Consumer Finance Monitor
The Consumer Financial Services industry is changing quickly. This weekly podcast from national law firm Ballard Spahr focuses on the consumer finance issues that matter most, from new product development and emerging technologies to regulatory compliance and enforcement and the ramifications of private litigation. Our legal team—recognized as one of the industry's finest— will help you make sense of breaking developments, avoid risk, and make the most of opportunity.
info_outline
What Are Class Action Waivers Worth? A New Study Looks to the Stock Market for Answers
10/08/2026
What Are Class Action Waivers Worth? A New Study Looks to the Stock Market for Answers
In the episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast released today, the host of the show, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former leader for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group) spoke with James Fallows Tierney, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, about his working paper, “.” Professor Tierney’s research focuses on the intersection of law, financial markets and consumer finance. His study uses financial-market data to examine how investors reacted to developments affecting the enforceability of consumer arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. Key Points Discussed: · An Eight-Year Project · Letting the Market “Speak” · What Did the Study Find? · What About Consumers? · Important Limitations · A Different Way of Looking at an Old Debate Listen to the full Consumer Finance Monitor podcast with Professor James Fallows Tierney to hear our discussion of his methodology, the 11 events examined in the study, the stock-market reaction to Congress’s repeal of the CFPB arbitration rule, the study’s limitations, and where this research could go next. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/43224248
info_outline
SpaceX’s Novel Shareholder Dispute-Resolution Bylaws Could Have Far-Reaching Implications
10/01/2026
SpaceX’s Novel Shareholder Dispute-Resolution Bylaws Could Have Far-Reaching Implications
The SpaceX IPO generated enormous attention for obvious reasons. It was the largest IPO in history, and the company’s stock price initially surged after trading began. But an important legal development associated with the IPO has received considerably less attention: SpaceX adopted an unusually comprehensive shareholder dispute-resolution regime (the “Regime”) in its bylaws. In our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast released today, our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former leader for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group) spoke with Professor Mohsen Manesh of the University of Oregon School of Law about the Regime and the significant legal questions it raised. Manesh is an authority on corporate, contract, and LLC law and has written extensively about arbitration provisions in corporate charters and bylaws. This was his second appearance on our podcast to discuss shareholder arbitration and the SEC’s changing position on the subject. Key Topics Discussed: · Why the SpaceX provisions are notable · How the SpaceX dispute-resolution regime works · The distinction under the federal securities laws · The importance of the class action waiver · The distinction between the two waivers · Shareholder consent · Broader competition between Delaware and Texas for corporate charters · Professor Manesh’s theory for why the FAA may not preempt Delaware’s restrictions As Professor Manesh and I discussed, SpaceX’s Regime is about much more than arbitration. It presents a novel test of the intersection between corporate law, federal arbitration policy, federal securities law, forum selection, and class action practice. The litigation that eventually tests these provisions could shape the development of shareholder dispute resolution for years to come. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/43124958
info_outline
AI in Debt Collection: Opportunities, Risks, and the Importance of Data Governance
09/24/2026
AI in Debt Collection: Opportunities, Risks, and the Importance of Data Governance
In our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast show being released today, our special guest John McNamara, Chief Growth Officer at Avtal (a fintech and software as a service (SAS) company that provides an AI-powered, white-labeled digital engagement platform to help third-party consumer debt collection agencies automate communication and process self-service payments) and a former CFPB senior official who played a significant role in developing Regulation F promulgated under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act explained that the debt collection industry needs to distinguish genuine AI applications from the marketing hype surrounding the technology. He also emphasized that the use of AI must be accompanied by careful attention to data governance, explainability, consumer protection, and human oversight. Our show is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group. Key Topics Discussed: · Where AI is being used in debt collection · Consumer-facing AI presents greater risks · AI can also improve consumer outcomes · Data governance may be the most important issue · The “black box” problem · Hallucinations and the importance of a human in the loop · Vendor management remains critical · AI may become infrastructure rather than a separate technology The central lesson from McNamara’s discussion is that responsible deployment should begin with the use case rather than the technology. Companies should ask what they are trying to accomplish, what data is actually necessary, what legal authority they have to use that data, whether the system’s output can be understood and defended, and where human oversight is required. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/43020223
info_outline
The End of Shopping? Agentic AI and the Future of Consumer Financial Services Introduction
09/17/2026
The End of Shopping? Agentic AI and the Future of Consumer Financial Services Introduction
In the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast we are releasing today, Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, spoke with Professor Mark Bartholomew of the University at Buffalo School of Law, co-author with Professor Samuel Becher of “,” a forthcoming article in the William & Mary Law Review. The article explores how autonomous shopping agents could transform consumer commerce and raises fundamental questions concerning consumer autonomy, privacy, competition and consumer protection. The implications for financial services are especially significant. Consumers could use AI agents to select credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, insurance policies, bank accounts, certificates of deposit and investment products. An agent potentially could compare thousands of offerings in seconds and execute a transaction that a consumer might otherwise never undertake because of the time and complexity involved. For banks, lenders, insurers, credit-card issuers and investment firms, agentic AI could reduce customer-acquisition costs, increase switching and intensify competition. But it also could make technology companies the principal gatekeepers between financial institutions and their customers. The company controlling the agent could determine which products consumers see, how those products are compared and whether a particular provider receives the consumer’s business. Agentic AI also presents difficult legal and policy questions. Who is responsible when an AI agent makes a mistake? What happens when an agent has a financial incentive to steer a consumer toward a particular provider? Are existing disclosure, fair-lending, privacy, advertising and investor-protection rules adequate when the “consumer” making the initial decision is effectively an algorithm? Key Topics Discussed: · Why Financial Services May Be an Especially Attractive Use Case · Implications for Banks, Lenders, Insurers and Investment Firms · Who Is Making the Decision? · Conflicts of Interest and Self-Dealing · Consumer Protection Law May Have to Change · Fair Lending, Insurance and Investment Concerns · The Need for Guardrails · Competition and Data Portability · Privacy and Cybersecurity Risks Will Increase · What Should Financial Institutions Do Now? · Do We Need a New AI Regulator? · Don’t Lock in the Wrong Rules · What Does the Future Hold? Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42942960
info_outline
The CFPB Needs Reform, But Not More Regulatory Whiplash
09/10/2026
The CFPB Needs Reform, But Not More Regulatory Whiplash
The future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has rarely been more uncertain. Since its creation, the CFPB has been at the center of intense political and policy debate, with its priorities changing dramatically as administrations change. The events of the past year or so under the leadership of Acting Directors chosen by President Trump, however, have taken that policy whiplash to a new level. In our latest Consumer Finance Monitor podcast released today, Alan Kaplinsky (the founder and former leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm) was joined by two former CFPB officials with decades of experience inside the Bureau: Jason Brown, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former CFPB Assistant Director for Research, and David Silberman, former Acting Deputy Director and longtime Associate Director for Research, Markets and Regulation. We discussed their recent Brookings commentary, “,” which proposes a series of structural reforms designed to make the Bureau a more stable and effective financial regulator. Their recommendations are noteworthy not because they seek to preserve every aspect of the CFPB as it has operated in the past. Rather, they focus on a more fundamental question: How can the CFPB carry out its statutory mission while allowing presidential administrations to pursue different policy agendas without repeatedly dismantling and rebuilding the agency? Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42858530
info_outline
Cantero II: Circuit Split and OCC Preemption Determination Set Up Likely Supreme Court Review
09/03/2026
Cantero II: Circuit Split and OCC Preemption Determination Set Up Likely Supreme Court Review
National bank preemption is headed toward another Supreme Court showdown. The Second Circuit has held that New York’s mortgage escrow-interest requirement is preempted, directly conflicting with the First Circuit’s decision upholding a comparable Rhode Island requirement and the Ninth Circuit’s decision allowing a similar California law to remain in effect. The OCC has sided with the Second Circuit, issuing final preemption regulations concluding that state laws requiring national banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts are preempted. In the latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast released today, Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former chair for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group) is joined by Professor Emeritus Arthur Wilmarth of George Washington University Law School to discuss the Second Circuit’s in Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in the case, the conflicting decisions in Conti v. Citizens Bank in the First Circuit and Kivett v. Flagstar Bank in the Ninth Circuit and the OCC’s The immediate dispute is whether national banks must pay interest on residential mortgage escrow accounts under state law. The broader question is whether state consumer financial laws (other than state usury laws) may regulate national banks and, if so, when those laws are preempted by the National Bank Act. With certiorari petitions pending in Cantero and Kivett, further proceedings in Conti potentially bringing that case back before the Supreme Court, and the OCC’s regulations now under challenge by ten state attorneys general, the circuit split and the OCC’s intervention make another Supreme Court review increasingly likely. Our podcast with Professor Wilmarth explores these issues in depth and provides an important perspective on what could become one of the most significant national bank preemption disputes in years. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42733370
info_outline
When Consumer Protection Disclosures Work Too Well: New Podcast Explores the Distributional Costs of Effective Consumer Regulation
08/27/2026
When Consumer Protection Disclosures Work Too Well: New Podcast Explores the Distributional Costs of Effective Consumer Regulation
