply to rewards programs as well as contract, interchange, and UDAP / UDAAP laws. We then delve into other topics including the current focus on airline – credit card rewards programs by the Department of Transportation and the CFPB; the CFPB's May 2024 report about credit card rewards; and important elements card issuers should keep in mind in the context of co-brand credit card rewards programs. We then conclude with a discussion on best practices to consider in mitigating risks and maximizing the benefits of rewards programs. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Michael Guerrero and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Special guest Professor Alan Trammell of Washington and Lee University School of Law joins us today for a deep dive into universal injunctions and the related topics of associational standing and judicial forum shopping, and how these elements come into play in litigation challenging regulations and other government policies and actions. Recent developments in litigation critical to the consumer financial services industry have brought universal injunctions into the spotlight. We begin today's episode by providing a working definition of a universal injunction, some historical background, and examples that illustrate the benefits, effects and power of this sweeping remedy. We then turn to an in-depth discussion of objections raised by detractors; real-world concerns that may flow from universal injunctions, including a “one and done problem” cited by Professor Trammell; and various circumstances where Professor Trammell argues universal injunctions are and are not appropriate. We also cover associational standing and its interaction with universal injunction: whether and when a trade association should have standing to bring an action seeking relief for its members, and how and when the outcome of the action might expand into a universal injunction that also would benefit non-members. Our next areas of focus are forum shopping and judge shopping, particularly in the context of such litigation brought by an association. We then turn to speculation as to whether and how the U.S. Supreme Court may proceed to bring some uniformity to how the courts are dealing with these issues. Our episode concludes with comments on recent input on these topics from sources such as Congress and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

“Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) products emerged relatively recently as a new approach enabling consumers to enjoy the ability to make a purchase and then pay for it over time. Today's episode, during which we explore the evolution of BNPL products and important recent developments in BNPL regulation, is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and features Ballard Spahr Partners Michael Guerrero and Joseph Schuster. We first discuss the structure and mechanics of BNPL products, and the benefits they afford to consumers, merchants, and creditors. Next, we turn to a discussion of regulators' reactions to BNPL, specifically the activities of the CFPB leading up to its new interpretive rule, effective July 30th, which equates BNPL products with credit cards and characterizes BNPL providers as card issuers or creditors, thus subjecting them to the constraints and requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. We then explore the CFPB's BNPL interpretive rule in detail, including an analysis of the concerns raised by the CFPB in connection with BNPL offerings; the CFPB's introduction of the “digital user account” concept and other theories to bring BNPL into the purview of TILA and Regulation Z; and the complexities and uncertainties now faced by BNPL providers as they struggle to comply. We conclude with a look at the possibilities of a legal challenge to the CFPB's BNPL interpretive rule, given recent Supreme Court decisions, and state law considerations for BNPL providers.

The 1978 landmark opinion in Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp held that under the National Bank Act, a national bank has the right to export the interest rate authorized by the state where the bank is located to borrowers located elsewhere. Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 ("DIDMCA") conferred equivalent rate exportation powers on state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks. These interest rate exportation powers (which also extend to certain fees), coupled with technological advances in recent years and the advent of “bank-model” and “banking as a service” (BaaS) programs, have created a robust, competitive smorgasbord of credit products for consumers. However, rate exportation, and the programs it enables, increasingly are subject to challenges from a variety of sources. In this two-part episode, which repurposes portions of a recent webinar, we describe the nature of these attacks, the defenses being deployed by the industry, and who is winning these contests so far, and address what the future may hold for rate exportation. We start Part II with a discussion of states that have adopted, or are considering, “true lender” statutes that aim to recharacterize fintechs and other bank service providers as lenders, thus defeating the originating bank's ability to export rates and fees. We then discuss “true lender” enforcement actions and efforts by state attorneys general, and “true lender” litigation developments including cases where arbitration clauses have been upheld, causing arbitration to be ordered in putative class actions. Next, we talk about attacks on the “valid when made” doctrine (which provides that a loan that was non-usurious when it was made doesn't become usurious after it is transferred to a third party), and “valid when made” regulations adopted by both the OCC and FDIC. We proceed with some tips on how prevailing industry plaintiffs who seek to overturn statutes inimical to rate exportation might recover attorney's fees. We then conclude with a review of recent and pending Supreme Court cases whose outcomes have the potential to affect rate exportation powers and related regulations.   Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates episode, joined by John Culhane, Joseph Schuster, and Ronald Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Mindy Harris and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

