On February 3, several U.S. senators sent a letter to CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought urging the Bureau to rescind its proposed rule that would end the ECOA’s disparate impact test, which would prevent the CFPB from taking action against creditors that maintain lending policies that “have an unfair impact on historically discriminated-against groups.” The senators argued that contrary to claims made by Vought in a recent op-ed, the proposed rule would “open the floodgates for discrimination in all consumer lending, including mortgages, credit cards, and car loans.”
The National Credit Union Administration today announced the fifth round of proposed regulatory changes associated with NCUA’s Deregulation Project. The project is an ongoing review of NCUA’s regulations to ensure regulations are focused on credit unions’ safety, soundness, and resilience.
The Federal Trade Commission sent letters to 13 data brokers warning them of their responsibility to comply with the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 (PADFAA).
In the traditional collections waterfall, debt settlement is often viewed as a "passive" channel—a volume of accounts that resolves itself through third-party intervention with little direct oversight from the lender. Consequently, many institutions lack the granular benchmarking necessary to measure the true performance of their settlement workflows.
As delinquency rates rise and recovery budgets tighten, operational leads must transition from anecdotal success to a data-driven framework. Benchmarking the debt settlement lifecycle requires moving beyond simple "net recovery" figures and looking into the mechanics of the resolution funnel.
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit in R.R. v. California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California, affirmed the insurer and administrator’s denial of benefits for a dependent’s residential mental health treatment under an ERISA‑governed plan. The court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluded that the denial was supported by the plan’s medical‑necessity criteria and the administrative record. The dissent, however, argued that the majority failed to meaningfully account for a structural conflict of interest and for the administrator’s handling of treating‑provider evidence and prior failed lower levels of care.
.jpg)
.jpg)