Disclosure has long been one of the principal tools of consumer protection. The basic premise seems straightforward: if consumers are given better information about the terms of a transaction, they should be able to make better-informed decisions. But what if better disclosure works differently for different consumers? And what if a disclosure that improves decision-making overall can, in some circumstances, actually worsen outcomes for financially vulnerable consumers? Those are among the important and provocative questions explored in the latest episode released today of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm) Alan’s guest is Professor Florencia Marotta-Wurgler of NYU School of Law, a leading scholar of consumer law, behavioral law and economics. We discuss her new article, “The Distributional Costs of Effective Consumer Regulation,” co-authored with Tamar Kricheli-Katz. The article is available for free on . The article challenges the conventional way regulators and academics have evaluated consumer disclosures. Rather than simply asking whether disclosure “works,” the authors ask a more nuanced question: for whom does it work, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Key Topics Discussed Include: · Better disclosure can reduce mistakes, but not necessarily for everyone in the same way · When salience changes the trade-off · The implications for regulators · What does this mean for behavioral regulation? · A broader lesson about disclosure Professor Marotta-Wurgler’s research is particularly compelling because it challenges the assumption that making information more effective is necessarily an unqualified good. Sometimes, a disclosure may not merely inform consumers. It may change what they focus on, how they perceive trade-offs and ultimately what choices they make. That is a lesson regulators, policymakers and industry participants should keep in mind as they design the next generation of consumer protection disclosure rules. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42576735
info_outline
The “Confidence Advantage”: Why Privacy, Cybersecurity and AI Governance Are Becoming Business Imperatives
08/20/2026
The “Confidence Advantage”: Why Privacy, Cybersecurity and AI Governance Are Becoming Business Imperatives
In the latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast that we are releasing today, we explore a topic that is becoming increasingly important for financial services companies and virtually every other business operating in today’s digital economy: how privacy, cybersecurity, and AI governance can be transformed from compliance obligations into sources of customer confidence, resilience, and competitive advantage. Alan Kaplinsky (founder, founder lease for 25 years and now Senior counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group) hosts and interviews our guests. Our guests are Amy Reeder Worley, managing director at BRG and author of a new book entitled The Confidence Advantage: Optimizing Privacy, Cybersecurity, and AI Governance for Growth, and Greg Szewczyk, chair of Ballard Spahr’s Privacy and Data Security Group. Amy advises senior executives and boards on cybersecurity, privacy, and AI risk, while Greg regularly counsels clients on privacy, cybersecurity, data governance, incident response, and the rapidly evolving legal issues surrounding AI. Amy’s book is available on . Key Topics Include: · From “trust” to evidence-based confidence; A central concept in Amy’s book is the distinction between trust and confidence. She describes trust as a feeling, while confidence is an evidence-backed belief. · Breaking down privacy, cybersecurity and AI silos; discussion about the need to move away from treating privacy, cybersecurity, and AI governance as separate disciplines operating in organizational silos. · “Confidence by design”; Amy describes a framework she calls “confidence by design.” · The danger of the “FOMO” approach to AI; what Amy describes as the “FOMO” approach to AI: moving as quickly as possible to deploy AI tools and planning to establish governance later. · Where should companies begin?; For organizations that are just beginning to address these issues, Amy’s advice is surprisingly basic: start by determining what data the company has and where it is located. · Boards need to know who owns the risk; discussion on the growing role of boards and senior management. · Governance as a competitive advantage; Perhaps the most important message from the podcast is that good governance should not necessarily be viewed as a cost center. · A rapidly changing legal landscape; the extraordinary uncertainty surrounding AI regulation. We encourage our readers and listeners who are interested in these issues to listen to the full episode and to consider reading Amy’s book, The Confidence Advantage: Optimizing Privacy, Cybersecurity, and AI Governance for Growth. It provides a useful framework for thinking about an issue that is quickly moving from the privacy and technology departments into the boardroom. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42500145
info_outline
CFPB’s Immigration Status Guidance Creates a Compliance Catch-22 for Creditors
08/13/2026
CFPB’s Immigration Status Guidance Creates a Compliance Catch-22 for Creditors
The CFPB’s June 5, 2026 statement on “” presents creditors with a difficult, and potentially unprecedented, compliance dilemma. The Bureau says that when creditors are required to assess a consumer’s ability to repay, they may, and in some circumstances may be required to, consider information about the consumer’s immigration status if that information bears on the consumer’s current or reasonably expected future income. But how can creditors take immigration status into account without violating federal or state fair-lending laws that prohibit discrimination based on national origin? That was the central question explored in the latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, released today. Our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group) was joined by three Ballard Spahr lawyers with complementary expertise: Dustin O’Quinn, a nationally recognized immigration lawyer; Richard Andreano, leader of the firm’s Mortgage Banking Group and a leading authority on mortgage lending regulation; and John Culhane, a longtime member of Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group. The discussion demonstrates just how difficult the CFPB’s guidance may be for creditors to operationalize. Key Topics Discussed Include: · What exactly did the CFPB say? · Credit cards and mortgages are different; John Culhane explained that the credit card ability-to-repay requirement is fundamentally a point-in-time assessment. · Immigration status is anything but binary; nOne of the most important points made during the podcast was that creditors cannot sensibly divide applicants into two categories—those who are “legal” and those who are “illegal.” · The ITIN issue; The CFPB guidance also raises questions about lending to consumers who have an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) rather than a Social Security number. · The fair-lending problem; Rich Andreano described the problem succinctly: The guidance raises the risk associated with failing to consider immigration status but does not provide clear guideposts for considering immigration status without running afoul of ECOA and other civil-rights laws. · Simply lending only to citizens and permanent residents is not the answer; One possible reaction might be for a creditor to adopt a bright-line policy: lend only to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. · The banking agencies have entered the picture; Among the subjects addressed are credit risk and underwriting, source of repayment, collateral considerations, documentation and verification, portfolio and concentration risk, and consumer compliance. · What should creditors do? The podcast participants agreed that simply ignoring the CFPB guidance is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer, particularly for banks subject to regular examination. The CFPB’s immigration-status guidance sits at the intersection of ability-to-repay requirements, immigration law, fair lending, safety and soundness, and state law. It is therefore an unusually complicated issue that cannot be analyzed solely from a consumer-finance or immigration-law perspective. Our latest Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast brings those disciplines together. Dustin O’Quinn, Richard Andreano, and John Culhane provide a detailed discussion of what the guidance means, the practical problems it creates for creditors, and how lenders should begin thinking about their policies and procedures. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42421835
info_outline
AI in Financial Services—Consumer Protection Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
08/06/2026
AI in Financial Services—Consumer Protection Challenges in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
In today’s episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP) is joined by Delicia Hand, a nationally recognized expert on digital civil rights, AI governance, and consumer protection who leads AI policy initiatives at Consumer Reports. The discussion centers on Consumer Reports’ recently released report, AI and Consumer Finance: A Landscape Analysis of Market Forces, Evaluation Frameworks, and Regulatory Gaps, and examines how AI is reshaping consumer finance while exposing important gaps in existing regulatory frameworks. Key topics discussed are: · Why approximately 75% of consumers express concern that AI could result in bias or unfair treatment in financial services, while only 8% believe current laws adequately protect them. · Whether the rapid adoption of AI is being driven more by competitive pressures than by demonstrated consumer benefits. · Consumer Reports’ proposed framework for evaluating AI systems used in financial services, including twelve key dimensions designed to assess whether AI systems adequately protect consumers. · The growing use of AI in credit underwriting and lending, including both its potential to expand access to credit and its potential to perpetuate existing biases. · The increasing use of algorithmic and personalized pricing and the consumer protection concerns raised by AI-driven pricing models. · The risks associated with consumers relying on general-purpose AI systems as financial advisors despite the absence of traditional fiduciary obligations or regulatory oversight. · Privacy concerns arising from AI systems that access consumers’ financial account information through data aggregation services. · The need for meaningful consumer redress mechanisms when AI systems make mistakes, including access to human review and effective dispute resolution. · The absence of a comprehensive federal framework governing AI in financial services and the unresolved questions surrounding accountability among AI developers, financial institutions, and other participants in the AI supply chain. This episode will be of particular interest to banks, fintech companies, financial services providers, compliance professionals, regulators, and attorneys seeking to understand the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape governing the use of artificial intelligence in consumer finance. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42344725
info_outline
New Institute for Consumer Financial Choice Seeks to Reshape the Consumer Finance Policy Debate
07/30/2026
New Institute for Consumer Financial Choice Seeks to Reshape the Consumer Finance Policy Debate