The 1978 landmark opinion in Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp held that under the National Bank Act, a national bank has the right to export the interest rate authorized by the state where the bank is located to borrowers located elsewhere. Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 ("DIDMCA") conferred equivalent rate exportation powers on state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks. These interest rate exportation powers (which also extend to certain fees), coupled with technological advances in recent years and the advent of “bank-model” and “banking as a service” (BaaS) programs, have created a robust, competitive smorgasbord of credit products for consumers. However, rate exportation, and the programs it enables, increasingly are subject to challenges from a variety of sources. In this two-part episode, which repurposes portions of a recent webinar, we describe the nature of these attacks, the defenses being deployed by the industry, and who is winning these contests so far, and address what the future may hold for rate exportation. In Part I, we first review a brief history of rate exportation, and explore the three primary theories used to attack rate exportation. We then focus on current and pending state laws and bills seeking to “opt out” of DIDMCA's rate exportation authority. Next, we turn to the current court battle being waged in Colorado, where three trade groups recently won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Colorado's recently adopted opt-out legislation, and discuss the decision and its ramifications, including potential impacts on existing and pending opt-out legislation in other states, implications for nonmembers of the three trade group plaintiffs, and the prospects for enforcement in Colorado and other opt-out states by the FDIC based on the position (contrary to the preliminary injunction) advocated in its amicus brief. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates episode, joined by Ronald Vaske, a Partner in the Group, and Mindy Harris, Of Counsel in the Group.

California frequently is in the vanguard of consumer financial issues and legislation, foreshadowing trends that may spread to other states. Today's episode, during which we explore important hot topics and recent developments in California consumer finance law, is hosted by Ballard Spahr partner Melanie Vartabedian, and features Partners Michael Guerrero and Joel Tasca, and Of Counsel John Kimble. We first discuss what the future likely holds for proposed rules issued under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). The proposed rules include complex registration and reporting requirements for certain consumer products, and are under revision after rejection by the California Office of Administrative Law for lack of clarity. We then explore the DFPI's most recent annual report on activity under the CCFPL, which recaps the DFPI's rulemaking, enforcement efforts, complaints received, and efforts in connection with education outreach and the Office of Financial Innovation. Highlights include a rule that applies consumer-type “unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices” (referred to in the report as “UUDAAP”) prohibitions to financial products and services provided to small businesses; ramped-up enforcement efforts; and high-dollar settlements as well as litigation in progress. Next, we turn to a comparison of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and discuss their similarities, differences, and litigation trends under both laws. We then focus on the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, which poses challenges for companies that report consumer data to consumer reporting agencies over and above the requirements of federal law. We conclude with a look at unique issues arising in California with respect to the FTC “holder rule”.

