1620 Eye Street, NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006 | (202) 387-6121 | consumerfed.org
Report
Dormant: The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau’s Law
Enforcement Program in Decline
Christopher L. Peterson
March 12, 2019
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 1
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3
Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 4
Report ............................................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6
2. Background .......................................................................................................... 8
Consumer Protection and Public Input: CFPB’s Challenges ............................................................... 8
The CFPB’s Supervision and Enforcement Authorities ................................................................... 10
3. Methods: Classifying the CFPB’s Track Record in Public Law Enforcement
Cases .......................................................................................................................... 13
4. Results: CFPB Law Enforcement Productivity Has Plummeted Under the
Trump Administration’s Leadership ......................................................................... 15
Credit Reporting ............................................................................................................................. 18
Debt Collection Practices ................................................................................................................. 20
Home Mortgage Loans ................................................................................................................... 22
Student Loans ................................................................................................................................ 24
5. Under the Trump Administration, the CFPB is Not Providing Adequate
Restitution to Consumers Harmed by Illegal Discrimination or Deceptive
Practices .................................................................................................................... 26
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 28
Appendix. Public CFPB Enforcement Actions: Chronological List, 2012-2019 ..... 30
Table of Contents
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 2
“Nothing is more destructive to competitive markets and consumer choice than
fraudulent behavior. Under my stewardship, the Bureau will take aggressive
action against bad actors who break the rules by engaging in fraud and other
illegal activity.”
- Kathleen L. Kraninger, Confirmation Hearing before the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, July 19, 2018
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), and charged it with enforcing federal consumer financial law.
The CFPB has a number of tools with which to fulfill this mandate, including the authority to
bring legal action against companies who violate the law. Congress also gave the CFPB the
authority to collect, investigate, and respond to complaints from consumers. In recent years,
complaints involving credit reporting, debt collection, mortgages and student lending have
topped the CFPB’s list of most frequent complaints. Historically, these complaints have
helped to inform and prioritize areas of focus for enforcement activity.
This study analyzes whether the CFPB, under the Trump Administration, is delivering
on its statutory law enforcement objectives and stated commitments to take aggressive action
in the area of consumer law enforcement, particularly where complaint volume is the largest.
To accomplish this, this study identifies and classifies every public enforcement action since
the inception of the CFPB through the first three months of Director Kathleen Kraninger’s
term in office.
Overall, this study finds that under the leadership of Acting Director Mick Mulvaney,
and more recently, Director Kathy Kraninger, enforcement activity at the CFPB has declined
to levels that are either nonexistent or significantly below that of the prior Administration,
even in the areas where consumer complaint activity is the highest. The Bureau has announced
only two cases each under authorities specifically given to the Bureau to address issues with
credit reporting and mortgage lending, one case related to debt collection, and no cases related
to student lending. Troublingly, the Bureau has also failed to announce or resolve a single anti-
discrimination case.
Further, in addition to a decline in the overall volume of enforcement actions, this
study shows significantly less monetary relief going to consumers. The CFPB returned about
$43 million in restitution to consumers for each week of the Bureau’s first Director’s term in
office. In the relatively few cases resolved since, this amount has plummeted to about $6.4
million per week under Acting Director Mulvaney and most recently dropped again to about
$925,000 per week under Director Kraninger. The Bureau has not announced a single dollar
Executive Summary
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 3
of monetary relief in any of the high-volume complaint areas of credit reporting, debt
collection, or student lending.
Overall, enforcement activity and relief to the consumer has declined since the appointment
of Mick Mulvaney in 2017. And, despite being touted as one of Director Kraninger’s initial
priorities for her term of leadership, law enforcement activity continues to remain significantly
below earlier levels since her confirmation.
Key Findings
• The number of public enforcement cases announced in 2018 declined by 80%
from the Bureau’s peak productivity in 2015. In 2015, the CFPB announced 55
public law enforcement actions. In 2018, this number had declined to 11.
• The average amount of monetary relief per case awarded to victims of illegal
consumer financial practices has declined by approximately 96%. Under
Director Cordray, the CFPB awarded an average of $59.6 million in consumer
restitution per case. Under Director Kraninger, average consumer relief has declined
to $2.4 million per case.
• Law enforcement addressing illegal credit reporting practices has declined
sharply under the Trump Administration’s leadership. The CFPB has
announced only two cases enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act and settled both
without providing a single dollar of restitution to victims of illegal practices.
• Law enforcement addressing illegal debt collection practices has declined
sharply under the Trump Administration’s leadership. Under Acting Director
Mulvaney and Director Kraninger, the CFPB has announced only one case enforcing
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB agreed to settle this case without
ordering a single dollar of restitution to victims of illegal debt collection practices.
• Law enforcement policing the home mortgage market has declined sharply
under the Trump Administration’s leadership. Under Director Cordray, the
CFPB announced 61 mortgage lending cases that returned nearly $3 billion in
restitution to consumers at a pace of over $10 million per week. Under Acting
Director Mulvaney, consumer relief in mortgage lending declined by over 99% to less
than $5,000 per week for the entire nation. Under Director Kraninger, the Bureau has
not announced a single mortgage-related case, nor any restitution for consumers.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 4
• Law Enforcement policing the student loan market has declined sharply under
the Trump Administration’s leadership. Under Director Cordray, the CFPB
announced 15 student lending related cases with an average of $47.5 million in
consumer relief per case. Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, the CFPB
has not announced or resolved a single student lending enforcement case and has
provided no restitution to any consumers.
• Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, the CFPB has failed to enforce
consumer protection laws prohibiting discrimination. Under Director Cordray,
the CFPB announced 11 cases enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
producing average consumer relief over $56 million per case. Under the Trump
Administration’s leadership, the CFPB has not announced or resolved a single case
alleging unlawful discrimination and has provided no restitution to any consumers.
• Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, the CFPB has failed to provide
adequate restitution to victims of deceptive practices. Under Director Cordray,
the CFPB announced 116 enforcement cases against consumer finance companies
that used in deceptive or misleading practices producing average consumer relief of
over $94 million per case. Director Kraninger has announced 3 cases alleging
deceptive practices but agreed to settle each case without ordering any monetary
restitution for victims.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 5
•
“Protecting consumers was a primary objective of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Supervising financial entities to ensure they comply with the law in this area, and
enforcing the law when they don’t, are ways to meet that objective. While I am
Director, the CFPB will vigorously and evenhandedly enforce the law.”
-Director Kathleen L. Kraninger, Semi-Annual Report of the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection 2 (Fall 2018).
1. Introduction
Since Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act in 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or
“Bureau”) has served as America’s primary consumer finance regulator and civil law
enforcement agency.
1
Congress created the CFPB in response to the mortgage crisis and
subsequent Great Recession, and in doing so recognized the importance of well-functioning
consumer finance markets to the health of the economy and the well-being of virtually every
American. In 2008 the American banking industry virtually collapsed causing 11 trillion dollars
in wealth to vanish and leaving 21 million Americans without work.
2
Over 9 million homes
were lost to foreclosure or short sales,
3
and the ensuing economic malaise led to increases in
homelessness, hunger, disease, and suicide.