A newly launched academic institute is seeking to influence the future direction of consumer financial services regulation by promoting a policy framework centered on consumer choice, market competition, empirical research, and innovation. In the podcast we are releasing today on Consumer Finance Monitor, our host Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former chair for 25 years and now senior counsel) interviewed Professors Todd Zywicki of George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and Tom Miller of Mississippi State University about their newly created Institute for Consumer Financial Choice (ICFC), its mission, and its ambitious agenda. Key Topics Discussed: · A Different Vision of Consumer Protection: Rather than viewing regulation and deregulation as opposite ends of a policy spectrum, the Institute seeks to identify regulatory approaches that encourage innovation, expand consumer choice, and improve market performance while still protecting consumers from genuine abuses. · Beyond Research: Influencing Policy: The ICFC plans to produce peer-reviewed empirical research, file amicus briefs in important litigation, submit regulatory comment letters, educate students, policymakers, and industry participants, and serve as a resource for legislators and regulators confronting emerging consumer finance issues. · Revisiting the CFPB Task Force Report: One of the Institute’s earliest priorities is breathing new life into the CFPB Task Force Report issued in 2021. · Research Priorities: The Institute has already identified an ambitious research agenda that includes evaluating whether the Military Lending Act has improved access to credit for servicemembers, conducting new empirical research on the pawn industry, studying ancillary financial products such as GAP insurance and extended warranties, examining payday lending regulation, investigating rural financial inclusion, exploring stablecoins, cryptocurrency, and digital payments, and assessing how existing regulatory structures can better accommodate technological innovation. · Artificial Intelligence Moves to the Forefront: Professor Zywicki argued that AI presents both enormous opportunities and significant risks for consumer financial services. · Policy Issues Likely to Receive Immediate Attention: Professors Zywicki and Miller identified several policy areas where they believe the Institute can have an immediate impact, including interest rate caps and usury laws, APR disclosures and widespread misunderstanding of APR as a measure of price, payment systems and interchange regulation, federal preemption and the future of dual banking, financial inclusion, stablecoin regulation; and emerging litigation involving consumer financial regulation. The Institute’s long-term success will ultimately be measured not by the number of conferences it hosts or papers it publishes, but by whether its research meaningfully influences legislation, regulation, litigation, and public understanding of consumer financial services. Based on the conversation with Professors Zywicki and Miller, they have set ambitious goals and they appear determined to pursue them. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42265520
info_outline
CFPB’s Revised Section 1071 Rule: What Lenders Need to Know About the New Small Business Lending Reporting Requirements
07/23/2026
CFPB’s Revised Section 1071 Rule: What Lenders Need to Know About the New Small Business Lending Reporting Requirements
In today’s episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, we are pleased to present an audio version of the webinar we conducted on May 27, 2026 examining the CFPB’s revised final rule and its practical implications for banks, credit unions, FinTech companies, and other providers of small business credit. During this comprehensive discussion, our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former Practice Group Leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group) was joined by his Ballard Spahr colleagues Richard Andreano and John Culhane, along with two distinguished guest panelists: Bradley Blower, Principal and Founder of Inclusive-Partners, LLC, and Louis Caditz-Peck, Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition. Key Topics Discussed: · The most significant differences between the CFPB’s original 2023 Section 1071 rule and the revised 2026 final rule. · Why the Bureau substantially increased the institutional coverage threshold from 100 to 1,000 covered originations. · The practical implications of narrowing the definition of a “small business,” reducing the required data points, and excluding merchant cash advances and agricultural loans from coverage. · Whether the revised rule still fulfills Congress’s objectives of promoting fair lending and improving transparency in the small business lending market. · The operational and technology challenges lenders should begin addressing now—even though compliance is not required until January 1, 2028. · How institutions can use Section 1071 data not only for compliance but also as a competitive business intelligence tool. · The potential fair lending, supervisory, and reputational risks created by the public availability of Section 1071 data. · The current status of litigation challenging the original Section 1071 rule and whether additional lawsuits challenging the revised rule are likely. · Predictions regarding how the rule may evolve over time, including whether future administrations could expand its scope in a manner similar to the evolution of HMDA reporting. Whether your institution expects to be covered by the revised rule or not, this discussion provides valuable insight into the future direction of small business lending regulation and offers practical guidance on how lenders should prepare now for the compliance, operational, and strategic issues that lie ahead. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42194245
info_outline
Agentic Commerce Is Coming—Will the Legal System Be Ready?
07/16/2026
Agentic Commerce Is Coming—Will the Legal System Be Ready?
Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving from a tool that assists human decision-making into technology capable of acting independently. The next frontier, often referred to as agentic AI or agentic commerce, envisions AI agents negotiating contracts, making purchases, authorizing payments, and completing commercial transactions with little or no human intervention. While enormous investments are being made to develop this technology, far less attention has been devoted to an equally important question: What legal infrastructure will govern autonomous commercial transactions? That is the focus of our latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast being released today. Our guests are Bridget McCormack, President and CEO of the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA) and former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and David Hoffman, the William A. Schnader Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. They are the authors of the thought-provoking paper, Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure—and the Courts Are Coming, which is published on AAA’s website. Key Topics Discussed: What distinguishes “agentic commerce” from today’s AI-assisted transactions. Why traditional contract formation concepts, including clickwrap agreements, disclosures, and consent, may become increasingly difficult to apply. How existing agency law principles, including ratification, could bind companies to contracts negotiated by their AI agents. Why autonomous transactions may generate entirely new forms of litigation, including class actions arising from errors replicated across thousands, or even millions, of AI-driven transactions. The challenges of proving what an AI agent actually agreed to and the need for reliable records of contract formation. The growing importance of arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms as commerce increasingly moves to automated and, in some cases, irreversible payment systems such as stablecoins. Practical steps companies should consider now before deploying autonomous commercial agents. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42240230
info_outline
Risk-Based AML/CFT Reform: What Financial Institutions Need to Know About the Joint Banking Agency and FinCEN Proposals
07/09/2026
Risk-Based AML/CFT Reform: What Financial Institutions Need to Know About the Joint Banking Agency and FinCEN Proposals
The latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast examines a significant and coordinated regulatory initiative that could reshape anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) compliance across the financial services industry. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky and guest Celia Cohen, a partner in Ballard Spahr’s White Collar Defense and Investigations Group, analyze the joint notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the federal banking agencies Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and National Credit Union Administration—alongside a parallel proposal from Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Together, these proposals represent one of the most important efforts in years to modernize AML/CFT compliance frameworks, moving the system toward a more risk-based, effectiveness-driven model. Key Topics Discussed Include: A Shift Away from “Check-the-Box” Compliance “Establish and Maintain” — and Prove It Works SAR Filings and the Challenge of Judgment Calls Impact Across Financial Institutions Regulatory Signals: A Coherent Direction What Institutions Should Be Doing Now The Consumer Finance Monitor podcast will continue tracking developments as the rulemaking process advances and will revisit the topic when final rules are issued. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/42023530
info_outline
Cutting Out the Middleman: Why Fintechs, Crypto Firms, and Payments Companies Are Seeking Their Own Bank Charters - Part 2
07/02/2026
Cutting Out the Middleman: Why Fintechs, Crypto Firms, and Payments Companies Are Seeking Their Own Bank Charters - Part 2
At a May 19, 2026 Ballard Spahr webinar, “Cutting Out the Middleman: The Surge in FinTech Applications to Charter Banks, Industrial Banks and National Trust Companies,” a distinguished panel of banking, fintech, crypto, and consumer financial services experts explored one of the most important developments currently reshaping the financial services industry: the growing movement by fintech companies, payments firms, lenders, and crypto-native businesses to obtain their own banking charters rather than relying on traditional bank partnerships. The message from the panel was clear: we are witnessing a significant shift in how nonbank financial services companies are thinking about regulation, growth, and market access. The podcast we are releasing today is part 2 of this series. We recommend that you listen to before listening to part 2. Speakers: Moderator: Alan Kaplinsky, senior counsel; founder and former leader of Consumer Financial Services Group, Ballard Spahr Guest: Lee Reiners, Lecturing Fellow, Duke Financial Economics Center; founder and editor-at-large of The FinReg Blog; founder and host, The FinReg Pod; co-host, Coffee & Crypto with Lee and Jimmie (a podcast that covers the latest developments in cryptocurrency); co-organizer of Digital Assets at Duke (annual conference about crypto assets space) Scott Coleman, partner, Ballard Spahr Joseph Schuster, partner, Ballard Spahr Beau Hurtig, counsel, Ballard Spahr Adam Maarec, counsel, Ballard Spahr Key Takeaways A significant shift is underway. Fintechs increasingly want to internalize the benefits of banking rather than rely on partnerships. There is no one-size-fits-all charter. National banks, state banks, industrial banks, and national trust banks each serve different strategic objectives. The current environment appears unusually favorable. Regulators are showing greater openness to nontraditional applicants than at any point in recent memory. The trend extends well beyond crypto. Payments companies, lenders, fintech platforms, and other financial services providers are all exploring charter opportunities. Becoming a bank is a long-term commitment. The benefits are substantial, but so are the regulatory obligations. For firms willing to embrace that commitment, obtaining a charter may provide transformative advantages. But as our panel repeatedly emphasized, success requires careful planning, significant capital, experienced management, and a clear understanding that regulatory scrutiny continues long after the charter is approved.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41936445
info_outline
Cutting Out the Middleman: Why Fintechs, Crypto Firms, and Payments Companies Are Seeking Their Own Bank Charters - Part 1
06/25/2026
Cutting Out the Middleman: Why Fintechs, Crypto Firms, and Payments Companies Are Seeking Their Own Bank Charters - Part 1
