The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a new market “data spotlight” on Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) that uses actual transaction data from six large providers of “pay-in-four” BNPL loans. The report paints a picture of growing adoption paired with improving credit performance: late fees fell and charge-off rates declined in 2023, even as the number of loans and users rose.
As more consumers seek relief through debt settlement companies (DSCs), creditors are navigating a critical question: how to manage borrower consent when multiple parties are involved in the communication process.
Consent isn’t just a formality. It determines who can speak for the borrower, what can be discussed, and how those interactions are documented. When creditors and DSCs collaborate without a shared framework for consent, they risk regulatory missteps, operational breakdowns, and a fragmented borrower experience.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together, the agencies) issued a statement to clarify supervisory expectations for OCC-supervised institutions’ and FDIC-supervised institutions’1 compliance with insider lending restrictions and related reporting requirements with respect to certain types of related interests. The statement is effective immediately.2
As we previously reported, on November 10, 2025 the Tenth Circuit rendered its 2-1 decision in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser. It held that a loan is “made” for purposes of the opt-out provision in Section 525 of DIDMCA in both the state where the bank is located and the borrower’s state, meaning that Colorado’s usury limits will apply to interstate loans made to Colorado residents by out-of-state state-chartered depository institutions.
As we discussed in our prior post on National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on August 15 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had previously restricted the CFPB’s actions to halt the Bureau’s operations and terminate its employees.
.jpg)
.jpg)