Special guest Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute and former Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Financial Research in the U.S. Treasury Department, joins us to discuss his recent blog post published on The Federalist Society website in which he urges Congress to look into the question of whether the Federal Reserve can lawfully continue to fund the CFPB if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. We begin with a review of the Supreme Court's recent decision in CFSA v. CFPB which held that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Alex follows with an explanation of the CFPB's statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to be funded from the Federal Reserve System's earnings. Then Alex discusses the Fed's recent financial statements and their use of non-standard accounting, the source of the Fed's losses, whether Congress when writing Dodd-Frank considered the impact of Fed losses on the CFPB's funding, and how the Fed can return to profitability. We conclude the episode by responding to arguments made by observers as to why the Fed's current losses do not prevent its continued funding of the CFPB, potential remedies if the CFPB has been unlawfully funded by the Fed, and the bill introduced in Congress to clarify the statutory language regarding the CFPB's funding. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part II, we first discuss the CFPB's launch of Fair Credit Reporting Act rulemaking, proposed rule to supervise larger payment providers, proposed rule on personal financial data rights, and interpretive rule on buy-now-pay-later.  We next discuss the operation of the Congressional Review Act and its potential impact on final CFPB rules if the November 2024 election results in a change in Administrations. We then discuss the impact of the SCOTUS decision on pending CFPB enforcement actions, the expected proliferation of new CFPB investigations and enforcement actions, and the CFPB's announced hiring binge. We conclude by sharing our thoughts on what companies can do to prepare for an uptick in CFPB activity and how the CFPB's increased staffing is likely to impact which companies will be targeted. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion joined by John Culhane and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part I, we first discuss the SCOTUS decision, the status of the CFPB's payday lending rule that was at issue in the underlying case, and a potential new challenge to the CFPB's funding that has been the focus of recent attention. We then discuss four cases still pending before SCOTUS in which the decisions could impact the CFPB. Next, we discuss the pending lawsuits challenging the CFPB's final rules on credit card late fees and small business data collection and the changes to the CFPB's UDAAP exam manual defining “unfairness” to include discrimination, including the background of those cases, their current status, and the non-constitutional legal challenges made by the plaintiffs in those cases. We conclude with a discussion of final and proposed CFPB rules expected to be issued soon and potential non-constitutional legal challenges to those rules. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion joined by John Culhane, Richard Andreano, and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Special guest Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School joins us today as we delve into the thought-provoking question of whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in the landmark case of CFSA v. CFPB really hands the CFPB a winning outcome, or does the Court's validation of the agency's statutory funding structure simply open up another question: whether the CFPB is legally permitted to receive funds from the Federal Reserve if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. In other words, was the outcome in CFSA v. CFPB an illusory Pyrrhic victory for the CFPB? And, what happens next? Our episode begins with a brief discussion of the underlying case. Professor Scott follows with an explanation of the CFPB's statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to receive its funding out of the Federal Reserve System's “earnings”, and the Supreme Court's decision upholding that structure. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the op-ed Professor Scott published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The CFPB's Pyrrhic Victory in the Supreme Court”, in which Professor Scott explains that even though the CFPB's funding mechanism as written was upheld in CFSA v. CFPB, this will not help the agency now or at any time in the future when the Federal Reserve operates at a deficit – in fact, has no earnings it can legally send to the CFPB. Professor Scott describes how his focus on the Federal Reserve led him to scrutinize and then question the approach taken in the majority opinion; and then turns to an explanation of how a constitutional issue under the Appropriations Clause in fact may persist because in the absence of Fed earnings, funds paid to the CFPB arguably have not been drawn from the Treasury. We then go over possible arguments challenging the CFPB's issuance and enforcement of regulations, and what might ensue when the federal district court takes up CFSA v. CFPB for further proceedings. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

Our special guest this week is John Tonetti. After decades as an industry risk executive, Mr. Tonetti joined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), where he worked for many years in roles including Debt Collection Program Manager, senior policy analyst, and internal consultant on numerous issues including debt collection and risk management policies and examinations. In this episode, Mr. Tonetti shares his perspectives from the point of view of an agency insider who served under every CFPB director and acting director in office to date. We first discuss the pitfalls of the CFPB's leadership structure, which gives a single individual broad regulatory power over “the largest financial system that has ever existed”, and Mr. Tonetti's observations on the contrasting leadership and rulemaking approaches taken by the various CFPB directors and acting directors. We then turn to consideration of regulations and guidance recently proposed and adopted by the CFPB, including flaws in the agency's approach to obtaining and utilizing data on which its mandates are based. We ask and respond to the question of whether the CFPB, on more than one occasion, has exceeded its authority, and how the courts have reacted and likely will react. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