At a May 19, 2026 Ballard Spahr webinar, “Cutting Out the Middleman: The Surge in FinTech Applications to Charter Banks, Industrial Banks and National Trust Companies,” a distinguished panel of banking, fintech, crypto, and consumer financial services professionals explored one of the most important developments currently reshaping the financial services industry: the growing movement by fintech companies, payments firms, lenders, and crypto-native businesses to obtain their own banking charters rather than relying on traditional bank partnerships. The message from the panel was clear: we are witnessing a significant shift in how nonbank financial services companies are thinking about regulation, growth, and market access. Speakers: Moderator: Alan Kaplinsky, senior counsel; founder and former leader of Consumer Financial Services Group, Ballard Spahr Guest: Lee Reiners, Lecturing Fellow, Duke Financial Economics Center; founder and editor-at-large of The FinReg Blog; founder and host, The FinReg Pod; co-host, Coffee & Crypto with Lee and Jimmie (a podcast that covers the latest developments in cryptocurrency); co-organizer of Digital Assets at Duke (annual conference about crypto assets space) Scott Coleman, partner, Ballard Spahr Joseph Schuster, partner, Ballard Spahr Beau Hurtig, counsel, Ballard Spahr Adam Maarec, counsel, Ballard Spahr Key Takeaways A significant shift is underway. Fintechs increasingly want to internalize the benefits of banking rather than rely on partnerships. There is no one-size-fits-all charter. National banks, state banks, industrial banks, and national trust banks each serve different strategic objectives. The current environment appears unusually favorable. Regulators are showing greater openness to nontraditional applicants than at any point in recent memory. The trend extends well beyond crypto. Payments companies, lenders, fintech platforms, and other financial services providers are all exploring charter opportunities. Becoming a bank is a long-term commitment. The benefits are substantial, but so are the regulatory obligations. Part 2 of this webinar will be released next Thursday, July 2nd. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41805155
info_outline
Coerced Debt: New York’s Landmark Law and Emerging Trends Nationwide - Part 2
06/18/2026
Coerced Debt: New York’s Landmark Law and Emerging Trends Nationwide - Part 2
On May 12, 2026, we produced a 90-minute webinar in which we explored one of the most important and rapidly developing issues in consumer financial services law: coerced debt and the emerging legislative efforts designed to address it. The webinar has been re-purposed into a two-part podcast series, the first of which was released this past Thursday, June 11th, and the second of which is being released today, Thursday, June 18th. Alan Kaplinsky, Founder, former Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP hosted and moderated this discussion. The discussion examines the growing recognition that individuals, often survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, human trafficking, or other forms of coercive control, can be manipulated, threatened, or deceived into incurring debt without meaningful consent. The program focuses in particular on New York’s newly enacted coerced debt statute, which creates a framework allowing consumers to challenge the enforceability of debts incurred through coercion and requires creditors and debt collectors to investigate such claims. This topic was covered in Part 1. The episodes feature an outstanding panel of experts from academia, legal services organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and private practice. Professor Angela Littwin of the University of Texas School of Law discusses her groundbreaking research on coerced debt, including empirical studies demonstrating the prevalence of the problem and the inadequacy of traditional legal remedies such as divorce proceedings, bankruptcy, and fraud defenses. Representatives from CAMBA Legal Services, Brooklyn, New York, Divya Subramanyam and Naomi Young, explain how the New York statute is intended to operate in practice, including the evidentiary requirements imposed on survivors, creditor obligations upon receipt of a coerced debt claim, and the practical challenges survivors face in seeking relief. Part 2 of the program being released today begins with a discussion of the broader national landscape. Carla Sanchez-Adams of the National Consumer Law Center discusses similar legislative initiatives developing across the country, including laws enacted in states such as California, Texas, Connecticut, Minnesota, Maine, Illinois, and Vermont, as well as pending legislation elsewhere. Carla and the panel further analyze the interaction between coerced debt claims and existing federal laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Truth in Lending Act, while also addressing ongoing efforts to expand federal protections. Finally, Ballard Spahr attorney, Dan Wilkinson, offers an industry perspective on the significant operational and compliance issues created by these laws for banks, finance companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. The discussion highlights the challenges of identifying coerced debt claims, conducting investigations while protecting survivor confidentiality, training frontline personnel, and balancing consumer protection concerns with fraud prevention and risk management obligations. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41691730
info_outline
Coerced Debt: New York’s Landmark Law and Emerging Trends Nationwide - Part 1
06/11/2026
Coerced Debt: New York’s Landmark Law and Emerging Trends Nationwide - Part 1
On May 12, 2026, we produced a 90-minute webinar in which we explored one of the most important and rapidly developing issues in consumer financial services law: coerced debt and the emerging legislative efforts designed to address it. The webinar has been re-purposed into a two-part podcast series, the first of which is being released today, June 11th, and the second of which is being released next Thursday, June 18th. Alan Kaplinsky, Founder, former Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP hosted and moderated this discussion. The discussion examines the growing recognition that individuals, often survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, human trafficking, or other forms of coercive control, can be manipulated, threatened, or deceived into incurring debt without meaningful consent. The program focuses in particular on New York’s newly enacted coerced debt statute, which creates a framework allowing consumers to challenge the enforceability of debts incurred through coercion and requires creditors and debt collectors to investigate such claims. The episodes feature an outstanding panel of experts from academia, legal services organizations, consumer advocacy groups, and private practice. Professor Angela Littwin of the University of Texas School of Law discusses her groundbreaking research on coerced debt, including empirical studies demonstrating the prevalence of the problem and the inadequacy of traditional legal remedies such as divorce proceedings, bankruptcy, and fraud defenses. Representatives from CAMBA Legal Services, Brooklyn, New York, Divya Subrahmanyam and Naomi Young, explain how the New York statute is intended to operate in practice, including the evidentiary requirements imposed on survivors, creditor obligations upon receipt of a coerced debt claim, and the practical challenges survivors face in seeking relief. The program also examines the broader national landscape. Carla Sanchez-Adams of the National Consumer Law Center discusses similar legislative initiatives developing across the country, including laws enacted in states such as California, Texas, Connecticut, Minnesota, Maine, Illinois, and Vermont, as well as pending legislation elsewhere. Carla and the panel further analyze the interaction between coerced debt claims and existing federal laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Truth in Lending Act, while also addressing ongoing efforts to expand federal protections. Finally, Ballard Spahr attorney, Dan Wilkinson, offers an industry perspective on the significant operational and compliance issues created by these laws for banks, finance companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. The discussion highlights the challenges of identifying coerced debt claims, conducting investigations while protecting survivor confidentiality, training frontline personnel, and balancing consumer protection concerns with fraud prevention and risk management obligations. This podcast and the one we are releasing next week provide a comprehensive and balanced examination of a fast-evolving area of consumer finance law that is likely to have substantial implications for creditors, debt collectors, compliance professionals, consumer advocates, and policymakers nationwide. Part 1 of this discussion includes an introduction to the topic and the speakers by Alan Kaplinsky, an overview of coerced debt by Angela Littwin, and the analysis of the New York statute by Divya Subrahmanyam and Naomi Young. Part 2 of the discussion, which is being released next Thursday, June 18th, will cover theories of liability under existing federal and state laws and bills pending in other states by Carla Sanchez-Adams, the Industry Perspective by Dan Wilkinson, and the key takeaways and closing by Alan Kaplinsky. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41611195
info_outline
Fireside Chat with Simon Taylor and Adam Maarec
06/04/2026
Fireside Chat with Simon Taylor and Adam Maarec
In this episode, Adam Maarec sits down with fintech thought leader Simon Taylor for a lively fireside chat focused on the rapidly evolving world of fintech, payments, and banking innovation. Adam, an experienced legal and regulatory advisor in financial services, and Simon, widely recognized for his writing, podcasts, and advisory work with fintechs, banks, VCs, and regulators, delve into some of the most relevant challenges and opportunities shaping the industry today. Together, they unpack the rise of agentic commerce and the impact of AI-driven financial tools, exploring how personal finance agents and large language models are beginning to reshape shopping, payments, and financial management. The conversation covers the complexities of liability and authentication when using AI agents, the evolving regulatory landscape in the US compared to the UK and EU, and the ongoing battle with AML (Anti-Money Laundering) risks, particularly in relation to stablecoins and open banking. Listeners will hear candid takes on the tension between innovation and risk management, the evolving payments ecosystem (including A2A and stablecoins), and the real-world implications for merchants, consumers, and regulators as the industry pushes into new territory. The episode also highlights real use cases and experiments currently unfolding in the market, such as the integration of platforms like Perplexity and Plaid for next-generation personal financial management, and the adoption of stablecoins in B2B payments across global markets. Adam and Simon provide a balanced view, separating hype from genuine progress, and invite listeners to stay attuned to the early signals that are likely to shape the future of digital finance. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41534535
info_outline
Consumer Protection, Democracy, and the CFPB: A Thought-Provoking Debate with Amelia O’Rourke-Owens
05/28/2026
Consumer Protection, Democracy, and the CFPB: A Thought-Provoking Debate with Amelia O’Rourke-Owens
