We have just one day left to let the CFPB know that we are already harassed enough by debt collectors — and we won’t stand for even more. The Bureau has proposed letting debt collectors make unlimited texts and emails to you about outstanding debts,
Strong majorities across parties oppose the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) proposed debt collection rule including medical debt, according to a new poll released by Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). The poll was conducted by the bipartisan team of Lake Research Partners and Chesapeake Beach Consulting.
In its proposed rule, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger is sanctioning consumer harassment by allowing debt collectors to: call consumers seven times per debt, per week; send unlimited emails, texts, and social media messages without consumer consent; allow debt collectors to collect very old “zombie debts” where the time to sue has expired; and file baseless lawsuits by making it easier to sue the wrong consumer, for the wrong amount.
CFPB finalizes policy that gives companies a private channel to seek approvals of untested new products and a promise that the CFPB will not take action for consumer protection law violations
On September 10, 2019, 17 civil rights, consumer and housing advocacy organizations sent a letter to the CFPB addressing QM and urging the Bureau to take additional steps to preserve access to affordable homeownership with adequate consumer protections in place.
On September 9, 2019, 34 organizations sent a letter in support of the Overdraft Protection Act of 2019.
On September 9, 2019, AFR submitted a letter of support for HR 1643, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act to the House Judiciary Committee.
I spoke with Carter Dougherty of the group Americans for Financial Reform … I asked him whether this kind of tinkering would necessarily lead to another financial crisis. “No. And I would not argue that. Can you argue persuasively that [actions by Trump-appointed regulators] will make the next recession more painful than it should be? That is absolutely the case.”
“This rule would free up hundreds of billions of dollars in securities and derivatives for proprietary trading purposes, completely outside of Volcker Rule coverage and in fact with an explicit exemption from proprietary trading restrictions,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director at Americans for Financial Reform. “By simply designating positions as not explicitly held for trading, banks could easily evade the Volcker Rule. These changes spell the end of meaningful constraints on proprietary trading at taxpayer supported banks, and another step in dismantling financial stability safeguards.”
“HUD’s proposed rule makes it virtually impossible for a disparate impact claim to stand in court,” says Linda Jun, senior policy counsel for Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. “By raising the threshold for disparate impact, the new rule creates a nearly unsurmountable bar for plaintiffs to prove discriminatory outcomes and makes it much easier for defendants to shield themselves from any responsibility for discrimination.”