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…
Litigation involving Colorado’s opt-out from the interest exportation provisions of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) has taken an adverse turn for the financial services industry. On November 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling reversing a preliminary injunction imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in June 2024 that prevented enforcement of Colorado’s usury restrictions against parties to the litigation, including any members of various industry association parties—the National Association of Industrial Bankers, American Financial Services Association and American Fintech Council—with respect to loans in which the lender was not located, for interest exportation purposes, in Colorado. Subject to further proceedings, the Tenth Circuit’s ruling re-opens the door for loans originated by state-chartered banks and similar financial institutions to be subject to Colorado usury restrictions when either: (i) the borrower is located in the state; or (ii) subject to certain exceptions, the lender is located in the state, regardless of the location of the borrower. The ruling will become effective, if at all, only after issuance of the Tenth Circuit mandate, which may be stayed pending further appellate proceedings as discussed below.
As addressed in our prior discussion of the Colorado DIDMCA opt-out and related litigation, DIDMCA provides the basis, under federal banking law, for state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks and certain similar financial institutions to “export” the interest-related requirements of their home or, in certain cases, branch office (host) states when lending elsewhere. Both national banks and state-chartered banks have such authority, but DIDMCA conditions state-chartered banks’ authority on the ability of individual states to opt out of the interest exportation regime under 12 U.S.C. § 1831d. Iowa and Puerto Rico have had longstanding opt-outs; certain other states initially opted out but later repealed such opt-outs; and Colorado enacted an opt-out that would have become effective July 1, 2024 but for litigation by industry participants that resulted in the June 2024 preliminary injunction. Continue Reading DIDMCA Opt-Out Update — Tenth Circuit Reverses Colorado Preliminary Injunction
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
Illinois continues to move forward in regulating “shared appreciation agreements.” On August 15, 2025, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation proposed regulations implementing the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 to govern “shared appreciation agreements.” The term “shared appreciation agreements” is generally interpreted to include products commonly known as home equity contracts,” “home…
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
Maryland’s secondary mortgage market has been in turmoil since a disruptive 2024 court decision held that a purchaser of mortgage loans inherits the original lender’s obligations—including the obligation to obtain a Maryland Mortgage Lender license. Secondary market investors that acquire residential mortgage loans through a passive trust can breathe a sigh of relief now that…
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…
The New York legislature has introduced no fewer than three separate bills in 2025 to license and regulate the business activities of providers of buy-now-pay-later (“BNPL”) products. The first quarter of the year has seen the introduction of Senate Bill 4606, Assembly Bill 6757, and lengthy budget bill Assembly Bill 3008, each of which would enact a similar, but not identical, “Buy-Now-Pay-Later Act.” If enacted into law, each of the three bills would require certain providers of BNPL credit to obtain a license from the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”).
BNPL products have experienced increasing popularity in recent years as an alternative to credit cards for small-dollar retail transactions. While there are differences between available BNPL programs, the most common BNPL model is an extension of credit repayable in four or fewer installments that does not carry any interest, origination fee, or other finance charges—although such products frequently charge other incidental charges such as late fees or insufficient funds charges. Providers historically have argued that products structured in this manner generally do not trigger cost-of-credit disclosure (and limited substantive) requirements under the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). That view was challenged recently with the May 2024 publication of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) interpretive rule asserting that traditional four-installment BNPL loans with no finance charge may be subject to certain TILA requirements pertaining to credit cards if they are offered through a “digital user account” access model, but the CFPB has since indicated that it likely will rescind such guidance. Research conducted by the CFPB indicated that BNPL products are more likely to be used by consumers with higher levels of debt, lower incomes, and less liquidity than some competing products, which has been part of the impetus for regulatory action under a consumer protection rationale. Particularly in light of the CFPB’s rollback of its BNPL Interpretive Rule, states, like New York, may see a greater need to take a more active role in regulating the product.Continue Reading New York Proposes to License Buy-Now-Pay-Later Lenders
Mayer Brown has published a new edition of Licensing Link, a periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.
In this issue, we…