On a recent episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, Alan Kaplinsky, host of the podcast, had the opportunity to interview Amelia O’Rourke-Owens, a legal scholar and former CFPB policy fellow, about her article, “Tearing Holes in Consumer Protection: Democracy’s Safety Net.” Amelia is the founder and CEO of Resilience Solutions, which provides subject matter expertise and consulting services around policy solutions and strategic planning. The services enhance strategic objectives of their clients and build resilience in their enterprise and efforts. The discussion explored the role of consumer financial protection law, the evolving mission of the CFPB, and the broader implications for democracy, innovation, and financial regulation. Amelia advances a bold thesis in her article: that consumer protection law, and particularly consumer financial protection law, may be the most impactful body of law in the United States. She further argues that the strength of consumer protection laws may serve as a barometer for the health of American democracy. To support this thesis, Amelia proposes a three-part framework for evaluating the “impact” of a body of law: 1. The number of individuals protected 2. The breadth of entities governed 3. The available avenues for enforcement Under this framework, Amelia contends that consumer financial protection law stands apart because it affects virtually every American, governs a broad range of financial institutions and market participants, and relies on overlapping enforcement mechanisms that include federal regulators, state attorneys general, and private litigation. Alan and Amelia’s discussion examined these themes in detail and highlighted several important points of disagreement. The CFPB’s Role and Regulatory Philosophy A substantial portion of their conversation focused on the CFPB itself and how different administrations have approached the Bureau’s authority. Amelia defended an expansive view of consumer protection oversight, arguing that robust regulation is necessary to prevent harmful market conduct and systemic instability. She pointed to the 2008 financial crisis as evidence that insufficient oversight can have devastating consequences not only for consumers but for the financial system as a whole. Alan expressed concern that, during the tenure of former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the Bureau frequently pushed beyond clear statutory boundaries through aggressive enforcement theories, expansive interpretations of UDAAP authority, and attempts to regulate emerging products and practices through guidance and supervisory pressure rather than formal rulemaking. As Alan noted during the discussion, many industry participants viewed the CFPB’s approach under Chopra as creating significant uncertainty. Financial institutions often struggled to determine whether innovative products that complied with existing statutes and regulations would nevertheless become targets of CFPB criticism or enforcement. That uncertainty, in Alan’s view, can have real-world consequences. Institutions may become more risk-averse, innovation may slow, and access to credit, particularly for low- and moderate-income consumers, may be reduced. Amelia strongly disagreed with the premise that regulatory oversight itself discourages innovation or access to credit. Instead, she argued that effective regulation can create guardrails that protect responsible market participants from competitors willing to cut corners or exploit consumers. The Importance of Multiple Enforcement Mechanisms Another key theme of the discussion was the importance of overlapping enforcement authority. Amelia emphasized the value of allowing state attorneys general to enforce consumer protection laws and argued that Dodd-Frank appropriately preserved state authority by limiting federal preemption in many contexts. She suggested that state regulators are often better positioned to identify emerging harms before they become national problems. Alan acknowledged that state enforcement can play an important role, particularly given the prevalence of arbitration clauses and class action waivers that have limited certain forms of private litigation. At the same time, Alan noted that overlapping federal and state enforcement can create inconsistent standards and compliance uncertainty for financial institutions operating nationwide. This tension between national uniformity and decentralized enforcement remains one of the central unresolved issues in consumer financial regulation. Areas of Agreement Despite their disagreements, there were several areas where Alan and Amelia found substantial common ground. Most notably, they agreed that one of the CFPB’s most successful accomplishments has been the creation of its consumer complaint portal. The complaint database has provided consumers with an accessible mechanism for obtaining responses from financial institutions while also generating valuable market-wide data about recurring problems and trends. They also agreed on the growing threat posed by scams and fraud, particularly involving digital payment platforms and other rapidly evolving technologies. Amelia highlighted the enormous financial harm consumers suffer from fraud schemes, while Alan noted the increasing concern among policymakers and researchers regarding scams originating overseas and the need for a coordinated national response. Consumer Protection and Democratic Governance Perhaps the most provocative aspect of Amelia’s article is her argument that consumer financial protection serves as a “bellwether” for the health of democracy itself. Amelia contends that strong consumer protection reflects a government responsive to the needs of its constituents, while weakening such protections signals an elevation of other interests over those of ordinary consumers. Alan expressed skepticism about tying consumer financial regulation so directly to democratic legitimacy. In Alan’s view, there are also serious democratic concerns raised when an independent agency led by a single director exercises broad policymaking authority without clear congressional authorization. This debate reflects a larger national conversation about the proper role of administrative agencies, the balance between accountability and independence, and the limits of regulatory power. Looking Ahead The future direction of consumer financial protection remains uncertain. The CFPB under Acting Director Russell Vought has moved aggressively to scale back many of the initiatives pursued during the Chopra era, prompting intense debate about the agency’s long-term mission and structure. At the same time, emerging technologies, digital payment systems, fraud risks, and evolving financial products will continue to challenge regulators, lawmakers, and industry participants alike. Alan’s discussion with Amelia O’Rourke-Owens highlighted the sharp disagreements that exist regarding the CFPB and consumer financial regulation more broadly. But it also underscored the importance of continuing thoughtful and substantive dialogue about these issues as the financial services industry and regulatory landscape continue to evolve. Amelia’s article was presented at the Loyola Consumer Law Symposium back in March. The article can be found in the Loyola Consumer Law Review Vol. 38:2. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41452785
info_outline
AI Liability Comes Into Focus: A Conversation with Mark Geistfeld on the ALI’s Civil Liability Principles Project
05/21/2026
AI Liability Comes Into Focus: A Conversation with Mark Geistfeld on the ALI’s Civil Liability Principles Project
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming consumer financial services and countless other industries. As AI systems become more autonomous, adaptive, and deeply integrated into commercial decision-making, courts, regulators, and industry participants are increasingly confronting a critical question: when AI causes harm, who should be held responsible? In our latest episode of our award-winning, weekly Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, our host Alan Kaplinsky (the founder, Chair for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services at Ballard Spahr LLP) had the pleasure of speaking with Mark Geistfeld, the Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation at New York University School of Law and the reporter for the American Law Institute’s groundbreaking new project, . The discussion explored one of the most consequential emerging legal issues in the AI era: how traditional tort law doctrines, including duty, reasonable care, causation, foreseeability, product liability, and allocation of responsibility, should apply to AI systems. Professor Geistfeld explained why the ALI chose to pursue a “principles” project rather than a traditional restatement. Because there is still relatively little AI-specific case law, the project is intended to provide a forward-looking framework that adapts existing tort doctrines to emerging AI technologies. As Mark noted during the discussion, the project seeks to determine “what existing law, properly adapted to this new technology, would require.” Their conversation covered a wide range of timely and challenging issues, including: Whether AI systems should be treated as “products” or “services” for purposes of tort liability; How liability may be allocated among foundation model developers, deployers, integrators, and end users; The role of reasonable care obligations in AI development and deployment, including testing, monitoring, and guardrails; The growing importance of transparency and industry best practices; The “black box” problem and the difficulty of proving causation when even developers may not fully understand AI outputs; The tension between fostering innovation and ensuring accountability; and How tort liability and regulatory frameworks can operate together in a complementary manner. How rapidly advancing AI capabilities, including developments involving autonomous agents and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, are accelerating the urgency of creating coherent legal frameworks. One particularly interesting aspect of the discussion involved Professor Geistfeld’s explanation of how AI liability differs from traditional product liability analysis because AI systems evolve, adapt, and operate probabilistically. He emphasized that many of the challenges courts will face resemble issues already encountered in pharmaceutical litigation, toxic torts, and medical malpractice cases involving probabilistic causation. The ALI project remains in development, but preliminary drafts are already beginning to shape legal and academic discussions. Given the pace of AI advancement, courts and policymakers are likely to confront these issues long before a final completed volume is published. This podcast continues our ongoing intensive coverage of artificial intelligence and consumer financial services, including our recent programs discussing the White House AI Action Plan (listen to here and here), the White House AI Framework (listen ) and other AI regulatory developments. The episode provides valuable insights for financial institutions, fintech companies, AI developers, compliance professionals, litigators, and anyone interested in the future legal framework governing artificial intelligence. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41378305
info_outline
CFPB Finalizes Sweeping ECOA Rule Changes: What Lenders Need to Know About Disparate Impact, Discouragement, and SPCPs
05/14/2026
CFPB Finalizes Sweeping ECOA Rule Changes: What Lenders Need to Know About Disparate Impact, Discouragement, and SPCPs
Today’s episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast features a wide-ranging and timely discussion about one of the most consequential fair lending developments in years: the CFPB’s final rule fundamentally reshaping enforcement under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. Hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (the Founder, Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP), the episode brings together an exceptional panel of fair lending authorities: our special guest Bradley Blower (the Principal and Founder of Inclusive-Partners LLC) along with John Culhane, Jr., and Richard Andreano, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP. The discussion revisits a proposal first examined on the podcast last year when the CFPB under Acting Director Russell Vought proposed sweeping revisions to ECOA enforcement principles (you can find more on that episode ). Now, the Bureau has finalized the rule largely as proposed, marking a dramatic shift in federal fair lending policy. The CFPB’s Three Major Changes As discussed during the podcast, the final rule makes three major changes from the former Regulation B: · Eliminates the use of disparate impact analysis under ECOA and Regulation B. · Narrows discouragement liability by focusing primarily on spoken, written, or visual statements rather than broader conduct. · Revises the framework governing Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs), particularly for for-profit lenders. The Bureau’s stated rationale is that ECOA does not authorize disparate impact liability and that fair lending enforcement should focus on intentional discrimination rather than statistical disparities alone. Supporters of the rule argue that the changes provide lenders with clearer standards, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and create a more predictable environment for innovation, including AI-driven underwriting and algorithmic decision-making. Critics, however, contend that the rule ignores the historical role disparate impact analysis has played in uncovering systemic discrimination and could make it substantially more difficult to identify discriminatory outcomes embedded in