4
A key lesson of the financial crisis was the importance of vigorous, prompt, and
thoughtful public law enforcement to hold financial service providers accountable for
corporate wrongdoing.
5
To this end, Title Ten of the Dodd-Frank Act, entitled the Consumer
Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”), tasked the CFPB with helping consumers “make
informed and responsible decisions about financial transactions” and protecting consumers
1
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (codified as
amended in scattered sections of 7, 12, 15, 22, 31, and 42 U.S.C. (2018)).
2
U.S. FIN. CRISIS INQUIRY COMM’N, FIN. CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT, at xv (2011).
3
Laura Kusisto, Many Who Lost Homes to Foreclosure in Last Decade Won’t Return—NAR, WALL STREET J. (Apr. 20, 2015,
12:50 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/many-who-lost-homes-to-foreclosure-in-last-decade-wont-return-nar-
1429548640.
4
See Christopher L. Peterson, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Law Enforcement: An Empirical Review, 90 TULANE L. REV.
1057, 1059–60 (2016) (hereinafter CFPB Empirical Review) (collecting empirical research on the impact of the financial crisis
on consumer well-being).
5.
U.S. FIN. CRISIS INQUIRY COMM’N, supra note 2, at xix.
Report
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 6
“from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination.”
6
Congress
also directed the CFPB to ensure that “[f]ederal consumer financial law is enforced
consistently without regard to the status of the person as a depository institution,”
“supervising covered persons for compliance,” and “taking appropriate enforcement action
to address violations of Federal consumer financial law.”
7
In the 2016 presidential election, President Trump promised to be “tough” on the
banking industry, stating “I’m not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street
has caused tremendous problems for us.”
8
He explained, “I want to save the middle class. You
know, the middle class — the hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that
shift paper around and they get lucky.”
9
In November of 2017 President Trump appointed
Mick Mulvaney, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to
simultaneously serve as the Acting Director of the CFPB.
10
Acting Director Mulvaney served
in this role until December 6, 2018, when the Senate confirmed President Trump’s nominee,
Kathleen Kraninger, to serve as the Bureau’s second Director.
11
In her first semiannual report
to Congress, Director Kathy Kraninger recognized and embraced the Bureau’s objective of
robust law enforcement, explicitly pledging that: “While I am Director, the CFPB will
vigorously and evenhandedly enforce the law.”
12
This report presents empirical data on whether the Bureau is meeting its statutory law
enforcement objectives, is consistent with the President’s campaign rhetoric, and satisfies
Director Kraninger’s pledge. In particular, this report asks: is the CFPB currently pursuing a
vigorous law enforcement program? In exploring this question, this study analyzes every
publicly announced CFPB enforcement action from the Bureau’s inception through the first
three months of Director Kraninger’s term. The study includes every case announced and
resolved under Richard Cordray, the Bureau’s first director, as well as cases announced and
resolved under Acting Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger. Each case was analyzed
6
12 U.S.C. § 5511(b). Other important objectives of the Bureau include ensuring “outdated, unnecessary, or unduly
burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden” and
“markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and
innovation.” Id.
7
Id. at § 5511(c). Other important functions of the Bureau include “conducting financial education programs;” “collecting,
researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial
products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets;” “issuing rules, orders,
and guidance implementing Federal consumer financial law;” and “performing such support activities as may be necessary
or useful to facilitate the other functions of the Bureau.” Id.
8
Jeff Guo, Trump said Hedge Funders were “Getting away with Murder.” Now he Wants One to Help Run the Economy, WASH. POST
(Nov. 30, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/30/trump-said-hedge-funders-were-
getting-away-with-murder-now-he-wants-one-to-help-run-the-economy/?utm_term=.49f5eb924e18, (quoting Donald J.
Trump, Campaign Speech in Ottumwa, Iowa (Jan. 9, 2016)).
9
Id. (quoting Donald J. Trump, statement from Face the Nation (CBS television broadcast Aug. 23, 2015)).
10
Renae Merle, The CFPB Now Has Two Acting Directors. And Nobody Knows Which One Should Lead the Agency, WASH. POST
(Nov. 24, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/11/24/the-cfpb-now-has-two-acting-
directors-and-nobody-knows-which-one-should-lead-the-federal-agency/?utm_term=.13b8d07bf458.
11
Ken Sweet, Senate Approves Trump’s Nominee for Watchdog Agency, FED. TIMES (Dec. 7, 2018),
https://www.federaltimes.com/management/leadership/2018/12/07/senate-approves-trumps-nominee-for-watchdog-
agency/.
12
SEMIANNUAL REP. OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION 2 (Fall 2018) (Message from the Director),
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/semi-annual-report-fall-2018/.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 7
and coded for over 70 variables, including some of the most important metrics required to
evaluate the productivity of a law enforcement program, such as the number of cases, the
financial product or service market in which alleged unlawful activity occurred, the statutory
violations pleaded by the Bureau, and restitution returned the consumers.
Overall, this study finds that the productivity of the CFPB’s law enforcement program
has declined substantially under the Trump Administration’s leadership. Under Trump
administration appointees, the number of CFPB enforcement cases has dropped precipitously,
and, in the relatively few cases resolved, the amount of restitution returned to victims of
unlawful activity has been substantially reduced or even eliminated entirely.
This report begins with a background summary of the consumer protection challenges
facing the Bureau as identified by the CFPB’s own consumer complaint intake portal, along
with a brief summary of the CFPB’s supervision and enforcement authorities. Next, this report
provides a brief explanation of the study’s methodology and then presents findings and
analysis of their implications for public policy as well as individual consumers. An appendix
listing analyzed cases follows.
2. Background
Consumer Protection and Public Input: CFPB’s Challenges
The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to “establish . . . reasonable procedures to
provide a timely response to consumers, in writing where appropriate, to complaints against,
or inquiries concerning” covered consumer financial service providers.
13
The statute also
requires consumer finance companies to provide a timely response to the Bureau concerning
consumer complaints forwarded by the Bureau to the company.
14
Under federal law, a
company’s response must include an account of any steps taken to respond to the complaint,
any responses received from customers, and any follow-up actions taken or planned by the
company as a result of the complaint.
15
To implement this Congressional directive, the CFPB has created the Office of
Consumer Response that operates a web-based intake portal and a telephone call center.
16
The
CFPB call center currently handles about 24,000 phone calls per month in over 180
13
12 U.S.C. § 5534(a) (establishing consumer complaint response authorities and responsibilities).
14
Id. at § 5534(b).
15
Id.
16
FIN. REP. OF THE CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU: FISCAL YEAR 2016, 23 (Nov. 15, 2016). Consumers may also
submit complaints by mail, email, fax, and through referrals from Congress and other government agencies. The Bureau
also maintains resources for accepting complaints from consumers with hearing and speech impediments. C
ONSUMER
FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU, CONSUMER RESPONSE ANN. REP. 4-5 (January 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-response-annual-report_2017.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 8
languages.
