This is a Money Advisory 2012 magazine article discussing some retailers’ attempts to limit consumer rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act when consumers dispute with their credit card issuer charges assessed by the retailer. For example, retailers may require the consumer to dispute the charge initially or even only with the retailer, and not seek a chargeback from the card issuer.
This is a charge letter sent by the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation to Fortiva Finanical, Bank of Missouri, and Atlanticus warning them of an administrative hearing concerning unlicensed lending activity involving instalment loans. Even if Bank of Missouri was the true lender, and could avoid the licensure requirement, Fortiva and Atlanticus under Maryland law were required to obtain a license to assist consumers in obtaining a loan extension and to collect on such loans.
This is a summary judgment motion in California’s challenge in the Northern District of California to an OCC rule. The OCC rule allows non-bank assignees of national banks to charge the same interest rate that a national bank could charge even where state law would otherwise prohibit such a charge by a non-bank.
The FTC brings this action in a Georgia federal court under FTC Act § 13(b to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Prog Leasing’s unfair or deceptive practices in connection with the marketing, offering for sale, and sale of rent-to-own payment plans.
This is a settlement of an administrative action before the California Department of Business Oversight where the department claimed that litigation advance contracts were loans under California law and that the company’s offerings violated California loan law.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this advisory opinion to resolve regulatory uncertainty regarding the applicability of the definition of credit under Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), to certain earned wage access (EWA) programs that conform to the summary of material facts provided in part I.B of this advisory opinion.
This FTC statement is from the full Commission (i.e., it is not just a staff interpretation) and generally concludes that the FTC Holder Rule cap does not interfere with state law providing for attorney fees. The FTC Holder Rule, 16 CFR 433, allows consumers to bring seller-related claims and defenses against the holder of the credit obligation, but an affirmative recovery against the holder is subject to a cap.
This document describes the procedures and policies for private collection agencies (PCAs) to collect federal defaulted student loans and grants overpayments under the U.S. Department of Education's Federal Student Aid (FSA) collections contract.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) filed this amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case, McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. (9th Cir.). The defendant claims that it cannot be held responsible for the violations of the TCPA committed by the third-party lead generator it hired to contact potential customers.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center drafted this amicus brief in Panzarella v. Navient Solutions, LLC (3rd Cir.) relating to the breadth of the definition of "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).