facially neutral policies or automated systems. Disparate Impact: A Sea Change, But Not the End of Fair Lending The panel devoted significant attention to the CFPB’s elimination of disparate impact liability under ECOA. John Culhane described the move as a “dramatic shift” for non-mortgage lending, noting that disparate impact theories historically drove many federal fair lending actions involving indirect auto finance, student lending, and other consumer credit products. At the same time, Rich Andreano emphasized that the mortgage industry remains subject to disparate impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. As a result, mortgage lenders still face substantial fair lending exposure notwithstanding the CFPB’s new ECOA position. The panelists also stressed that disparate impact is far from dead at the state level. Several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are expected to continue aggressive fair lending enforcement using disparate impact theories under state statutes, regulations, and consumer protection laws. Indeed, the panel highlighted the growing role of state attorneys general and state regulators as federal enforcement narrows. Discouragement Liability and the “Townstone Effect” Another focal point of the discussion was the CFPB’s narrowing of discouragement liability. The panel explored how the Bureau’s revisions appear heavily influenced by the CFPB’s controversial enforcement action against Townstone Financial, where the Bureau alleged that comments made during radio broadcasts and podcasts discouraged minority borrowers from applying for loans. Rich Andreano characterized the final rule’s discouragement provisions as effectively “the Townstone rule,” reflecting the current CFPB leadership’s strong opposition to the prior Bureau’s enforcement theory in that case. Nevertheless, both Brad Blower and John Culhane cautioned that courts and state regulators may continue to consider broader conduct, including branch placement, marketing strategies, and community engagement, when evaluating potential redlining or discouragement claims. SPCPs Face New Uncertainty The podcast also examined the CFPB’s revisions to Special Purpose Credit Programs. Brad Blower explained that while SPCPs remain permissible, the new rule substantially complicates the use of race-conscious programs by for-profit lenders. Many institutions may now seek to redesign programs around race-neutral criteria such as first-generation homeownership, low- and moderate-income geographies, or majority-minority census tracts. Rich Andreano warned that many financial institutions, especially banks, may scale back SPCPs due to litigation and regulatory uncertainty, particularly given the broader political and legal environment surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The Practical Message: “Stay the Course” Despite the significance of the CFPB’s rule changes, the clearest takeaway from the discussion was remarkably consistent: lenders should not dismantle their fair lending compliance programs. All three panelists emphasized that institutions should continue: · Monitoring for disparate impact. · Reviewing underwriting and pricing models. · Evaluating marketing and branch strategies. · Testing AI and algorithmic systems for bias. · Maintaining robust fair lending compliance management systems. As Brad Blower observed, institutions that “take their foot off the gas” risk state enforcement actions, private litigation, reputational harm, and future regulatory scrutiny under a different federal administration. Rich Andreano summarized the prevailing industry guidance succinctly: “Stay the course.” AI, Algorithmic Underwriting, and Future Litigation The panel also explored how the rule intersects with AI-driven lending. Although federal ECOA disparate impact enforcement may narrow, the panelists noted that state laws and private litigation could continue targeting algorithmic discrimination. Several states already are pursuing or considering laws specifically addressing AI bias and automated decision-making. The panel further predicted that legal challenges to the CFPB’s final rule are highly likely. Potential claims could include: · Administrative Procedure Act challenges. · Arguments that the CFPB disregarded congressional intent underlying ECOA. · Challenges arising under the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference to agency rules. The panel suggested that litigation over the final rule could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, particularly on the unresolved question of whether ECOA itself authorizes disparate impact liability. Conclusion This episode provides an exceptionally practical and nuanced examination of one of the most important fair lending developments in recent memory. While the CFPB has dramatically narrowed federal ECOA enforcement theories, the broader fair lending landscape remains highly active due to state enforcement, private litigation risk, the Fair Housing Act, and ongoing scrutiny of AI-based underwriting systems. For lenders, the message from the panel was unmistakable: despite the CFPB’s final rule, fair lending compliance remains as important as ever. You can listen to the full podcast on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast available through and major podcast platforms. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41294660
info_outline
White House Executive Order on Scams and Fraud Takes Center Stage
05/07/2026
White House Executive Order on Scams and Fraud Takes Center Stage
Today, we released a new episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast examining one of the most significant recent federal developments in the fight against scams and fraud: . Hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (the founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel in the Consumer Financial Services Group), the episode features returning guests Kate Griffin and Nick Bourke of the Aspen Institute, who previously joined the podcast to discuss Aspen’s landmark report, . Why This Episode Matters Scams and fraud continue to impose staggering losses on American households, businesses, and financial institutions. As discussed in the episode, the Aspen report framed scams as a “whole-of-society” problem requiring coordination across government, financial institutions, technology companies, telecom providers, and civil society. The new Executive Order appears to respond directly to that challenge by calling for: A coordinated federal anti-scam strategy Greater inter-agency cooperation Enhanced public-private information sharing Increased disruption of transnational scam networks Stronger victim restitution and recovery efforts More aggressive international enforcement tools, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure In many respects, the Executive Order may represent the first serious federal attempt to build a national strategy to combat scams. Key Themes Explored in the Episode During the discussion, Kate Griffin described the Executive Order as the “starting gun” in the race against scams—an important signal that the federal government is now treating scams as a national priority. Nick Bourke emphasized that success will require more than enforcement alone. He noted that regulators, financial institutions, telecom carriers, and digital platforms must be empowered to share information and intervene more effectively when suspicious activity is detected. The conversation also examined: Coordination Across Government The Executive Order relies heavily on the federal government’s National Coordination Center framework to align agencies such as the Departments of Treasury, State, Justice, and Defense. Whether that coordination translates into meaningful operational change remains to be seen. 2. Information Sharing and Safe Harbors The guests explained that one of the largest barriers to scam prevention is the inability of private-sector participants to share threat intelligence quickly because of privacy, litigation, or antitrust concerns. Legislative or regulatory safe harbors may ultimately be necessary. 3. Targeting the Scam Business Model Rather than focusing solely on individual fraudsters, the discussion stressed the need to undermine the economics of scams—making them harder, riskier, and less profitable for criminal enterprises to operate. 4. Victim Restoration A particularly notable feature of the Executive Order is its call for a victim restoration program, which could help return seized assets to scam victims more efficiently. 5. Modernizing Law Enforcement Tools The guests also highlighted the need to modernize legacy federal databases such as FBI and FinCEN reporting systems, many of which were designed before today’s high-speed digital scam environment. What Comes Next? While the Executive Order is an important milestone, the guests agreed that additional action will be needed from Congress, regulators, and the private sector. A successful anti-scam strategy will likely require: Clearer legal pathways for data sharing Better consumer reporting systems Greater use of AI and analytics International cooperation Faster prosecutions and asset recovery Ongoing public education efforts Bottom Line This episode makes clear that scams are no longer simply a consumer-protection issue, they are now a national economic security issue. The White House has taken an important first step, but whether the Executive Order produces meaningful results will depend on execution, follow-through, and sustained cross-sector collaboration. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41206320
info_outline
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 6: After the Close: Compliance, Oversight, and Ongoing Risk
05/04/2026
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 6: After the Close: Compliance, Oversight, and Ongoing Risk
In the final episode of our Debt Sales 101 mini-series, we focus on what happens after a debt sale closes and how sellers manage ongoing compliance, oversight, and risk. We discuss how regulators view debt sales as a managed activity rather than a clean exit and what that means for post-sale responsibilities. From a regulatory perspective, sellers are expected to maintain reasonable oversight of buyers, particularly where consumer harm could arise. We discuss key post-close considerations, including monitoring complaints, credit bureau disputes, litigation trends, and regulatory developments, as well as the importance of maintaining an ongoing diligence process for repeat transactions. We also address practical risk management issues, including handling buybacks, responding to buyer requests for documentation, and mitigating the impact of adverse court decisions. One important theme is that patterns in complaints and litigation can signal broader issues, and proactive monitoring can help prevent regulatory scrutiny or downstream risk. The key takeaway from this final episode is that debt sales do not end at closing. They evolve over time. Successful programs treat debt sales as an ongoing process, with continuous feedback loops, documentation support, and compliance oversight. This approach helps protect brand, improve pricing, and strengthen long-term relationships with buyers.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41144985
info_outline
The White House AI Framework: Ambition, Preemption, and Uncertainty Ahead
04/30/2026
The White House AI Framework: Ambition, Preemption, and Uncertainty Ahead
