Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Subscribe to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) via RSS

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis, Lori Sommerfield, Taylor Gess, and Lane Page discuss the CFPB’s sweeping final amendments to Subpart A of Regulation B. The group unpacks the elimination of the disparate impact legal theory from ECOA, the narrowing of the discouragement standard (including what it means for targeted advertising), and the significant new limits on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs). They also explore expected litigation challenges, the continuing role of the Fair Housing Act and state laws in bringing cases under the disparate impact theory, and the practical steps lenders should be taking now to reassess fair lending testing, SPCP design, and redlining risk in light of the final rule.

In this episode of Payments Pros, host Carlin McCrory teams up with Hiring to Firing hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter to explore the emerging world of earned wage access (EWA), or on-demand pay, through the lens of the reality TV show Shark Tank. They examine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s evolving approach, rapidly developing (and sometimes conflicting) state laws, and the wage-and-hour and payroll challenges that can arise when employees access their pay early. The discussion also covers how EWA can serve as a powerful recruitment and retention tool, the risk that a well-intentioned benefit can be viewed as a “loan in sheep’s clothing,” and practical steps HR and in-house counsel can take when vetting vendors or considering in-house EWA programs. Tune in to decide whether EWA is the kind of pitch your HR “sharks” should back — or one that should prompt, “And for that reason, I’m out.”

This article was originally published on Law360 and is republished here with permission as it originally appeared on January 22, 2026.

Since the change in administration last year, much has changed in the payments law landscape. Federal regulators have been busy rescinding agency guidance, advisory opinions, interpretive rules and policy statements.

In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Regulatory Oversight, Chris Willis is joined by Joseph DeFazio, Bill Foley, and Michael Yaghi to discuss the implications of New York’s FAIR Act, a significant amendment to the state’s UDAAP statute. The FAIR Act aims to broaden consumer protection by lowering the threshold for legal action against unfair and abusive business practices. With expanded enforcement powers for the state, this legislation could dramatically increase litigation risks for financial services companies operating in New York if the governor signs the bill. Tune in to understand how this legislative shift might affect the industry and what steps businesses can take to prepare.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander released a report titled “Standing Up for New York Consumers – How New York State and New York City can Strengthen Consumer Financial Protection in the Trump Era,” which called for the strengthening of local consumer financial protections in response to the Trump administration’s recent actions to reduce the regulatory footprint of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau).

Given the future uncertainty of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) efforts to regulate bank overdraft fees, New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS) has stepped in to fill a perceived gap. The DFS announced proposed regulations to tackle what it perceives as unfair overdraft fees. The proposed regulations will “ensure consumers will no longer be burdened with overdraft fees for minor transactions and require banks to provide timely notifications to consumers about overdraft fees to improve transparency.”

A federal district judge in Massachusetts entered a nearly $51 million judgment against Commonwealth Equity Group LLC (d/b/a Key Credit Repair) and its CEO after granting summary judgment in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Campbell. The lawsuit alleged that the company violated federal and state consumer protection and telemarketing laws. The company and CEO were found jointly liable for $31.7 million in restitution and each ordered to pay more than $19 million in penalties.