Top Story Lending Related

The ABA Banking Journal has reported the CFPB has reached an agreement to end a lawsuit challenging its medical debt reporting rule by acknowledging the rule exceeded its authority. The rule — issued in the final days of the Biden administration — requires reporting agencies to remove medical debt and medical bills from credit reports. It also prohibits lenders from considering medical information when making lending decisions.

The rule was challenged in federal court by groups representing credit unions and the credit reporting industry. The CFPB joined with the plaintiffs on Wednesday in asking the court to vacate the rule. Among other things, the CFPB and plaintiffs said the court should find the rule unlawful because it exceeds the bureau’s statutory authority. The court has not decided whether to grant the request.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution (H.J. Res. 74; S.J. Res. 36) to overturn the rule.

The CFPB has released its Consumer Response Annual Report for calendar year 2024. During this period, the Bureau sent more than 2.8 million complaints to more than 3,600 companies for review and response.

The CFPB received complaints from all 50 states with the greatest number of complaints per capita coming from consumers in Florida, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Nevada.

Consistent with recent years, complaints about credit and consumer reporting accounted for 85% of complaints received. Most of these complaints were submitted about the nationwide consumer reporting agencies—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. In these complaints, consumers described problems with incorrect information on their reports and improper use of their reports. In response, companies reported providing relief, such as making updates to the consumer’s report, in response to more than half of these complaints.

The OCC has released a list of CRA performance evaluations for 25 national banks and federal savings associations that became public in April. Eleven of the evaluations (44 percent) received ratings of Outstanding. The remaining 14 evaluations were rated Satisfactory. Our congratulations go out to the institutions with Outstanding ratings:

• Associated Bank, NA, Green Bay, WI
• Citibank, NA, Sioux Falls, SD
• First National Bank of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK
• The Granger National Bank, Granger, TX
• The Huntington National Bank, Columbus, OH
• Lake Forest Bank & Trust Company, NA, Lake Forest, IL
• OceanFirst Bank, NA, Red Bank, NJ
• The Old Exchange National Bank of Okawville, Okawville, IL
• Old Plank Trail Community Bank, NA, Mokena, IL
• Shamrock Bank, NA, Coalgate, OK
• Union Federal Savings and Loan Association, Kewanee, IL

The ABA Banking Journal has reported that the ABA, Texas Bankers Association and other plaintiffs have announced they have reached an agreement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to end a lawsuit over changes to the bureau’s UDAAP exam manual.

The plaintiffs sued the CFPB in 2022, arguing that under the previous administration, the Bureau had unlawfully expanded the statutory definition of “unfairness” to encompass discrimination. A federal judge in Texas granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs the following year. The CFPB appealed the ruling (although it reversed the changes to the definition in the exam manual).

Under the terms of the joint stipulation announced yesterday, the CFPB will dismiss its appeal.

Yesterday, the CFPB announced it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions with regard to entities currently outside the stay imposed under Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB relating to the Bureau's Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau will instead keep its enforcement and supervision resources focused on pressing threats to consumers, particularly servicemembers and veterans. The CFPB's press release states the Bureau looks forward to resolving the status of this regulation and ensuring fair, consistent treatment for all entities impacted by it.

On April 29, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney E. Hood discussed the role of artificial intelligence in financial services in recorded remarks at the National Fair Housing Alliance’s Responsible AI Symposium.

In his remarks, Acting Comptroller Hood highlighted the OCC's work to ensure AI and other technologies are used ethically and responsibly within the banking industry. He also discussed the OCC’s work to promote innovation in the banking system through Project REACh.

The law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck has reported that the CFPB, on April 22, 2025, requested the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to remove the Bureau as a plaintiff in CFPB v. Credit Acceptance Corporation [see "CFPB and NY AG sue Credit Acceptance"], a case that could have widespread impacts on the commercial sale and purchase of contracts in the secondary auto finance market.

Last year, Congressman Andy Barr, chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee for House Financial Services, sent a letter to the CFPB outlining major concerns with the efforts to impose industrywide changes to longstanding practices in the auto finance industry through litigation against a single auto finance company. While the CFPB has withdrawn from the case, the State of New York remains as a plaintiff.