In the episode of Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today, we explore the White House’s National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence published on March 20, 2026. This new framework represents the Administration’s most concrete attempt yet to shape the future of AI governance in the United States. While it does not carry the force of law, it offers a revealing look at the policy direction the Administration hopes Congress will take. Joining our host, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group), for this discussion were Charlie Bullock (Senior Research Fellow at The Institute for Law and AI), Kristian Stout (Director of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law & Economics), and Greg Szewczyk, head of Ballard Spahr’s Privacy and Data Security Group. Below are the key takeaways from the conversation. From Principles to Policy: A Clear Shift One of the most striking aspects of the new framework is how sharply it departs from last year’s more principles-based “White House AI Action Plan.” That earlier effort emphasized risk awareness, governance principles, and a balanced approach to innovation and regulation. On October 30, 2025, we produced a webinar entitled: “”, which featured the same speakers as the podcast being released today, plus Dean Ball, former White House senior advisor and one of the architects of the White House AI Action Plan. This webinar was then re-purposed into a two-part podcast series released on and . By contrast, the new framework is short, just a few pages, light on detailed policy prescriptions, and heavily focused on limiting regulation, particularly at the state level. As Charlie Bullock observed, the document is notable as much for what it doesn’t include as for what it does. Rather than proposing robust federal oversight, it largely outlines areas where the government should refrain from acting. Federal Preemption Takes Center Stage The framework’s most consequential and controversial feature is its strong endorsement of federal preemption of state AI laws. It proposes broad preemption in areas such as: · AI development · Liability for third-party misuse of AI systems · Restrictions on AI-enabled activities that would otherwise be lawful At the same time, it preserves certain state authorities, including: · Zoning and infrastructure decisions · State use of AI · “Generally applicable” laws (e.g., fraud, consumer protection, and child safety) This raises a critical question: How meaningful are these carve-outs? As we discussed, broadly worded exceptions, particularly for state “police powers”, could significantly limit the practical reach of federal preemption and potentially preserve a patchwork of state regulation. The Patchwork Problem Isn’t Going Away Even with federal action, the reality is that state-level AI regulation is already underway. Laws like Colorado’s AI Act and emerging chatbot regulations illustrate how quickly states are moving. Greg Szewczyk noted that, unlike privacy law, where states have largely converged around similar frameworks, AI regulation could diverge in more fundamental ways. Without a consistent federal baseline, companies may face: · Increased compliance costs · Operational complexity · Uncertainty in deploying AI tools across jurisdictions Interestingly, some state regulators (including Democrats) may ultimately favor a well-crafted federal preemption regime if it provides clarity without sacrificing core protections. Innovation First—But Who Benefits? The framework strongly emphasizes: · AI infrastructure buildout · Faster permitting · Regulatory sandboxes · Access to federal datasets Kristian Stout highlighted that these priorities could accelerate innovation but they are not automatically startup-friendly. Large incumbents may benefit disproportionately due to: · Greater access to compute resources · Established compliance capabilities · Ability to absorb regulatory costs This tension between promoting innovation and preserving competition remains unresolved. Child Safety, IP, and Free Speech: More Questions Than Answers The framework touches on several critical areas but leaves key details unsettled: Child Protection It endorses tools like age verification and parental controls but offers little guidance on implementation. Compared to proposals like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), the framework appears less aggressive and more preemptive of state innovation. Intellectual Property Rather than legislating, the framework defers to the courts on issues like: · Fair use in AI training · Output infringement This “wait and see” approach avoids premature policymaking but prolongs uncertainty. Free Speech A novel component aims to prevent government “jawboning” of AI providers; i.e., informal pressure to shape outputs. While rooted in legitimate First Amendment concerns, its ultimate scope and constitutionality remain unclear. No New AI Regulator—For Now The framework rejects the creation of a centralized AI regulator, instead relying on existing agencies. This approach has clear advantages: · Agencies already understand their sectors · Avoids bureaucratic duplication But it also raises concerns: · Limited technical expertise · Resource constraints · Inconsistent oversight across agencies As discussed, a hybrid model, combining agency expertise with centralized technical guidance, may ultimately emerge. Will Anything Actually Pass? Perhaps the most sobering takeaway: major AI legislation is unlikely in the near term. As Charlie Bullock put it bluntly, companies should not invest significant resources preparing for this specific framework. The political reality is: · Deep divisions within and between parties · Limited legislative bandwidth before the midterms · Competing proposals with very different philosophies That said, elements of the framework may still surface incrementally in future bills. The Anthropic “Mythos” Moment: A Glimpse of What’s Coming While not covered by the White House framework, our discussion closed with a timely real-world example: reports about Anthropic’s advanced AI model, “Claude Mythos,” capable of identifying and exploiting software vulnerabilities at scale. Whether somewhat overstated or not, the episode highlights a broader truth: · AI is accelerating existing capabilities, not inventing entirely new ones · The pace of advancement is increasing rapidly · Both risks and defensive tools are evolving simultaneously As Kristian Stout noted, this is less a radical break than a compression of time and accessibility, making powerful capabilities available faster and to more people. Final Thoughts The White House AI Framework signals an important shift in U.S. policy thinking: · Away from abstract principles · Toward concrete (if still incomplete) legislative direction It prioritizes innovation, federal uniformity, and limited regulation but leaves fundamental questions unresolved. For industry participants, the key takeaway is not immediate compliance but continued vigilance. The direction of travel is becoming clearer, even if the destination remains uncertain. We will closely continue to monitor developments closely on our blog, webinars and podcast shows. We will soon be releasing podcast shows with (1) Professor Mark Geistfeld of NYU Law School about ALI’s relatively new project entitled “Principles of the Law Pertaining to Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence” and (2) with Professor David Hoffman of the University of Pennsylvania Law School about an article he co-authored with the CEO of the American Arbitration Association entitled “Agentic Commerce Needs Legal Infrastructure, and the Courts are Coming.” Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41076215
info_outline
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 5: Closing the Deal: Key Contracting and Transaction Issues
04/27/2026
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 5: Closing the Deal: Key Contracting and Transaction Issues
In Episode 5 of our Debt Sales 101 mini-series, we turn to contracting and closing, where legal structure, regulatory expectations, and commercial terms come together to define the transaction. We discuss the key provisions in a debt purchase and sale agreement and how those provisions allocate risk between buyers and sellers. From a regulatory perspective, the contract is more than a commercial document. It is also an artifact that regulators expect to review. We explain how representations and warranties, indemnification provisions, buyback mechanics, and audit rights are used to address regulatory risk, confirm the scope of assets being transferred, and establish expectations around compliance and oversight. These provisions are central to demonstrating that both parties have appropriately considered legal and regulatory requirements. We also discuss how contractual terms can directly impact pricing and execution. Restrictions on collection activity, credit reporting, or other post-sale actions can significantly affect the value of a portfolio. In addition, we cover key transaction mechanics such as data transfers, cutoff timing, and how contracts are introduced during the bidding process to align commercial and risk considerations early. The key takeaway from this episode is that a well-drafted purchase and sale agreement does not just enable the transaction. It mitigates risk. By aligning regulatory expectations with commercial objectives, parties can create repeatable and scalable debt sale programs.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/41033300
info_outline
NYC DCWP at the Forefront of Consumer Protection: A Conversation with Commissioner Sam Levine
04/23/2026
NYC DCWP at the Forefront of Consumer Protection: A Conversation with Commissioner Sam Levine
In this episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, host Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel) had the pleasure of speaking with Sam Levine, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), about the agency’s evolving role as one of the most active local consumer protection regulators in the country. Important note: This podcast was recorded prior to DCWP’s April 8, 2026 release of its proposed “click-to-cancel” rule addressing subscription practices. Alan recorded a description of the proposed rule which is at the end of the recording. We also wrote a separate about that significant development. A Local Regulator with National Influence From the outset, Commissioner Levine emphasized that DCWP is not simply a municipal agency focused on traditional licensing and enforcement, but rather a modern regulator tackling complex consumer protection issues that increasingly mirror those addressed at the federal level. “Local enforcement can be incredibly impactful—we’re often closest to consumers and can move quickly to address emerging harms.” He noted that New York City’s scale and diversity make it a uniquely important testing ground for innovative consumer protection strategies. Executive Orders Driving Enforcement Priorities A key backdrop to DCWP’s current activity is a pair of mayoral directives—Executive Order 9 and Executive Order 10—issued by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on January 5, 2026 (shortly after he took office) which we have discussed in a . These Executive Orders signal a clear policy direction to fulfill his campaign promise to make life more affordable for everyday New Yorkers: an intensified focus on consumer protection, particularly in areas involving deceptive practices, hidden or “junk” fees, and recurring payment models. Executive Order 10, in particular, directs DCWP to prioritize enforcement against “subscription traps” and misleading recurring charge practices—laying the groundwork for the Department’s subsequent proposed “click-to-cancel” rule published on April 8, 2026. Commissioner Levine made clear that these directives are not merely aspirational, but are actively shaping the agency’s enforcement and rulemaking agenda: “We’re aligning our work with the Mayor’s directive to go after practices that frustrate consumers and undermine fair competition.” Enforcement Priorities: Targeting Deceptive Practices A central theme of our discussion was DCWP’s aggressive focus on deceptive and unconscionable trade practices, particularly in areas where consumers are most vulnerable. Commissioner Levine highlighted the agency’s work in combatting: 1. Hidden fees and misleading pricing practices 2. Predatory lending and financial services abuses 3. Worker exploitation in the gig economy 4. Emerging digital marketplace risks “We’re focused on conduct that distorts consumer choice—where people think they’re getting one thing but end up locked into something very different.” He underscored that transparency and fairness are guiding principles behind DCWP’s enforcement agenda. Final Debt Collection Rules: A Significant Regulatory Development We also discussed DCWP’s recently finalized debt collection regulations, which we have analyzed in . These rules represent one of the most significant updates to New York City’s debt collection framework in years. Commissioner Levine emphasized that the rules are designed to modernize existing requirements and address evolving industry practices, including the increased use of digital communications. “The goal is to ensure that debt collection practices keep pace with how consumers actually communicate today, while maintaining strong protections against harassment and abuse.” Among other things, the rules clarify permissible communications, reinforce substantiation and disclosure requirements, and strengthen