17
The CFPB analyzes data collected through the complaint portal to assess whether
companies are providing meaningful, timely responses, and to ensure that consumers,
Congress, the Bureau, other policy makers have reliable information about complaint trends
in the marketplace.
18
To this end, federal law requires Director Kraninger to “present an
annual report to Congress not later than March 31 of each year on the complaints received by
the Bureau in the prior year regarding consumer financial products and services.”
19
The report
must include “information and analysis about complaint numbers, complaint types, and, where
applicable, information about resolution of complaints.”
20
In its latest report to Congress, the CFPB reported receiving approximately 329,000
consumer complaints in the prior year.
21
The Bureau classified complaints based on the
financial product area or service generating each complaint. Figure 1 summarizes data for the
six leading sources of consumer complaints by type of financial product or service.
22
The
leading source of complaints was credit or other consumer reporting, which accounted for
about 37% of all complaints. This reflects approximately 121,000 individual complaints about
credit reporting. The second most complained-about activity was debt collection practices,
reflecting a quarter of all complaints. Mortgage loans produced 10% of complaints. Credit
cards, deposit accounts, and student loans were the next three leading sources of complaint
with 9%, 7%, and 3% of complaints respectively.
23
An independent textual analysis of the
Bureau’s published complaints found that the complaints of many consumers contained
“markers of anger, fear, frustration, and sadness.”
24
17
Id. at 5-6.
18
Id. at 6.
19
12 U.S.C. § 5493(b)(3)(C).
20
Id.
21
SEMIANNUAL REP. OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION, supra note 12, at 18.
22
Data in Figure 1 reflects the CFPB’s most recent semiannual report to congress, which included complaints filed from
October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. Id.
23
Additional product complaint categories included: money transfer or service, including virtual currencies (3%), vehicle
loans and leases (3%), personal loans (1%), payday loans (.7%), prepaid cards (.7%), credit repair (.3%), and title loans
(2%). Id.
24
Pamela Foohey, Calling on the CFPB for Help: Telling Stories and Consumer Protection, 80 L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 177, 207
(2017).
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 9
In addition to informing Congress and the public, there is an expectation that the
CFPB’s complaint data should help guide the Bureau’s law enforcement program.
25
The
Bureau itself explains that it “uses insights gathered from complaint data and analyses to scope
and prioritize” its supervisory exams and enforcement activity.
26
Consumer complaints,
however, should not be an exclusive source of law enforcement programing because certain
consumers are less likely to submit complaints even when harmed. For example, studies
suggest consumers with socioeconomic challenges are less likely to complain about illegal
activity or poor treatment.
27
Indeed, many Americans, especially those with less education and
lower incomes, are unaware of the existence of the CFPB.
28
Nevertheless, while not perfect,
the CFPB’s web-intake portal and call center make its complaint data one of the best available
sources of information on trends, developments, and problems in the consumer finance
market. As such, CFPB consumer response data are an important benchmark for evaluating
the Bureau’s own law enforcement performance. The consumer complaints are a particularly
25
See, e.g., Alan S. Kaplinsky, CFPB Expanded Consumer Complaint Database Raises Concerns, 67 CONSUMER FIN. L.Q. REP.
189, 189 (2013) (influential financial services attorney stating that “[I]t would be foolish for banks and other companies to
ignore the database. The CFPB has repeatedly stated that it will consider complaints as a basis for deciding who to examine
and/or investigate.”).
26
SEMIANNUAL REP. OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION, supra note 12, at 19.
27
Angie Littwin, Why Process Complaints? Then and Now, 87 TEMPLE L. REV. 895, 908 (2015) (“The CFPB complainants
appear to have a higher average median income and higher levels of education than the general population . . . .”); Amy J.
Schmitz, Access to Consumer Remedies in the Squeaky Wheel System, 39 P
EPP. L. REV. 279, 302-303 (2012) (finding correlation
between educational attainment and likelihood of complaining about product defects); Arthur Best & Alan R. Andreasen,
Consumer Response to Unsatisfactory Purchases: A Survey of Perceiving Defects, Voicing Complaints, and Obtaining Redress, 11 L.
&
SOC’Y REV. 701, 727 (1977) (discussing the role of socioeconomic status in complaints). Cf Ian Ayres et al., Skeletons in the
Database: An Early Analysis of the CFPB’s Consumer Complaints, 19 F
ORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN. L. 343, 343 (2014) (finding
mortgage complaints per mortgage increased in ZIP codes with larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents).
28
Fred. O. Williams, Poll: Few Aware of Embattled Consumer Watchdog. Despite $12 Billion in Refunds to 27 Million Consumers,
CFPB is still Largely Unknown, C
REDITCARDS.COM, (Mar. 1, 2017), https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/cfpb-
consumer-watchdog-poll.php.
37%
25%
10%
9%
7%
3%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Credit
reporting
Debt
collection
Mortgages Credit cards Checking or
savings
Student
loans
Others
Figure 1. Percent of Consumer Complaints Submitted to
the CFPB by Type of Product or Service, 2017-2018.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 10
useful factor in evaluating whether the CFPB’s public law enforcement cases are responsive
to the needs and concerns of the American public.
29
The CFPB’s Supervision and Enforcement Authorities
Congress has provided a formidable set of law enforcement tools to assist the Bureau
in responding to consumers’ complaints. In the CFPA, Congress gave the CFPB jurisdiction
over “[f]ederal consumer financial law.”
30
This phrase encompasses jurisdiction over 18
enumerated consumer protection statutes (such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act),
31
the CFPA itself, including its prohibition of “unfair,
deceptive, or abusive acts and practices” in consumer finance, and any regulation the CFPB
issues in implementing these statutes.
32
Under the CFPA, the CFPB’s jurisdiction extends to
any “covered person . . . offering or providing a consumer financial product or service.”
33
The CFPA tasked the Bureau with enforcing federal consumer financial law through
two primary mechanisms. First, the CFPA established within the Bureau an Office of
Enforcement charged with enforcing federal consumer financial laws either through
29
Litwin, supra note 27, at 896; William C. Whitford & Spencer L. Kimball, Why Process Consumer Complaints? A Case Study
of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of Wisconsin, 1974 W
ISC. L. REV. 639, 670.
30
12 U.S.C. § 5511(a).
31
12 U.S.C. § 5481(a)(12) (transferring the implementation of these 18 enumerated consumer protection statutes away
from the Federal Reserve and other agencies and to the CFPB). The 18 enumerated consumer laws include: The Alternative
Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, Public L. No. 97-320, 96 Stat. 1545 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 39);
The Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-240, 90 Stat. 257 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1667-1667f);
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321, 92 Stat. 3728 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 6);
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321, 88 Stat. 1521 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 4);
The Fair Credit Billing Act, Pub. L. No. 93-495, 88 Stat. 1511 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 1, pt. D);
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321, 84 Stat. 1128 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 3)
(excluding §§ 615(e), 628, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681m(e), 1681w); The Home Owners Protection Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-
216, 112 Stat. 897 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 49); The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321,
91 Stat. 874 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 5); Federal Deposit Insurance Act § 43(b)-(f), 64 Stat. 873
(codified as amended 12 U.S.C. §§ 1831t(c)–(f)); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. L. No. 106-102, §§ 502-09, 113 Stat. 1338
(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6802-6809) (excluding § 505 as it applies to § 501(b)); The Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-200, 89 Stat. 1125 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 29); The Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2190 (codified as amended at to various parts of Truth in
Lending Act, particularly 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-02, §§1639-41); The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, Pub. L.
