The CFPB??™s claims are mundane. The absolute most interesting benefit of the issue is the declare that is not here. Defendants allegedly made two-week pay day loans to customers who had been paid month-to-month. They even rolled-over the loans by permitting customers to obtain a brand new loan to repay a classic one. The Complaint covers exactly just how this training is forbidden under state legislation also though it is really not germane to the CFPB??™s claims (which we discuss below). In its war against tribal loan providers, the CFPB has brought the positioning that one violations of state legislation by themselves constitute violations of Dodd-Frank??™s UDAAP prohibition. Yet the CFPB would not raise a UDAAP claim right right here predicated on Defendants??™ so-called breach of state legislation.

This will be almost certainly as a result of a nuance that is possible the CFPB??™s position that features perhaps maybe not been commonly talked about until recently. Jeff Ehrlich, CFPB Deputy Enforcement Director recently talked about this nuance during the PLI customer Financial Services Institute in Chicago chaired by Alan Kaplinsky. There, he stated that the CFPB just considers state-law violations that render the loans void to represent violations of Dodd-Frank??™s UDAAP prohibitions. The grievance within the All Check that is american Cashing is an instance regarding the CFPB sticking with this policy. Considering that the CFPB took an even more expansive view of UDAAP into the money Call case, it was uncertain how long the CFPB would simply simply take its prosecution of state-law violations. This instance is the one illustration of the CFPB remaining a unique hand and staying with the narrower enforcement of UDAAP that Mr. Ehrlich announced a week ago.

Read the rest of this entry »