New Jersey's Office of the Attorney General and Division on Civil Rights (DCR) recently announced that DCR has issued a Finding of Probable Cause alleging that Advance Funding Partners/Same Day Funding (Advance Funding), a New Jersey business that provides cash advances and loans to borrowers, violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) by engaging in unlawful lending discrimination and employment discrimination.

In the Finding of Probable Cause, DCR found that Advance Funding maintained a policy of refusing to lend to prospective clients based on race, national origin, and nationality. DCR’s investigation found that Advance Funding’s owner, Joseph Jurasic, instructed sales staff not to do business with “Chinese, African, and Spanish” prospective clients. Audio recordings sent to employees by Jurasic expressly told them “no Chinese, no Africans, no Spanish,” and told them not to “waste your time with the Chinese, with the Africans, and Spanish.” Other Advance Funding employees likewise instructed employees not to do business with these racial or ethnic groups.

The Finding of Probable Cause also alleges that Advance Funding engaged in unlawful retaliation against an employee who reported Advance Funding’s conduct to DCR. In February 2023, a then-employee of the company filed a verified complaint with DCR, alleging that Advance Funding had committed acts of unlawful discrimination. But shortly after the complaint was filed with DCR, Jurasic allegedly called the employee and left a vulgar voice message threatening him with a defamation lawsuit. After receiving this message and interpreting it as a threat, the employee resigned.

The issuance of a Finding of Probable Cause shows that DCR has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined sufficient evidence exists to support a reasonable suspicion that the LAD has been violated. A Finding of Probable Cause is not a final adjudication on the merits of a case. Once DCR issues a Finding of Probable Cause, the case will go to conciliation, where the parties will have the opportunity to negotiate a voluntary resolution. If no voluntary resolution is reached, DCR will appoint a Deputy Attorney General to prosecute the case either in the Office of Administrative Law or in court.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has reported that its House Price Index rose 0.1 percent in the month of February 2025, and house prices climbed 3.9 percent from February 2024 to February 2025. The previously reported 0.2 percent increase in January 2025 was revised upward to 0.3 percent.

• FHFI HPI Monthly - April 2025

Various sources have reported that Paul R. Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer for the CFPB, has released a memo to Bureau staff outlining new supervision and enforcement priorities for 2025. In the memo, Paoletta listed these key points, as recently reported in Troutman Pepper Locke's Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor:

Reduction in Supervisory Exams
The Bureau will decrease the overall number of supervisory exams by 50% to reduce the cost of running businesses and consumer prices. The focus will be on conciliation, correction, and remediation of harms subject to consumer complaints.

Shift Back to Depository Institutions
The CFPB will shift its focus back to depository institutions. In 2012, 70% of the Bureau’s supervision focused on banks and depository institutions, but this has since changed, with over 60% of examinations performed on nonbanks. The Bureau aims to return to the 2012 proportion and focus on the largest banks and depository institutions.

Focus on Actual Fraud
The Bureau will prioritize cases involving actual fraud against consumers, with identifiable victims and measurable damages. Key areas include:

• Mortgages (highest priority)
• FCRA/Reg V related to data furnishing violations
• FDCPA/Reg F related to consumer contracts/debts
• Various fraudulent overcharges and fees
• Inadequate controls to protect consumer information resulting in actual loss

Redress for Tangible Harm
The CFPB will focus on getting money back directly to consumers rather than imposing penalties to fill the Bureau’s penalty fund.

Support for Service Members and Veterans
The Bureau will prioritize providing redress to service members, their families, and veterans.

Respect for Federalism
The Bureau will deprioritize participation in multi-state exams unless required by statute and minimize duplicative enforcement where state regulators are already engaged.

Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
The CFPB will eliminate duplicative supervision and coordinate exam timing with other federal regulators.

Avoidance of Novel Legal Theories
The Bureau will not pursue supervision under novel legal theories and will focus on areas clearly within its statutory authority.

Fair Lending Enforcement
The Bureau will not engage in redlining or bias assessment supervision based solely on statistical evidence. It will pursue matters with proven intentional racial discrimination and identified victims.