Credit Cards – Consumer Financial Services Watch

COVID-19: Emergency Regulations Do Not Pass Constitutional Muster

May 13 2020

Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Massachusetts Attorney General’s Debt Collection Ban Under First Amendment

By Sean R. Higgins, John ReVeal, and Hollee M. Boudreau

In response to the COVID-19 emergency, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) issued a set of emergency regulations [1] intended to broadly prohibit certain debt collection activities in Massachusetts, including prohibitions against initiating debt collection calls or lawsuits, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency. [2] On May 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns enjoined the AGO’s enforcement of those regulations as an unconstitutional restraint on commercial free speech. The court found that the AGO’s broad prohibitions violated the constitutional rights of creditors and debt collectors in Massachusetts without providing any meaningful protections to consumers greater than those afforded by existing state and federal consumer protection laws. [3]

COVID-19: Massachusetts Joins the Five Other New England States in Temporarily Permitting Remote Notarization

May 06 2020

By Lindsay Sampson Bishop, Abigail P. Hemnes, Christopher J. Valente, and R. Nicholas Perkins

On 27 April 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed Senate Bill 2645, “An Act Providing for Virtual Notarization to Address Challenges Related to COVID-19” (the Act) into law. With the enactment of this law, Massachusetts joins the other five New England states—Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—in temporarily permitting remote notarization through the use of videoconferencing technology [1]. Like the remote notarization provisions in effect across the region, the Act allows individuals and businesses to get documents notarized while complying with social distancing and other health and safety guidelines.

COVID-19: Credit Reporting in the Age of COVID-19

Apr 30 2020

The CARES Act’s Impact on Furnisher Liability Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

By Brian M. Forbes and Robert W. Sparkes, III

As part of the federal government’s efforts to provide relief from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to consumers, Congress took aim at financial services companies that provide consumer account information to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). The reporting activities of those companies, which are known as “furnishers” and include, among others, creditors, mortgage loan servicers and credit card account servicers, are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). [1] The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, [2] enacted on March 27, 2020, expressly amends FCRA and alters the duties of furnishers when reporting the status of accounts provided with COVID-19-related payment relief. [3] Despite the potential exposure carried by a violation of FCRA generally—either through private civil litigation, most notably class actions, or government enforcement—key defenses remain in place for furnishers to mitigate FCRA liability.

COVID-19: Impact on Consumer Financial Service Providers

Apr 01 2020

A Summary of Federal and State Statutes, Rules and Orders

By David E. Fialkow, Brian M. Forbes, and Jeffrey S. Patterson

The coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic has been and will continue to be a major business disrupter that will have a substantial impact on the consumer financial services industry in the weeks and months to come. Notably, federal, state and local governments and agencies are acting swiftly and changing the rules by which consumer financial services companies are to do business in the short and long term. K&L Gates LLP (“K&L Gates”) has developed a COVID-19 Task Force to closely monitor these developments and is tracking them in several jurisdictions across the firm’s footprint. Below is a summary, current as of March 30, 2020, of key new and proposed statutes, rules, and orders that are likely to impact consumer financial services companies. Keeping track of these almost daily developments to foreclosure, eviction, debt collection, student loans and other business lines, which vary state to state, is critical for consumer financial services companies to respond to their customers. As with previous nationwide crises, how these companies implement and apply these changes will have a substantial impact on post-pandemic compliance, litigation, and risks. K&L Gates has team members assigned to each of the states listed below who are able to help answer your questions and help companies address ongoing issues associated with the pandemic. Please click on a jurisdiction below for more information:

COVID-19: How the CARES Act Will Impact Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Consumer Bankruptcies

Mar 31 2020

By Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, Stacey Gorman, Emily Mather

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the historic Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act” or “Act”), a $2.2 trillion stimulus package designed to mitigate the widespread economic effects of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”). The Act includes several temporary modifications to chapter 7 and chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.[1] This alert details these modifications.

The CFPB and the Fed Adjust Regulation CC for Inflation

Aug 28 2019

By John ReVeal and Daniel S. Cohen

On June 24, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the Federal Reserve Board (“Fed”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) amended Regulation CC, which implements the Expedited Funds Availability Act (the “EFAA”), to adjust for inflation the amount of funds depository institutions must make available to their customers after funds have been deposited and the civil liabilities for failing to meet these obligations (the “Amendment”). However, depository institutions will not need to adjust their compliance procedures right away. To “help ensure that institutions have sufficient time to implement the adjustments,” the Agencies set July 1, 2020 as the compliance deadline. Below is a summary of the key funds availability rules and how they are changed (or not) by the Amendment.

Ninth Circuit Ruling Rejects FACTA Suit under Spokeo, Avoiding Circuit Split

Feb 28 2018

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, and Roger L. Smerage

The Ninth Circuit recently held in Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc. that a plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing to maintain a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”)[1] claim merely by pleading that a business printed a credit card expiration date on the plaintiff’s receipt.[2] In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit followed similar rulings by the Second and Seventh Circuits, avoiding a potential circuit split. As explained below, the Bassett decision is the latest in a growing majority of cases in the wake of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins[3] that demand a plaintiff allege actual harm to maintain a FACTA damages claim—even one for statutory damages based on an alleged willful violation.

Standing to Sue under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act after Spokeo

Jan 12 2018

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, and Roger L. Smerage

After paying for groceries with a credit card or debit card, the clerk hands the receipt to the customer. In addition to the last four digits of the card number, it contains the first digit. Or perhaps it contains the first six digits. Or maybe the expiration date. Is this a concrete injury that provides the customer standing to sue the grocery store?

That is the question federal courts have grappled with since the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins[1] in May 2016. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”)[2] regulates retailers’ conduct in printing card number information on customers’ receipts and provides a private right of action for alleged violations. But, as discussed below, a customer may not have standing to sue in federal court or even in certain state courts just because a violation may have occurred.

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Merchants in Credit Card Surcharge Case, But the Fight Isn’t Over Yet

Apr 05 2017

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Soyong Cho, and Jeremy M. McLaughlin

On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York statute restricting credit card surcharges regulated commercial speech. Yet, Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (No. 15-1391) did not decide whether such restrictions violated the First Amendment. Rather, the Court remanded the matter to the Second Circuit to decide that question. Nine other states and Puerto Rico have similar statutes, some of which are also being challenged in court.

To read the full alert, click here.

The Post-Election FinTech World: Are Happy Days (for Bankers) Here Again?

Dec 02 2016

By Judith E. Rinearson and Eric A. Love

In the days following the U.S. federal elections that resulted in the election of Donald Trump as President and Republican control of the 115th Congress, FinTech companies, banks, and other financial institutions are increasingly asking whether they still need to worry about compliance with the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) regulatory actions, and other financial services regulations.

It is true that there will likely be some significant regulatory changes, but it is a little too early for industry participants to pop the champagne corks.

To see are our thoughts about some of the top issues impacting FinTech companies, banks and other financial institutions, click here.

Catagory:Credit Cards