No. 93-533, 88 Stat. 1724 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 27); The S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, Pub.
L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2810 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 51); The Truth in Lending Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321,
82 Stat. 146 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch. 1); The Truth in Savings Act, Pub. L. No. 102-242, 105 Stat.
2334 (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. ch. 44); Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 626, 123 Stat.
524 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1638); and The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, Pub. L. No. 90-448, 82
Stat. 590 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 42).
32
12 U.S.C. § 5481(a)(14). The definition reads:
The term “Federal consumer financial law” means the provisions of this title, the enumerated consumer
laws, the laws for which authorities are transferred under subtitles F and H, and any rule or order
prescribed by the Bureau under this subchapter, an enumerated consumer law, or pursuant to the
authorities transferred under subtitles F and H. The term does not include the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
Id.
33
12 U.S.C. § 5481(a)(6)(A).
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 11
administrative enforcement procedures
34
or through the CFPB’s authority to litigate in federal
court.
35
CFPB administrative enforcement actions are conducted under a CFPB regulation
that largely mirrors other administrative enforcement agencies, with trials before an
administrative law judge and decisions reviewable on appeal to the Bureau’s Director.
36
Congress also authorized the Bureau to bring enforcement actions in federal court.
37
Consumer enforcement cases are litigated by the Bureau itself and are independent from the
Department of Justice.
38
In both administrative enforcement and litigation in federal courts,
the Bureau’s enforcement authority extends to all nondepository covered persons as well as
any bank or credit union with more than $10 billion in assets.
39
Prior to initiating public enforcement actions, Congress authorized the CFPB to
conduct investigations of potential violations of federal consumer financial law.
40
To set limits
upon and articulate expectations for Bureau investigations, the CFPB published a regulation
defining its rules relating to investigations following a public notice and comment period.
41
Under federal law and the Bureau’s regulation, the CFPB investigators have the authority to
serve subpoenas, issue civil investigative demands, or compel testimony at investigative
hearings.
42
The Bureau’s investigative powers extend not only to covered persons, but also to
anyone who Bureau investigators reasonably believe has evidence relevant to an
investigation.
43
If it uncovers violations of federal consumer financial law, the CFPB is entitled
to seek a wide variety of equitable and monetary remedies including restitution, disgorgement,
and civil money penalties.
44
Second, the CFPA directed the Bureau to establish a supervision program that is
separate from the Bureau’s Office of Enforcement. Unlike law enforcement actions,
supervisory examinations are audits designed to assess compliance with the law, obtain
information about activities, procedures, and compliance systems, as well as detect and assess
risks to consumers and markets.
45
Whereas law enforcement actions are carried out in open
court or a public administrative proceeding, supervisory exams are confidential, though they
can lead to an enforcement action when the exam uncovers evidence of a serious violation of
the law. The Bureau’s supervisory jurisdiction is similar to, but somewhat narrower than, its
enforcement jurisdiction. As with enforcement, the Bureau’s supervisory jurisdiction covers
all large banks and credit unions with total assets over $10 billion.
46
In addition, Congress
authorized the Bureau to supervise a list of specific types of nondepository covered persons
34
12 U.S.C. § 5563(a).
35
12 U.S.C. § 5564(a).
36
12 C.F.R. pt. 1081.
37
12 U.S.C. § 5564(a) (2012).
38
12 U.S.C. § 5564(b) (“[t]he Bureau may act in its own name and through its own attorneys . . . in any action, suit, or
proceeding to which the Bureau is a party.”).
39
12 U.S.C. §§ 5514(c); 5515(c).
40
12. U.S.C. § 5562.
41
12 C.F.R. pt. 1080.
42
12 C.F.R. §§ 1080.1-.14.
43
See DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ¶ 4665 (CCH attorneys eds., 2010).
44
12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(2).
45
CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU, CFPB SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION PROCESS, 3 (Feb. 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervision-and-examination-manual.pdf.
46
12 U.S.C.. § 5515(b).
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 12
that includes mortgage originators, mortgage servicers, lenders offering private student loans,
and payday lenders.
47
The CFPA also authorizes the Bureau to assert supervisory jurisdiction
over other large or especially risky nonbank covered persons by issuing regulations.
48
During
Director Cordray’s tenure, the Bureau used this authority to issue “larger participant” rules
creating supervisory jurisdiction over large nondepository financial services businesses
including consumer reporting agencies, debt collection businesses, student loan servicers,
international remittance providers, and automobile finance companies.
49
Unlike enforcement investigations, which are normally focused on particular suspected
violations of the law, supervisory exams allow the Bureau to conduct a more general audit of
a supervised company.
50
The CFPB uses a “risk-based” approach in scheduling supervised
businesses for exams in order “to direct resources toward areas with higher degrees of risk.”
51
The Bureau also publishes and regularly updates an exam manual that sets out exam processes
in detail.
52
In CFPB exams, examiners generally seek a relatively unrestricted review of
businesses records, interviews of key employees, and access to management systems.
53
For
example, an exam typically includes obtaining and reviewing documents such as process
flowcharts, organizational charts, annual reports, and board meeting minutes.
54
Additionally,
examiners often obtain aggregate data on the business such as the pricing structures of relevant
products or services and the sources of the institution’s revenue. Exams can also include
reviewing random samples of telephone recordings, notes, account documentation,
disclosures, operating checklists, worksheets, and training materials.
55
Bureau examinations
can help a supervised company restructure their business practices and change corporate
culture to prevent violations of the law before they occur. Moreover, supervisory exams can
identify violations of the law that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Many of the Bureau’s
most important public enforcement actions arose out of confidential supervisory exams.
56
47
12 U.S.C. § 5514(a)(1).
48
Id.
49
See 12 C.F.R. § 1090.104-.107 (2018).
50
See Jean Braucher & Angela Littwin, Examination as a Method of Consumer Protection, 58 ARIZ. L. REV. 34, 68-71 (2016).
51
CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU, Examinations and Targeted Reviews, in CFPB SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION
M
ANUAL, 1 (Feb. 2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervision-and-examination-
manual.pdf.
52
See generally CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU, CFPB SUPERVISION AND EXAMINATION MANUAL (February 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervision-and-examination-manual.pdf.
53
Eric J. Mogilnicki, Preparing for CFPB Examinations, 2013 BUS. L. TODAY 1, 1 (2013).
54
See, e.g., CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION BUREAU, Examination Procedures: Debt Collection, in CFPB SUPERVISION AND
EXAMINATION MANUAL, 3 (Feb. 2019), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervision-and-
examination-manual.pdf.
55
Id.