consumer protections in line with broader trends seen at the federal level. These rules, which go effective later this year, apply not only to third-party collectors and buyers of consumer debt, but also to creditors of consumers whenever the debtor resides or is located in New York City. Collaboration with Federal and State Regulators Drawing on his prior experience at the Federal Trade Commission as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Levine discussed the importance of coordination across jurisdictions. “There’s a real opportunity for federal, state, and local regulators to work together and reinforce one another’s efforts.” He explained that DCWP frequently collaborates with the FTC, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and other enforcement bodies, particularly in cases involving multi-state or national conduct. At the same time, he made clear that local regulators can lead: “We don’t have to wait. If we see harm affecting New Yorkers, we’re going to act.” Rulemaking as a Strategic Tool In addition to enforcement, Levine emphasized DCWP’s increasing use of rulemaking to shape market behavior proactively. “Rules give clarity to businesses and protections to consumers—they’re an important complement to case-by-case enforcement.” He noted that clear rules can help level the playing field for companies that are already trying to do the right thing. Focus on Financial Services and Marketplace Innovation The conversation also explored DCWP’s interest in financial services, particularly as new products and delivery models emerge. Levine pointed to risks associated with: 1. Fintech innovations that may outpace regulatory frameworks 2. Online platforms that obscure key terms or pricing 3. Products that rely heavily on consumer inertia or behavioral biases “Innovation can be a good thing—but it can’t come at the expense of transparency or fairness.” Practical Takeaways for Industry For companies operating in or serving New York City, the message from DCWP is clear: 1. Expect active enforcement of deceptive practices 2. Monitor local regulatory developments, including mayoral directives and rulemaking initiatives 3. Prioritize clear disclosures and consumer-friendly processes 4. Anticipate continued focus on digital and subscription-based business models “Our goal is straightforward: markets should work for consumers, not against them.” Looking Ahead Although our discussion did not cover it because it happened after our podcast was recorded, DCWP has since proposed a significant new rule targeting subscription practices—further underscoring the agency’s commitment to addressing modern consumer risks and reflecting the policy direction set by Executive Order 10. Given Commissioner Levine’s leadership and experience, including his prior role at the FTC, DCWP is likely to remain at the forefront of consumer protection innovation. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/40990735
info_outline
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 4: The Regulatory Landscape for Debt Sales Today
04/20/2026
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 4: The Regulatory Landscape for Debt Sales Today
In Episode 4 of our Debt Sales 101 mini-series, we focus on the current regulatory landscape governing debt sales and how recent developments are shaping the market. We discuss how oversight has become more fragmented, more active, and increasingly driven by state regulators and attorneys general, and how that shift is affecting both buyers and sellers. A central theme in this episode is that regulation is no longer a background consideration. It is a primary driver of pricing, deal structure, and buyer participation. We walk through key regulatory themes, including the importance of documentation and chain of title, increased product-specific scrutiny, and the growing focus on consumer outcomes and potential UDAAP risk. Regulators are increasingly looking upstream at sellers and their diligence, documentation, and oversight practices, rather than focusing solely on collectors. We also discuss how these regulatory developments are affecting the economics of debt sales. Changes at the state level, as well as evolving rules in areas such as medical debt and student loans, have introduced additional compliance complexity and, in some cases, reduced pricing or limited buyer participation. At the same time, emerging product areas continue to evolve as buyers assess regulatory risk and opportunity. The key takeaway from this episode is that understanding the regulatory environment upfront is critical to executing a successful debt sale. A well-structured process, supported by strong diligence, documentation, and contractual protections, is essential to managing risk and achieving expected value.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/40944290
info_outline
“True Lender” Doctrine Back in the Spotlight: Key Takeaways on OppFi v. Hewlett Tentative California Superior Opinion
04/16/2026
“True Lender” Doctrine Back in the Spotlight: Key Takeaways on OppFi v. Hewlett Tentative California Superior Opinion
The latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today tackles one of the most consequential developments in bank–fintech litigation in recent years: the Los Angeles Superior Court’s tentative decision in Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Hewlett (read more ). This case squarely addresses the long-debated “true lender” doctrine which has for decades bedeviled banks and Fintechs and “bricks and mortar” non-banks that have entered into joint ventures with one another to engage in interstate lending programs which take advantage of interest rate exportation rights afforded to banks. After applying application California and federal law, the Court granted summary judgment to OppFi and against the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) which unsuccessfully maintained that OppFi is the true lender and not OppFi’s partner, FinWise Bank. In this episode, host Alan Kaplinsky, founder and former chair of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, is joined by two leading voices with sharply contrasting perspectives: Professor Emeritus Arthur Wilmarth, a prominent critic of bank–fintech partnerships, and Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel Ron Vaske, who regularly advises banks and fintech companies on structuring such programs. Their discussion offers a deep and balanced exploration of the court’s reasoning and its broader implications. A Tentative Decision with Significant Implications At the center of the case is a partnership between OppFi, a fintech platform, and FinWise Bank, a Utah-chartered, FDIC-insured institution. The program allowed FinWise to originate consumer loans at interest rates permissible under Utah law and export those rates nationwide under Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The DFPI challenged the arrangement, arguing that OppFi—not FinWise—was the “true lender,” which would subject the loans to California’s 36% interest rate cap. In a tentative ruling, the court rejected the DFPI’s position and granted summary judgment in favor of OppFi. The court emphasized traditional indicia of lending authority, including: • FinWise’s role in funding the loans • Its control over underwriting criteria • Its retention of a 5% ownership interest • Its ongoing oversight of compliance and marketing Critically, the court also relied on the longstanding California law principle that usury is determined at the inception of the loan. (See the discussion below.) Because FinWise originated the loans, the court concluded they were not rendered unlawful by OppFi’s subsequent purchase of a 95% participation interest giving which gave it a predominant economic interest. Competing Views on “True Lender” The podcast highlights a fundamental divide in how courts and commentators approach the true lender doctrine. Professor Wilmarth argues that the court failed to meaningfully engage with the “predominant economic interest” test, which focuses on who bears the majority of the economic risk and reward. In his view, OppFi’s 95% participation interest suggests that it—not the bank—is the real lender in substance. He also raises broader concerns about whether such arrangements undermine state usury laws and expose consumers to excessively high-cost credit. Ron Vaske, by contrast, emphasizes the legal and structural realities of the transaction. He underscores that FinWise is the named lender, funds the loans, and remains legally responsible to borrowers. From this perspective, the allocation of economic interests after origination should not redefine the identity of the lender or override federal law permitting rate exportation. The Role of “Valid When Made” Another key related theme explored in the episode is the “valid when made” doctrine—the principle that a loan that is lawful at origination remains lawful after assignment. The court’s reliance on this concept reinforces the importance of determining lender status at the moment the loan is made, rather than based on subsequent transfers or participations. The discussion also touches on the interplay between state and federal law, as well as the continuing relevance of regulatory interpretations following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, which curtailed Chevron deference. What Comes Next? It is important to note that the court’s ruling is still tentative. In accordance with California procedure, OppFi must submit a proposed final opinion and order to the Court. If adopted, an appeal by the DFPI appears likely—potentially setting the stage for further appellate guidance on the true lender doctrine in California and beyond. Why This Matters This case is part of a broader and ongoing policy debate: · Supporters of bank–fintech partnerships argue they expand access to credit and operate within well-established federal banking frameworks. · Critics contend they can be used to circumvent state consumer protection laws, particularly interest rate caps. As the regulatory and judicial landscape continues to evolve, OppFi v. Hewlett represents a significant—and closely watched—development. It may be significant to note that, unlike several other states, California does not have a statute stating that the holding of a “predominant economic interest” in a loan makes the holder the true lender Be sure to listen to the full podcast episode for a deeper dive into the case and the competing legal and policy perspectives shaping the future of bank–fintech partnerships. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/40898340
info_outline
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 3: Who Buys Debt and How Deals Are Structured
04/13/2026
Debt Sales 101 Mini-Series — Episode 3: Who Buys Debt and How Deals Are Structured
In Episode 3 of our Debt Sales 101 mini-series, we discuss who buys charged-off debt and how debt sale transactions are typically structured. We explain how different buyers specialize in different asset classes and how buyers evaluate portfolios from legal, regulatory, and commercial perspectives. From a buyer’s perspective, purchasing debt is not just a credit decision. Buyers are underwriting legal and regulatory risk as much as they are underwriting expected recoveries. In this episode, we discuss the key factors buyers consider, including transferability and chain of title, collectability and applicable statutes of limitation, licensing requirements, and the broader regulatory environment that affects how accounts can be collected. These factors often drive pricing and determine whether certain buyers will participate in a particular sale process. We also discuss how sellers identify the right buyer and why working with well-capitalized and experienced buyers can have a significant impact on execution and pricing. From there, we walk through the primary transaction structures used in the market, including spot sales and forward flow arrangements, and discuss how risk allocation, repricing risk, and portfolio segmentation are addressed in these structures. The key takeaway from this episode is that debt sales are not one-size-fits-all transactions. The identity of the buyer, the structure of the deal, and the allocation of regulatory and commercial risk all directly affect pricing, execution, and long-term success of a debt sale program. In the next episode, we turn to the regulatory landscape and discuss how recent regulatory developments are shaping the debt sale market.
/episode/index/show/consumerfinancemonitor/id/40858300