As we previously reported, on August 7, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (the “EO”) titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” which, among other things, seeks to prohibit depository institutions and other companies from discriminating against potential and existing customers of any and all banking and other consumer financial services products and services (not just loans or extensions of credit) based on their political or religious beliefs or their conducting businesses as long as they are lawful.
In collections, outreach is just the beginning. The path to resolution involves multiple steps, systems, and stakeholders—and when those components are misaligned, resolution stalls.
Delays in follow-up. Duplicate outreach. Incomplete records. These aren’t just operational inefficiencies; they’re points of friction that erode borrower trust and reduce recovery performance.
As digital collections mature, leading organizations are shifting from reactive task management to structured, rules-based workflows that improve consistency, accountability, and speed.
A recent technical glitch in the e-OSCAR platform has sparked concerns over the accuracy of consumer credit data reported to TransUnion. The issue, which took place on June 13, 2025, affected the transmission of Automated Credit Dispute Verification (ACDV) Response records—an essential part of the dispute resolution process between data furnishers and credit reporting agencies (CRAs).
Noting conflicting statutory obligations, the Eighth Circuit asserted that the consumer’s request to cease communications could not override the debt collector’s obligation to respond to a credit report dispute.
On August 6, 2025, in Corner Post, Inc. v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (the “Court”) granted Corner Post’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Federal Reserve Board (the “Board”) exceeded its authority in adopting Regulation II, which in part caps debit card interchange fees. The Court held that the Board exceeded its authority by including the “third category” of costs that were specific to a particular transaction but were not incremental costs incurred by an issuer for the role of the issuer in the authorization, clearance, or settlement of a particular electronic debit transaction.
.jpg)
.jpg)