Because of the possibility of protracted litigation in connection with CFPB’s authority over TLEs, it is not unthinkable that the CFPB will assert that authority into the forseeable future and litigate the matter to finality; the CFPB can not be counted on to postpone doing this until this has determined its financial research with regards to payday lending (for which TLEs can not be anticipated to rush to cooperate) or until litigation on the recess appointment of Director Cordray happens to be solved.
TLEs, anticipating such action, will desire to start thinking about two distinct strategic reactions.
in the one hand, looking to protect on their own from direct assaults because of the CFPB underneath the “unfair” or “abusive” requirements, TLEs might well amend their business techniques to carry them into line with all the needs of federal consumer-protection guidelines. Numerous TLEs have previously done this. It stays a available concern whether and also to what extent the CFPB may look for to hire state-law violations being a predicate for UDAAP claims.
Having title loans in Virginia said that, hoping to buttress their resistance status against state assaults (perhaps as a result of provided CFPB-generated information regarding tribes), TLEs to their relationships might well amend their relationships with regards to financiers so your tribes have actually genuine “skin into the game” instead of, where relevant, the simple directly to exactly just what amounts to a little royalty on income.
There might be no assurance that such prophylactic actions by TLEs will provide to immunize their non-tribal company lovers.
The”action” has moved on from litigation against the tribes to litigation against their financiers as noted below with respect to the Robinson case.