Trade Groups Call For CFPB Payday Loan Rule File Opening Letter With Fifth Circuit | Ballard Spahr LLP


The trading groups request the payment terms in the CFPB rule for the last payday / car title / high-interest installment loan 2017 (rule 2017) have submitted their opening order with the fifth circle. The trade groups appealed the District Court’s final judgment to the Fifth Circuit, which granted the CFPB’s motion for a summary judgment and set the fulfillment date for the payment terms to 286 days after August 31, 2021 (which was June 13, 2022) would have lasted. .

The fifth circle Subsequently, an order is entered that will keep the date of compliance with the payment terms up to 286 days after the appeal of the trade groups has been resolved.

The main argument of the trade groups in the appeal process is still that the rule from 2017 is void from the beginning because the CFPA’s unconstitutional distance restriction means the Bureau was not empowered to promulgate the 2017 rule. They also argue that:

  • Ratification cannot cure the flaw in the Constitution, as the flaw concerns the unlawful exercise of governance by the Bureau and its director, not the authority of a representative to make decisions on behalf of the Bureau or its director. The only suitable remedy for invalid rule-setting is valid rule-setting.
  • The 2017 rule remains invalid as there are two persistent separation of powers violations. A violation arises from the Bureau’s funding mechanism, which does not require Congressional funding. The other violation arises from the Bureau’s unconstitutional exercise of legislative powers entrusted solely to Congress. In conferring authority on authorities, Congress must formulate an understandable principle. There is no comprehensible principle in the transfer of funds to the director or in the “vague and blanket UDAAP authority of the Bureau that is invoked to the [2017] Rule.”
  • While ratification can sometimes correct flaws in rulemaking, the Bureau’s ratification of the payment terms violates both the CFPA and the APA because it was illegal and arbitrary and arbitrary. The ratification violates the APA and CFPA, as it was a set of rules that required a communication and statement within the framework of the APA and did not meet the CFPA’s requirement for a cost-benefit analysis. The ratification is arbitrary and arbitrary as the Bureau’s 2020 rules, which repealed the repayment eligibility provisions of the 2017 rule, removed the justifications for the payment terms by rejecting the Bureau’s previous UDAAP interpretation. The ratification was also inconsistent with the cost-benefit analysis required by the CFPA, as the 2017 Bureau’s cost-benefit analysis of the Payment Regulations was based on the improvement effects of the provisions on repayment eligibility, which were completely deleted by the 2020 regulations .
  • Regardless of the illegal ratification, the payment terms are to be repealed as illegal and arbitrary and arbitrary. The payment terms are illegal as they are outside the UDAAP authority of the Bureau. The Bureau based the payment terms on inadequate and overly broad interpretations of its UDAAP powers. The payment terms are arbitrary and capricious because the bureau failed to take into account the adverse effects of the payment terms, such as the increased likelihood that a loan would be withdrawn sooner (if at all) and the bureau acted on outdated data. At the very least, the payment terms are arbitrary and capricious as they cover separate installments of multi-installment loans, as well as debit and prepaid card payments. These payments and payment transfer methods do not cause the damage sought by the regulations.

Comments are closed.