On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable (“FAIR”) Business Practices Act. The FAIR Business Practices Act adds prohibitions against “unfair” and “abusive” acts or practices to the state attorney general’s arsenal, which otherwise expressly addressed only such acts or practices that are “deceptive.”
The state Attorney
The new California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act, which Governor Newsom signed on October 7, 2025, mirrors the thwarted efforts of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to address concerns about unfair or deceptive acts or practices among motor vehicle dealers. The California CARS Act will become effective on October 1, 2026, and will prohibit dealers from making misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, or about any costs, limitation, benefit, or other aspect of any add-on product or service.
Applicability
The California CARS Act will constitute a new title within the state’s Civil Code[1] and will apply generally to motor vehicle dealers in the state. However, the new protections will not apply to “commercial purchasers” of vehicles, meaning those that purchase five or more vehicles from the dealer per year for use primarily for business or commercial purposes. They also will not apply to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.
Total Price
One of the key aspects of the California CARS Act (as with the FTC’s fallen CARS Rule) is the requirement to disclose the “total price.” Specifically, the Act will require dealers to disclose, clearly and conspicuously in connection with the sale or financing of a vehicle, the vehicle’s total price. That total price includes the total sales price of the vehicle, excluding taxes, fees, and charges; any dealer price adjustment; and the cost of any item installed on the vehicle at the time of the advertisement or communication. It does not include any deduction for a rebate. The total price must be included in any advertisement of a specific vehicle for sale, or that represents any monetary amount or financing term for a specific vehicle. In addition, the total price must be included in the first written communication with a consumer about a specific vehicle, such as the dealer’s first response to a consumer regarding the vehicle. The total price disclosure requirement does not, however, apply to used vehicles sold at auctions.
Other Disclosures
In addition to the disclosure of the total price of specific vehicles in advertisements and communications, dealers must disclose in any written representation during a negotiation to purchase or lease a specific vehicle that any add-on products or services the dealer mentions are not required. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous and in writing. If the negotiation is taking place primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, the disclosure that the consumer may purchase or lease the vehicle without the add-on product or service must also be provided in that language.
When making any written representation about the amount of monthly payments to purchase or lease a specific vehicle, the dealer must disclose in writing the amount the consumer will pay after making all those monthly payments. If the dealer makes written comparisons between payment options that include lower monthly payments, the dealer must explain that those lower payments often increase the total amount the consumer will pay.Continue Reading New California CARS Act
While federal regulatory agencies retreat from enforcing disparate impact discrimination, at least one state agency has stepped forward. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced on July 10, 2025 a settlement with a student loan company, resolving allegations that the company’s artificial intelligence (“AI”) underwriting models resulted in unlawful disparate impact based on race and immigration status.
The disparate impact theory of discrimination in the lending context has been controversial. It has been 10 years since the Supreme Court held in Inclusive Communities that disparate impact is available under the Fair Housing Act if a plaintiff points to a policy or policies of the defendant that caused the disparity. In the fair lending context, then, disparate impact applies to mortgage loans. However, for other types of consumer credit – like auto loans or student loans – a plaintiff or government enforcer claiming discrimination would need to rely on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). While ECOA prohibits discrimination against an applicant with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, there has been much debate over whether it applies to discrimination in the form of disparate impact. The federal government for years relied heavily on ECOA to bring credit discrimination actions. The Biden Administration pursued a vigorous redlining initiative against mortgage lenders. The government used the vast amount of data obtained under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) and compared the activities of various lenders within a geographic area to determine whether a lender was significantly lagging its peers in making loans to certain protected groups. The government then looked to the lender’s branch locations, advertising strategies, the racial/ethnic make-up of its loan officers, and other factors to assert that the lender had discouraged loan applicants from protected classes. Through that redlining initiative, the government settled dozens of cases, resulting in well over $100 million in payments.
HMDA data provides extensive, if imperfect, demographic data on mortgage lending activities and has been key to building claims of lending discrimination, particularly disparate impact. However, that level of data is not generally available for other types of lending, like student loans. Without such data, the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General (“OAG”) in this case reviewed the lender’s algorithmic rules, its use of judgmental discretion in the loan approval process, and internal communications, which the Attorney General described as exhibiting bias.
Disparate Impact Based on Race, National Origin
In that review, the OAG looked back to the scoring model the lender used prior to 2017, which relied in part on a Cohort Default Rate – the average rate of loan defaults associated with specific higher education institutions. The OAG asserted that use of that factor in its underwriting model resulted in disparate impact in approval rates and loan terms, disfavoring Black and Hispanic applicants in violation of ECOA and the state’s prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices (“UDAP”). The public settlement order did not provide the level of statistical disparities. In addition, until 2023, the OAG asserted that the lender also included immigration status in its algorithm, knocking out applicants who lacked a green card. That factor “created a risk of a disparate outcome against applicants on the basis of national origin,” and as such violated ECOA and UDAP according to the OAG. The settlement order prohibits the lender from using the Cohort Default Rate or the knock-out rule for applicants without a green card (although it appears the lender had discontinued those considerations years ago).Continue Reading Massachusetts AG Settles Fair Lending Action Based Upon AI Underwriting Model
On June 30, California Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 130 (“AB130” or the “Bill”). Effective immediately, the Bill added a new section to the California Civil Code to codify that certain actions constitute unlawful practices when taken by a “mortgage servicer” in connection with a subordinate mortgage. The Bill also adds a number of certification and disclosure requirements that mortgage servicers must adhere to in connection with nonjudicial foreclosures of subordinate mortgage loans.