56
The CFPA also established an Office of Fair Lending that works hand-in-hand with enforcement and supervisory staff
to enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibits discriminating against a list of protected classes of people
in the provision of financial services. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 13
3. Methods: Classifying the CFPB’s Track Record in
Public Law Enforcement Cases
This study identifies and classifies every public CFPB enforcement case from the
inception of the CFPB through the end of the first three months of Director Kathleen
Kraninger’s term in office. Public CFPB enforcement actions were identified through the
CFPB’s website, press releases, annual reports to Congress, administrative adjudication
docket, and searches of the Bureau’s unsealed federal court pleadings. For each case, the CFPB
has released some legal documentation of the enforcement matter. Typically, these documents
include one or more of the following: a notice of charges, a complaint, a consent order, a
stipulation consenting to issuance of a consent order, or a settlement agreement. For cases
pursued through the CFPB’s administrative enforcement procedures, the Bureau’s Office of
Administrative Adjudication (“OAA”) maintains a docket sheet that includes all publicly
available pleadings, motions, and orders. For cases in litigation, court filings were accessed as
necessary through the publicly available PACER system provided by the U.S. judiciary.
For each of the CFPB’s public enforcement matters, these documents were reviewed
and coded using over 70 different variables. The data set analyzed in this study updates and
expands upon a data set compiled for a previous study reported in the Tulane Law Review.
57
This study also classifies every violation of law the CFPB has asserted in public enforcement
actions based on the statute providing the legal authority for the claim. These classifications
include all 18 enumerated statutes set out in the Dodd-Frank Act, additional law that Congress
subsequently added to the Bureau’s enforcement jurisdiction, as well as the Bureau’s unfair,
deceptive, and abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”) authorities. This study also classified the
financial product or service involved in each case based on the following categories: credit
cards, mortgage loans, student loans, automobile purchase loans, nonauto retail finance,
deposit accounts, remittances, pawn credit, payday loans (including similar small installment
loans and car title lending), medical debt, and payment processing services.
58
The study also coded cases based on the date the Bureau announced each case, and the
date the case was resolved (if any). For every public CFPB enforcement matter the study also
identified the dollar amounts of total consumer redress and civil money penalties awarded in
all consent orders, final administrative orders, or judgments imposed. The study also tracked
which Director was at the helm of the CFPB with respect to the announcement and resolution
of each matter. Additionally, the number of weeks each Director oversaw the Bureau’s work
was also tracked in order to compare the pace and productivity of the Bureau’s enforcement
work under each leader.
57
Peterson, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Law Enforcement: An Empirical Review, supra note 4, at 1073-76 (2016).
58
Id. Additional studied variables not reported herein included: whether each case was filed as an administrative
enforcement matter or in U.S. district court; whether the case was settled or contested upon announcement; whether the
case involved a bank, credit union, or some other non-depository company; whether the Bureau charged an individual
defendant with violating the law; whether the Bureau worked in partnership with another law enforcement agency and if
so with whom; whether the case produced an negative outcome from the Bureau’s perspective; and whether the defendants
included an attorney or law firm.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 14
Finally, the study used the CFPB’s Consumer Response complaint database to gather
data on consumer complaints. Complaint data was correlated to coincide with each of the
CFPB’s three Directors’ terms in office. Using the complaint database’s filtering functions, the
number and type of complaints were divided by financial product or service area. Then, for
each of the six financial product areas most commonly complained about, the Consumer
Response database’s filtering function was used to further subdivide by the issue raised in
within each complaint.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 15
4. Results: CFPB Law Enforcement Productivity Has
Plummeted Under the Trump Administration’s
Leadership
From 2012 through 2015 the number of public CFPB enforcement cases grew steadily
as the agency established its procedures and hired staff. As illustrated in Figure 2, the
Bureau reached its peak productivity, as measured by the number of cases announced per year,
with 55 cases in 2015. In 2016 and 2017 the Bureau continued to announce between 3 and 3.5
cases per month. However, following President Trump’s appointment of Acting Director
Mulvaney, the number of CFPB enforcement cases declined dramatically to less than one case
per month, with only 11 cases announced in 2018. Overall, the number of public enforcement
cases announced in 2018 declined by 80% from the Bureau’s peak productivity in 2015.
Table 1 provides another measure of declining CFPB enforcement productivity by
tracking the number of cases announced per week as well as the amount of restitution ordered
in each matter. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, when investigation subjects are found to have
violated federal consumer financial law, the CFPB is authorized to seek consumer restitution
by ordering funds to be returned to consumers or offset against borrowers’ outstanding
debts.
59
During Director Cordray’s tenure, the Bureau’s 201 public law enforcement cases
produced nearly $12 billion in consumer relief. On average, each enforcement case ordered
about $59.6 million dollars in refunds or forgiven debts. With a pace of about .72 cases per
59
12 U.S.C. § 5565(a)(2)(c).
8
27
32
55
42
37
11
58
663
970
1335
1443
1529
1648
1668
1510
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Figure 2. Public CFPB Enforcement Cases and Total
CFPB Employees by Year, 2010-2018.
Public enforcement actions CFPB employees
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 16
week, the Bureau returned about $43 million in restitution to consumers each week of Director
Cordray’s term in office.
Table 1. Consumer Restitution Ordered in All Public CFPB
Enforcement Cases by Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray
Mulvaney
Kraninger
No. cases
201
11
5
Announced cases per week 0.72 0.20 0.38
Total consumer relief $11,980,130,720 $345,094,707 $12,028,522
Consumer relief per week
$43,016,627
$6,390,643
$925,271
Mean consumer relief per case
$59,602,640
$31,372,246
$2,405,704
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
Acting Director Mulvaney’s law enforcement track record shows fewer cases per week
and smaller restitution awards per case. During Acting Director Mulvaney’s 54 weeks in office,
the Bureau announced 11 total law enforcement cases at a rate of 0.2 cases per week. On
average, these cases returned a respectable $31 million in relief to consumers per case. Most
of this relief was driven by one large $335 million credit card case against Citibank.
60
During
Director Kraninger’s first three months in office, the pace of announced cases slightly
recovered to 0.38 cases per week, but was still about half the pace set by Director Cordray.
Additionally, the amount of relief per case plummeted with an average of only $2.4 million in
relief per action—a 96% decline in mean per-case relief during Director Cordray’s tenure.
It is possible that declining consumer relief in CFPB enforcement actions simply
reflects the amount of relief appropriate under the facts and circumstances of each case. This
caveat is particularly important given Director Kraninger’s relatively small body of law
enforcement work. Nevertheless, analyzing enforcement cases though the lens of the product
areas that produce the most consumer complaints reveals additional indicia of declining
enforcement productivity.
60
See In re Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0003 (Jun. 29, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_citibank-na_consent-order_2018-06.pdf. Acting Director
Mulvaney’s term in office did see the Bureau’s largest civil money penalty, which was imposed on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
The CFPB has announced five different law enforcement cases against Wells Fargo. See Appendix infra. Following the fifth
case, the Bureau imposed a one-billion-dollar civil money penalty on the bank. In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CFPB No.
