United States: Consumer Protection

A dispute between Baltimore and Dave Inc. over the company's ExtraCash advances raises critical questions about whether local consumer-protection ordinances can regulate financial products or whether Maryland's statewide consumer-lending laws preempt municipal authority. The case centers on allegations that Dave operated without required licenses and used deceptive marketing, while Dave contends the city lacks enforcement power under state preemption principles.

A California federal court has issued findings recommending dismissal of three TCPA claims against debt collector Credence Resource Management, LLC, finding that the plaintiff's allegations were conclusory and contradictory. The court determined that calls specifically targeted at a named individual cannot simultaneously be characterized as randomly generated, and that debt collection calls do not constitute telephone solicitations under DNC regulations.

A federal court in Washington granted a defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery in a TCPA putative class action, limiting the initial 120-day discovery phase to seven specific individual issues including consent, standing, and whether the plaintiff received telephone solicitations.

A recent lawsuit against Stop & Shop in Massachusetts federal court challenges how the grocery chain discloses its $3.95 pickup fee for online orders, claiming the fee appears too late in the checkout process and lacks adequate explanation of its purpose. The case highlights the growing complexity of state fee disclosure laws and raises important questions about what constitutes proper transparency in e-commerce pricing.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued new guidance warning automobile dealers that advertised vehicle prices must reflect the actual amount consumers will pay at purchase. The FAQs emphasize that only government-mandated charges may be excluded from advertised prices, aiming to restore transparency and fair competition in the automotive marketplace.

Congress has introduced the Stop Spam Calls Act, directing the FCC to revise the definition of prior express written consent under the TCPA to require one-to-one seller consent and logical relevance between sellers and website content. This legislative move comes as the Fifth Circuit questions whether written consent is even required under the TCPA, creating a fascinating tension between congressional intent and judicial interpretation that could reshape telemarketing compliance.

This week's product recalls span everything from blood pressure medication and electric bikes to hand warmers and grill brushes, with hazards ranging from fire risks to ingestion dangers. Understanding which products pose safety threats and what compensation options exist for those injured by defective items is crucial for consumer protection.

Together, these laws change the rules for cannabis testing, certificates of analysis, packaging, advertising, edible labels, and multi-serving beverages. Some provisions take effect on January 1, 2027. Others arrive in July 2027 or January 2028. But none should be ignored until the last minute.

The California Supreme Court rejected a novel negligence theory that would have let plaintiffs sue manufacturers over nondefective products for not developing a “better” alternative sooner.

A dispute between Baltimore and Dave Inc. over the company's ExtraCash advances raises critical questions about whether local consumer-protection ordinances can regulate financial products or whether Maryland's statewide consumer-lending laws preempt municipal authority. The case centers on allegations that Dave operated without required licenses and used deceptive marketing, while Dave contends the city lacks enforcement power under state preemption principles.

The consumer reporting system is experiencing significant transformation driven by artificial intelligence, alternative data sources, and consumer-permissioned financial information sharing. This podcast episode explores how these technological and regulatory developments are reshaping credit underwriting, dispute resolution processes, and the broader consumer reporting ecosystem.

Minnesota's Attorney General reached a settlement with an online lender over allegations that the company charged interest rates approaching 700% to state consumers, substantially exceeding permitted rates under Minnesota law. The lender, wholly owned by a federally recognized Native American tribe, had disputed that Minnesota law applied to its lending activities, claiming tribal ownership exempted it from state consumer-lending laws.