At the outset, it is important to note that the Bill defines the term “mortgage servicer” broadly to include the current mortgage servicer and any prior mortgage servicers. Thus, the Bills’ requirements—including certifications that a mortgage servicer is required to record in connection with certain foreclosures—cover the activities of both the current servicer of a subordinate mortgage and any prior servicer of that mortgage.
Unlawful Practices for Subordinate Mortgages
Under the newly created Section 2924.13, a “subordinate mortgage” is defined to include a security instrument in residential real property that was, at the time it was recorded, subordinate to another security interest encumbering the same residential real property. The new section does not distinguish between loans for a consumer or business purpose. Pursuant to the new section, the following conduct constitutes an unlawful practice in connection with a subordinate mortgage:Continue Reading California Enacts Servicing Requirements for Subordinate Residential Mortgages
On June 12, 2025, Judge Valderrama of the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the joint motion to vacate the stipulated final judgment reached between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and Townstone Financial, Inc., in an action alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).
As explained in Mayer
Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule (“CARS Rule”) on January 27, 2025, the FTC and state attorneys general continue to target the auto sales and lending industries through enforcement actions and legislation. Among those efforts, the California legislature is considering its
In an unprecedented move, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) Acting Director is seeking to vacate the Bureau’s settlement with Townstone Financial (“Townstone” or the “Company”), which was entered by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 7, 2024. In a press release, Acting Director Vought stated that the CFPB “abused its power, used radical ‘equity’ arguments to tag Townstone as a racist with zero evidence . . . to further the goal of DEI in lending via their regulation by enforcement tactics.”Continue Reading CFPB Seeks to Vacate Townstone Redlining Settlement
There were positive developments last week in connection with the recently announced licensing requirements for assignees of residential mortgage loans and installment loans in Maryland — a proposed legislative fix, an extended enforcement deadline, and a clarifying exception from the requirement.
As we discussed in our Legal Update last month, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) asserted that assignees of residential mortgage loans — including certain “passive trusts” that acquire or obtain assignments of residential mortgage loans in Maryland — must become licensed in Maryland prior to April 10, 2025, unless the assignee is expressly exempt under Maryland law. The guidance reflected the OFR’s understanding of an April 2024 decision by the Appellate Court of Maryland in Estate of Brown v. Ward that any assignee of any residential mortgage loan is required to obtain a Mortgage Lender license, and an Installment Loan license is required if the mortgage loans are made subject to the Credit Grantor provisions, regardless of whether the loans are open- or closed-end extensions of credit.
That guidance has caused significant turmoil in the Maryland residential mortgage markets, with significant practical concerns about requiring passive trusts to obtain a license and with certain industry participants suspending the purchase of Maryland mortgage loans.
To address these concerns, the OFR worked with industry participants to develop proposed legislation, the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 — two identical bills, Senate Bill 1026 and House Bill 1516, introduced on February 17, 2025.Continue Reading Update on Maryland Licensing for Loan Assignees
On January 27, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Federal Trade Commission’s rule to curb certain practices in the automobile dealer industry was invalid on procedural grounds because the agency did not issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
On January 4, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published a final “Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule,” or “CARS Rule.” The rule was scheduled to become effective on July 30, 2024. The FTC issued that rule after publishing a proposed rule for public comment in July 2022 and after a series of public roundtables with input from industry participants, consumers, and others.
The final rule provides that certain acts or practices of motor vehicle dealers are prohibited as unfair or deceptive, including misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle or of any add-on product or service (such as extended warranties, service and maintenance plans, payment programs, guaranteed automobile or asset protection (“GAP”) agreements, emergency road service, VIN etching and other theft protection devices, or undercoating). The final rule also would prohibit misrepresentations regarding many other aspects of purchasing or financing a vehicle, or the circumstances under which a vehicle may be repossessed.
The final rule also provides that it is a prohibited unfair or deceptive act or practice not to disclose in advertisements or consumer communications a vehicle’s full cash offering price (excluding only government charges), or not to disclose that an add-on product or service is voluntary (if true). When making any representations about the amount of monthly payments for vehicle financing, the final rule provides that the dealer must disclose the total amount the consumer will pay after making all payments, including the amount of any down payment or trade-in.
As to add-on products or services, the final rule provides that it is a prohibited unfair or deceptive act or practice for a dealer to charge for any such product or service that provides no benefit to the consumer, including certain nitrogen-filled tire-related products or services; products or services that are merely duplicative of otherwise applicable warranty coverage; or any item without the consumer’s express, informed consent.
The auto dealer and finance industries quickly objected to the rule, arguing in part that the FTC did not adequately consider the costs of the rule and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The FTC then determined that it was in the interests of justice to stay the rule’s effective date to allow for judicial review.
The Fifth Circuit did not address the validity of the rule’s substantive provisions, or the FTC’s authority to declare those or other practices as unfair or deceptive. However, the court held that the final rule is invalid because the FTC did not issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) prior to issuing its proposed rule.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Vacates the FTC’s CARS Shopping Rule
On January 15, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took three coordinated actions related to home equity contracts or investment transactions. Although none of the CFPB’s actions are binding, and may not reflect the new administration’s views, the CFPB seeks to educate consumers and hints at ways that regulators could address those those transactions moving