2018-BCFP-0001 (Apr. 20, 2018), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_wells-fargo-bank-na_consent-
order_2018-04.pdf. However, Wells Fargo received credit towards its penalty by paying a fine that was simultaneously
imposed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currently, so the bank ended up paying a total of only $500 million into
the Bureau’s civil money penalty fund. See S
EMIANNUAL REP. OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FIN. PROTECTION, supra
note 12, at 22. While the Bureau’s consent order also called for some restitution to be paid by Wells Fargo to its customers,
the order did not announce any dollar amount of restitution ordered and we could not locate any publicly available
documentation of restitution provided by the bank to its customers. Accordingly, Acting Director Mulvaney’s relief
numbers may be understated due to the Bureau’s opacity in the case.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 17
Credit Reporting
Credit reporting practices have been a leading source of consumer complaints
submitted to the CFPB during the Trump administration. Figure 3 presents complaint data
drawn from the CFPB’s Consumer Response complaint database. During the terms of Acting
Director Mulvaney and Director Kraninger, Americans submitted 139,134 complaints
regarding credit reporting practices. Over 84,000 of these complaints reflected consumers’
concerns that their credit reports included inaccurate information. Consumers submitted
nearly 30,000 complaints regarding a credit reporting company’s investigation of an existing
problem. Thousands more consumers complained about companies improperly using their
credit report, their inability to access their own credit reports or scores, and problems with
fraud alerts and security freezes.
Federal law provides the CFPB with authority that may address many of the credit-
reporting-related complaints submitted in recent years. For example, under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”), credit reporting agencies are required to take reasonable steps to
ensure credit reports do not include inaccurate information. Specifically, federal law requires
that “[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning
the individual about whom the report relates.”
61
Similarly, when consumers dispute
information provided in their credit reports, federal law requires that credit reporting agencies
“shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed
information is inaccurate.”
62
Federal law also requires credit reporting agencies to adopt a
61
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
62
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
2,318
2,228
2,857
16,570
31,082
84,079
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
Others
Problems with fraud alerts or security freezes
Unable to obtain a credit report or score
Improper use of a report
Problems with a credit reporting company's
investigation into an exiting problem
Incorrect Information on report
Figure 3. Consumer Complaints to the CFPB Regarding Credit
Reporting Practices During Trump Administration Appointee
Terms in Office, November 24, 2017-March 8, 2019.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 18
variety of procedures that allow consumers to protect themselves from identity theft, fraud,
and data breaches.
63
Despite the high number of consumer complaints submitted to the Bureau and the
legal tools it has at its disposal, CFPB law enforcement actions have not returned any consumer
relief to the public under the Fair Credit Reporting Act during the Trump administration.
Table 2 presents data on every CFPB enforcement action that pleaded FCRA violations.
Under Director Cordray, the CFPB announced 24 FCRA cases at a pace of .09 cases per week.
These cases produced an average of around $16 million in restitution per case, reflecting $1.4
million in consumer relief per week.
Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, the CFPB has announced only two
FCRA cases. Acting Director Mulvaney announced both enforcement actions citing FCRA
violations, reflecting a pace .04 cases per week during his term in office. However, in both
cases, the CFPB agreed to settlements without ordering any restitution to the consumers
victimized by reporting agencies’ violations of federal law.
64
The Bureau’s case against State
Farm Bank, FSB, is particularly notable because the CFPB agreed to settle the Bureau’s law
enforcement case without imposing any financial damages, disgorgement, or financial penalty
of any kind. Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, State Farm Bank, a large financial
institution with over $16.6 billion in assets, paid less than a parking ticket to resolve serious
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
65
Moreover, although tens of thousands of
American consumers have submitted complaints about credit reporting practices during her
term in office, Director Kraninger has not announced any enforcement cases under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
Table 2. Consumer Restitution in Public CFPB Cases
Enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act by Director,
2012-2019.
Cordray
Mulvaney
Kraninger
No. cases
24
2
0
Announced cases per week
0.09
0.04
0.00
Total consumer relief
$390,157,992
$0
$0
Consumer relief per week $1,400,926 $0 $0
Mean consumer relief per case
$16,256,583
$0
-
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
63
See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1.
64
See In re Security Group, Inc., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0002 (Jun. 13, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_security-group-inc_consent-order_2018-06.pdf;
In re State Farm Bank, FSB, CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0009 (Dec. 6, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_state-farm-bank_consent-order.pdf.
65
CHRISTOPHER L. PETERSON, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, THE LARGE BANK PROTECTION ACT: RAISING
THE
CFPB’S ENFORCEMENT AND SUPERVISION ASSET THRESHOLD WOULD PLACE AMERICAN CONSUMERS AT RISK
14 (May 3, 2018), https://consumerfed.org/reports/the-large-bank-protection-act/.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 19
Debt Collection Practices
Debt collection practices have been the second leading source of consumer complaints
to the CFPB during the Trump Administration. Figure 5 presents complaint data drawn from
the CFPB’s Consumer Response complaint database. During Acting Director Mulvaney and
Director Kraninger’s terms in office, Americans submitted 62,420 complaints regarding debt
collection practices. Consumers nearly 30,000 times that debt collectors were attempting to
collect debts that they did not owe. Thousands more consumers submitted complaints about
debt collectors’ written correspondence, communication tactics, and threatened actions. Over
5,000 consumers complained that debt collectors had made false statements or representations
in their collection efforts.
Federal law provides a variety of rules designed to promote civility, transparency, and
fairness in our debt collection marketplace. Most notably, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (“FDCPA”) provides a battery of consumer protection laws prohibiting unscrupulous
debt collection practices. For example, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using “any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with collecting a debt.”
66
Nor may
debt collectors “engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress,
or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”
67
Furthermore, federal law
does not allow debt collectors to threaten to take any action that legally cannot be taken or
that they do not intend to take.
68
Despite thousands of consumer complaints and clear federal law under the CFPB’s
jurisdiction, during the Trump Administration’s leadership, CFPB law enforcement cases have
66
15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
67
Id. at § 1692d.
68
Id. at § 1692e(5).
1,643
5,313
5,762
7,333
14,857
27,512
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Others
False statements or representations
Took or threatened to take negative or
legal action
Communication tactics
Written notification about debt
Attempts to collect debt not owed
Figure 4. Consumer Complaints to the CFPB Regarding Debt
Collection Practices During Trump Administration Appointee
Terms in Office, November 24, 2017-March 8, 2019.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 20
not returned any consumer relief to the public under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Table 3 presents data on every CFPB enforcement action that pleaded violations of the
FDCPA. Under Director Cordray, the CFPB announced 20 FDCPA cases at a rate of about
.07 cases per week. These cases returned an average of $39 million in consumer restitution per
case, reflecting a pace of nearly $3 million in restitution per week.
Under the Trump Administration’s leadership, the CFPB has announced only one case
in 67 weeks. In that matter, the CFPB alleged that National Credit Adjusters, LLC and Bradley
Hochstein “engaged in frequent unlawful debt collection acts and practices that harmed
consumers, including by representing that consumers owed more than they were legally
required to pay, or threatening consumers and their family members with lawsuits, visits from
process servers, and arrest, when neither NCA nor the collection companies intended or had
the legal authority to take those actions.”
