June 21, 2017

June 20, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 19, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

UDAAP Authority as ‘Back Door’ to State-Law Enforcement for CFPB? New Lawsuit Again Raises the Question

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it has filed suit against four online lenders owned by the federally recognized Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Indian Tribe based on alleged violations of state licensing and usury laws.

The factual allegations in this lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, are unremarkable. The CFPB charges that the online lenders at issue make small-dollar loans at very high interest rates and that the entities’ tribal ownership is both legally irrelevant and factually dubious. The CFPB also alleges relatively modest violations of Regulation Z’s requirement to disclose the annual percentage rate in an oral response to a consumer inquiry about the cost of credit. The CFPB, however, alleges that the defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) in violation of federal law through their efforts to collect on loans that were usurious under state law, or for which other state-law violations vitiated or limited the borrowers’ obligation to repay.

This action reflects another step in the CFPB’s continuing efforts to substantively enforce state laws under the guise of its federal UDAAP authority. As we have previously reported, this is not the first time that the CFPB has advanced an enforcement strategy of predicating federal UDAAP violations on alleged violations of state usury or lending licensing laws. In the prior case, a tribal entity originated the loans but was found to have no further interest once the loans were sold to its non-tribal payday lender partner. In the current lawsuit, the lenders are themselves tribal-owned entities.

The core of the CFPB’s legal theory, stated on the face of the Complaint, is that the lenders “misled” borrowers into believing that the loans were enforceable when—in the CFPB’s view—the loans were not valid debts, because they were usurious or made in violation of state law. These are matters that any of the relevant states’ financial regulators or attorneys general could have addressed, and it bears emphasis that none of the 17 states whose laws the CFPB is attempting to enforce joined as plaintiffs.


Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act plainly gives the CFPB the authority to enforce federal consumer financial laws, but does not confer the same authority to enforce state laws. If the CFPB sees it as within its mandate to use its UDAAP authority to enforce state usury laws, a subject that is statutorily excluded from the agency’s legal authority (and an authority it all but disclaimed in 2013), then there is almost no logical limit on how far the agency could attempt to expand the reach of that power and every reason to expect that the CFPB will continue attempting to expand its UDAAP authority to more widely target violations of state law. This approach risks effectively arrogating to the CFPB the authority to usurp the states’ enforcement discretion over their own laws.

Businesses that may not be directly subject to the CFPB’s broad federal consumer financial authority should consider whether their conduct risks being construed as in violation of parallel state laws—potentially bringing them, at least in the agency’s view, under the CFPB UDAAP umbrella.

The lenders have not yet filed a response to the CFPB’s lawsuit.

Copyright © 2017 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.


About this Author


David Monteiro focuses his practice on counseling companies facing government investigations and enforcement litigation. A former enforcement attorney with the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Financial Practices, David guides financial institutions and other companies in complying with state and federal consumer protection laws and regulations, responding to examinations and investigations, and defending litigation against the government.

Nicholas M. Gess, White Collar Attorney, Morgan Lewis Law Firm
Of Counsel

Nicholas M. Gess is of counsel at Morgan Lewis. He served as a member of Attorney General Janet Reno’s senior staff and as an associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice.He brings considerable experience in assessing impending government enforcement and regulatory actions and their impact on the business community. He advises corporate clients how to achieve results with governmental agencies and how to manage the risks of government action, particularly in the current environment where state enforcement authorities combine with congressional investigators and state legislatures to form a triple threat.

Charles M. Horn, Morgan Lewis Law Firm, Securities Attorney

Charles M. Horn is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Investment Management and Securities Industry Practice. Mr. Horn focuses his practice on regulatory and transactional matters, primarily in the areas of banking and financial services. He works on behalf of domestic and global financial institutions of all sizes on regulatory, supervisory, enforcement and compliance matters before all major federal financial institutions regulatory agencies, and leading state financial regulatory agencies.

Melissa D. Hill, Morgan Lewis, Employee Benefits Litigation matters, Workplace Harassment Attorney

Melissa D. Hill concentrates on complex employee benefits litigation and general employment litigation including ERISA litigation and employee benefits matters, employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and wage and hour litigation. Employers and employee benefits plan sponsors seek her counsel when faced with disputes with employees, plan participants, and beneficiaries. She also handles single and multiplaintiff, and complex collective and class actions before US federal and state courts.