Our special guests are Professor Dru Stevenson, South Texas College of Law in Houston, and Brian Knight, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University. In this episode, we first discuss the history of  “Operation Chokepoint,” the Obama-era initiative in which the FDIC and other federal banking agencies targeted banks serving payday lenders and companies engaged in other “disfavored” industries. We then devote the remainder of the episode to a discussion of what is the appropriate role of bank regulators with regard to banks' customer relationships, with our guests presenting opposing views on how regulators should use their authority to address reputational and other risks to banks arising from customer relationships. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation.

Our special guest is Professor Richard Frankel of Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law and the author of a recent article on mass arbitration. In this episode, we first discuss what mass arbitration is, how it relates to class action lawsuits, and the role of public enforcement. We then discuss the industry and consumer positions on the use of mass arbitration and the empirical study conducted by Prof. Frankel for his article. We conclude with a discussion of steps that companies using arbitration provisions in their consumer agreements can take to respond to the use of mass arbitration, the application of the Federal Arbitration Act to arbitration agreements containing provisions that address mass arbitration, and the role of state regulation. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by Mark Levin, Senior Counsel in the Group.

Our special guest is Brian Johnson, Managing Director of Patomak Global Partners and former CFPB Deputy Director. In Nov. 2023, the CFPB issued a proposed rule to supervise nonbank companies that qualify as larger participants in a market for “general-use digital consumer payment applications.” We first discuss the CFPB's authority to supervise nonbank entities considered to be “a larger participant of a market for other consumer financial products or services” and  its previous use of that authority. We look next at how the CFPB has defined the relevant market in its current proposal and its rationale for the proposal. We then discuss the deficiencies in the CFPB's cost benefit analysis of the proposal and how the proposal reflects changes to the CFPB's approach to rulemaking under Director Chopra. We conclude with a discussion of possible litigation challenges to a final rule and issues companies likely to be covered by a final rule should be considering. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation.

Our special guest is Andrew Nigrinis of Legal Economics LLC and former CFPB enforcement economist. The CFPB's final credit card late fee rule lowers the safe harbor late fee amount that card issuers other than “smaller card issuers” can charge to $8. We first discuss how the final rule differs from the proposed rule and the existing rule, who are “smaller issuers” not subject to the lower safe harbor amount, and the changes made by the final rule for larger issuers. We then look at issuers' ability to determine late fees based on their costs, permissible fees other than late fees, the CFPB's economic analysis underlying the final rule, and the final rule's likely impact on issuers and cardholders. We conclude with a discussion of the Texas lawsuit challenging the final rule and the key arguments for invalidating the rule. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by John Culhane and Ronald Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

Our special guest is Ian Moloney, Senior Vice President and Head of Policy and Regulatory Affairs with the American Fintech Council (AFC). After reviewing how EWA products are used by consumers and the differences between employer- and provider-based products, we discuss the regulatory challenges faced by the EWA industry, the regulatory approaches states have taken to EWA, actions taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau related to EWA, and proposed federal legislation dealing with EWA. We conclude with a discussion of AFC's letter to the Bureau urging the Bureau to develop a regulatory approach to EWA. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the discussion, joined by Michael Guerrero, a Partner in the Group and Co-Leader of the firm's Fintech and Payments Solutions Team.

Our special guest is David Pommerehn, SVP, General Counsel, Head of Regulatory Affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association. In January 2024, the CFPB proposed two new rules: one restricting overdraft fees and the other prohibiting NSF fees on certain declined transactions. The proposals are among the CFPB's latest moves in furtherance of the Biden Administration's “junk fees” agenda. In this episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, we discuss the key provisions of each proposal and entities covered, the CFPB's justification for each proposal, the legal authority relied on by the CFPB for each proposal, business practices impacted by the proposals, and potential legal challenges. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates the discussion, joined by John Culhane, a Partner in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.