69
Nevertheless, under Acting Director Mulvaney’s
leadership, the CFPB agreed to settle the case without ordering any restitution for the
consumers the CFPB itself alleged were harmed. Similarly, although thousands of consumers
have submitted debt collection complaints during Director Kraninger’s term in office, the
CFPB has yet to announce any FDCPA law enforcement actions.
Table 3. Consumer Restitution in Public CFPB Cases
Enforcing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray
Mulvaney
Kraninger
No. cases
20
1
0
Announced cases per week
0.07
0.02
0.00
Total consumer relief
$783,276,813
$0
$0
Consumer relief per week
$2,812,484
$0
$0
Mean consumer relief per case
$39,163,841
$0
-
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
69
Press Release, Consumer Fin. Protection Bureau, Bureau Settles with National Credit Adjusters, LLC and Bradley
Hochstein (July 13, 2018), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/bureau-settles-national-credit-
adjusters-llc-and-bradley-hochstein/.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 21
Home Mortgage Loans
The home mortgage market is the nation’s largest financial services market.
Unaffordable lending, inaccurate appraisals, flawed servicing, and deceptive practices in the
mortgage market all contributed to the financial crisis and the Great Recession. While the
mortgage market has stabilized since the recession, thousands of consumers continue to
submit complaints to the CFPB about problems with their home mortgage loans. As illustrated
in Figure 5, during the Trump Administration Appointees’ terms in office, Americans
submitted 30,266 complaints to the CFPB. The leading source of complaints – comprising
nearly half of all complaints received – involved challenges faced by consumers during the
mortgage-payment process. Moreover, over ten thousand consumers submitted complaints
about struggling to pay their mortgage loans. Other common sources of complaints during
the Trump administration include difficulties applying for loans, closing on mortgages, and
using incorrect information.
Federal law provides extensive legal tools the CFPB can use to assist consumers facing
unlawful practices in the mortgage market. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act adopted an
ability-to-repay standard that the Bureau later codified through its Qualified Mortgage
regulation.
70
Moreover, the Bureau is responsible for enforcing the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, and its implementing regulations, which require mortgage-closing-cost
disclosures, prohibit kickbacks in closing between real estate professionals, and provide a
variety of mortgage loan servicing standards and procedures.
71
70
See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.43 (2016).
71
See 12 U.S.C. §§ 2603–2607.
491
621
2,018
2,339
10,675
14,122
- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Others
Incorrect information
Closing on a mortgage
Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an
existing mortgage
Struggling to pay a mortgage
Trouble during payment process
Figure 5. Consumer Complaints to the CFPB Regarding
Mortgage Loans During Trump Administration Appointee
Terms in Office, November 24, 2017-March 8, 2019.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 22
Table 4 presents data on every public CFPB enforcement case related to mortgage
lending. During Director Cordray’s tenure, the CFPB announced 61 mortgage-related
enforcement actions at a pace of .22 cases per week. These cases produced roughly $48 million
in consumer restitution per case, reflecting about $10.6 million in consumer relief per week.
Under the leadership of President Trump’s appointees, the number of mortgage-
related enforcement actions has plunged. Acting Director Mulvaney announced two
mortgage-related enforcement cases at a pace of .04 cases per week, producing about $5,000
per week in restitution for the entire nation. This reflects approximately an 80% decline in the
per-week pace of mortgage-related enforcement actions and a decline in consumer relief per-
week of well over 99%. In her first 13 weeks in office, Director Kraninger has yet to announce
a mortgage lending related enforcement action, leaving her tenure about $138 million in
consumer relief behind the per-week pace of Director Cordray.
Table 4. Restitution in Mortgage-Related Public CFPB
Enforcement Cases by Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray
Mulvaney
Kraninger
No. cases
61
2
0
Announced cases per week 0.22 0.04 0.00
Total consumer relief $2,969,543,550 $268,869 $0
Consumer relief per week
$10,662,634
$4,979
$0
Mean consumer relief per case $48,681,042 $134,435 -
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 23
Student Loans
Student loans are the nation’s second largest consumer financial services market. Over
44 million Americans owe more than $1.5 trillion dollars in combined student debt. Student
loans also present challenges for borrowers because they are not ordinarily dischargeable in
bankruptcy in the absence of “undue hardship.”
72
Most public student loans are collected by
servicers hired by the Department of Education, but subject to CFPB enforcement. Pursuant
to this authority to regulate servicers, the Dodd-Frank Act established the office of a student
lending ombudsperson within the CFPB. During the Obama administration, the CFPB located
this ombudsperson position in an Office for Students and Young Consumers within the
Bureau’s Consumer Engagement and Empowerment Division. Acting Director Mulvaney
decided to close the Office for Students and Young Consumers and reassign its staff to serve
within the Office of Financial Education. The latter office is tasked with providing educational
materials to consumers rather than serving as a complaint ombudsperson. In August of 2018,
the Bureau’s student loan ombudsman resigned in protest, leaving the position unfilled for
months.
73
While the Bureau’s student lending oversight has been in turmoil, thousands of
consumers have continued to submit student loan complaints. By far the largest category of
these complaints were from consumers who had difficulty dealing with their student loan
lender or servicer.
Table 5 presents data on every public CFPB enforcement action relating to student
loans. Under Director Cordray, the Bureau announced 15 cases related to student loans,
72
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
73
Stacy Cowley, Student Loan Watchdog Quits, Saying Trump Administration is Harming Students, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 27, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/business/cfpb-frotman-student-loans.html.
60
212
212
596
2,746
7,177
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Others
Problem with an investigation into an
existing problem
Getting a loan
Incorrect information
Struggling to repay your loan
Dealing with your lender or servicer
Figure 6. Consumer Complaints to the CFPB Regarding
Student Loans During Trump Administration Appointee
Terms in Office, November 24, 2017-March 8, 2019.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 24
reflecting a pace of .05 cases per week. These cases generated about $47.5 million in consumer
restitution per case, which amounted to about $2.5 million in relief per week.
Under the leadership of the Trump Administration, the CFPB has not announced any
student lending related law enforcement action. In this 1.4 trillion-dollar market, the Bureau’s
law enforcement program under Trump appointees has not produced any refunds or forgiven
debts for student borrowers. Had a Trump-appointee-led CFPB maintained the pace of
consumer restitution under Director Cordray, the Bureau would have produced over $171
million in forgiven debts and refunds.
Table 5. Restitution in Student-Lending-Related Public
CFPB Enforcement Cases by Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray Mulvaney Kraninger
No. cases
15
0
0
Announced cases per week 0.05 0.00 0.00
Total consumer relief
$712,530,184
$0
$0
Consumer relief per week
$2,558,457
$0
$0
Mean consumer relief per case $47,502,012 - -
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 25
5. Under the Trump Administration, the CFPB is Not
Providing Adequate Restitution to Consumers
Harmed by Illegal Discrimination or Deceptive
Practices
Congress adopted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) to prohibit
discrimination against protected classes of consumers during any stage of a credit
transaction.
