Collections news at your fingertips

If your credit union assesses overdraft or non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees that your members cannot reasonably anticipate or avoid, your credit union may be exposing itself to heightened reputational, consumer compliance, third-party, and litigation risk. Unanticipated fees can cause substantial harm to credit union members. While there may be situations with unique facts or circumstances, the assessment of unanticipated fees on credit union members generally represents an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA).¹

‍

It is all but certain that Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., will chair the House Financial Services Committee in the next Congress. Hill was selected on December 12 by the House Republican steering committee, although his selection still must be approved by House Republicans in the next Congress. That approval is considered to be pro forma.

On December 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced the launch of a rulemaking process addressing credit reporting on survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, and other forms of financial abuse.

When auditing collection agencies or repossession forwarders, one common question arises: “Do I need a statistically valid sample?” The short answer: No. While a statistically valid sample can be useful in some contexts, it’s not always practical or necessary in this heavily regulated industry. Instead, a categorical sampling approach often proves more effective.

‍

In the third in our series of new CCPA regulations from California, we look at obligations for conducting risk assessments under CCPA. CCPA had called on the California agency to promulgate rules to address such assessments, and when they would be needed.