Consumer Finance Monitor

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, " The CFPB: Where to Go From Here ," 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.

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 post-remand decision 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.

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 SSRN . 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.

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 Amazon . 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.

The CFPB's June 5, 2026 statement on " Ability to Repay and Immigration Status " 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 here 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.

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.

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 part 1 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.

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 2 nd . 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.

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 11 th , 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.

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 11 th , 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 18 th , 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.

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.

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.

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, Principles of the Law, Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence . 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 part 1 here and part 2 here), the White House AI Framework (listen here ) 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.

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 here ). 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 Ballard Spahr 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.

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: Executive Order 14390 . 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, United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams . 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.

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.