On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.
The House Financial Services Committee has approved a bill that would restrict the use of “trigger leads” in the mortgage industry.
The committee approved H.R. 2808, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act in a 46-0 vote. Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate; no action has been taken on the legislation in that body. During the last Congress, the measure passed the Senate but was not passed by the House. Sens. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. and Jack Reed, D-R.I. have introduced the bill in the Senate.
Our podcast shows being released today and next Wednesday, June 18 feature two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018.
On June 2, 2025, proposed rules (“Proposed Rules”) were published under New Jersey’s Data Privacy Act (“NJDPA”). The Proposed Rules elaborate on what constitutes “personal data” and detail a number of compliance obligations, some of which parallel existing requirements under data privacy laws in California and Colorado.
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question presented (and left unanswered by the majority) in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis was whether a federal court may certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured class members. The dismissal has sparked considerable debate, particularly highlighted by Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which provides a compelling argument against the court’s dismissal.
.jpg)
.jpg)