74
Under EOCA, it is illegal to discriminate against consumers on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the receipt of public benefits, or the
exercise of one’s rights under certain federal consumer protection laws.
75
The Dodd-Frank
Act established the CFPB as the nation’s primary regulatory and enforcement authority with
respect to this important civil rights law. In setting out the objectives of the Bureau, Congress
authorized the Bureau to exercise its authorities under ECOA to ensure that, with respect to
consumer financial products and services, “consumers are protected . . . from
discrimination.”
76
To ensure that the Bureau has the resources and leadership necessary to enforce
ECOA, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Director of the CFPB to “establish within the
Bureau the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity.”
77
The statute grants the Office of
Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity certain powers and duties delegated to it by the Director,
“including---providing oversight and enforcement of Federal laws intended to ensure the fair,
equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit . . . .”
78
Under the Obama Administration’s
leadership, the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity was housed within the Bureau’s
Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending division. Under this arrangement, the Fair
Lending Office had its own law enforcement staff and coordinated its examination and
investigatory activities with the other law enforcement related offices in the division. This
arrangement resulted in 11 publicly-announced cases enforcing ECOA at a pace of .04 cases
per week. As illustrated in Table 6, these cases generated an average of about $56 million in
restitution per case which amounted to about $2.2 million in consumer relief per week.
However, in February of 2018, Acting Director Mulvaney announced plans to strip the
Office of Fair Lending of its law enforcement powers and repurpose its staff to “focus on
advocacy, coordination, and education.”
79
Given the historical sensitivity surrounding race
74
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 90-321, 88 Stat. 1521 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. ch. 41, subch.
4).
75
15 U.S.C. § 1691(a).
76
12 U.S.C. § 5511(b)(2)
77
12 U.S.C. § 5493(c).
78
Id. at § 5493(c)(2)(A).
79
Kate Berry, CFPB’s Mulvaney Strips his Fair-Lending Office of Enforcement Powers, AM. BANKER, Feb. 1, 2018,
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/cfpbs-mulvaney-strips-his-fair-lending-office-of-enforcement-powers.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 26
relations in America, the organizational change was met with considerable controversy.
80
This
turmoil was exacerbated when the Washington Post reported that the political appointee
charged with enforcing fair lending laws had written racially-charged anonymous blog posts.
81
Table 6. Restitution in Public CFPB Cases Enforcing the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act by Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray Mulvaney Kraninger
No. cases
11
0
0
Announced cases per week 0.04 0.00 0.00
Total consumer relief
$618,726,890
$0
$0
Consumer relief per week $2,221,641 $0 $0
Mean consumer relief per case
$56,247,899
-
-
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed
to directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
Under this cloud, the Bureau’s anti-discrimination law enforcement program has not
been productive. The Office of Fair Lending has not announced or resolved a single anti-
discrimination case under Acting Director Mulvaney’s controversial Associate Director, nor
has the CFPB provided any restitution to protected classes of borrowers for illegal
discrimination.
The CFPB’s law enforcement program also shows troubling signs of decline with
respect to the prohibition of deceptive acts and practices. Under federal law it is illegal for a
financial services company to make a material misrepresentation that is likely to mislead
consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.
82
Director Kraninger has agreed that
“Nothing is more destructive to competitive markets and consumer choice than fraudulent
behavior.”
83
In her confirmation hearing, she promised that, if confirmed, she would “take
aggressive action against bad actors who break the rules by engaging in fraud and other
illegal activity.”
80
See, e.g., Donna Borak, Change could weaken fair lending office at consumer bureau, CNN BUS. (Feb. 2, 2018, 10:19 a.m.),
https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/01/news/economy/cfpb-mulvaney-enforcement-office/index.html; Kate Berry,
CFPB’s Mulvaney strips his fair-lending office of enforcement powers, A
M. BANKER (Feb. 1, 2018, 6:43 p.m.),
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/cfpbs-mulvaney-strips-his-fair-lending-office-of-enforcement-powers.
81
Robert O’Harrow, Jr., et al., Trump Anti-Discrimination Official Once Called Most Hate Crimes Hoaxes, WASH. POST (Sept.
26, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-anti-discrimination-official-once-called-most-hate-
crimes-hoaxes/2018/09/26/05438bbe-c0fe-11e8-92f2-ac26fda68341_story.html?utm_term=.fb7d96416600 (“A senior
Trump appointee responsible for enforcing laws against financial discrimination once questioned in blog posts written
under a pen name if using the n-word was inherently racist and claimed that the great majority of hate crimes were
hoaxes.”).
82
12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B); FTC POLICY STATEMENT ON DECEPTION, Appended to In Re Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103
F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984).
83
Nomination of Kathleen L. Kraninger: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 115th Cong. (2018),
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kraninger%20Testimony%207-19-183.pdf, (prepared statement of
Kathleen L. Kraninger).
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 27
Table 7 illustrates the CFPB’s track record with respect to enforcing the federal
prohibition of deceptive practices in consumer finance. Under Director Cordray, the Bureau
announced 116 public enforcement cases that pleaded deceptive acts or practices at a pace of
.42 cases per week. These cases generated an average of over $94 million in consumer
restitution per case which amounted to about $39 million in consumer relief per week.
Table 7. Public CFPB Enforcement Cases Against Deceptive
Trade Practices by Director, 2012-2019.
Cordray
Mulvaney
Kraninger
No. cases
116
6
3
Announced cases per week
0.42
0.11
0.23
Total consumer relief
$10,910,052,273
$10,094,707
$0
Consumer relief per week
$39,174,335
$186,939
$0
Mean consumer relief per case $94,052,175 $1,682,451 $0
Source: University of Utah/Consumer Federation of America analysis of publicly announced CFPB
enforcement actions from July 18, 2012-March 8, 2019. Cases and consumer relief figures are attributed to
directors based on the date of first filing and include both direct relief and forgiven debts.
In comparison, the Bureau’s more recent enforcement actions challenging deception
in the marketplace were relatively infrequent and far less compensatory for consumers.
Acting Director Mulvaney announced 6 enforcement actions that pleaded deceptive
practices violations—more than any other type of claim in his tenure. Nevertheless, under
Acting Director Mulvaney, the pace of cases citing deceptive practices violations declined by
nearly 75% in comparison to prior leadership.
For her part, Director Kraninger has announced 3 enforcement cases citing deceptive
practices violations, nearly doubling the case-per-week pace of her predecessor. However,
Director Kraninger’s enforcement cases alleging deception have returned no restitution to
misled victims. So far, Director Kraninger has agreed to settle every case pleading deceptive
practices violations without ordering a single dollar of compensation for harmed consumers.
6. Conclusion
Under the Trump Administration, the number of publicly announced enforcement
actions brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in steep decline. These
reductions in law enforcement activity are occurring in markets with the most consumer
complaints and the largest aggregate volume of credit. Moreover, cases announced and
resolved have provided far less consumer restitution to victims of illegal activity. Overall, the
number of enforcement actions in 2018 declined by 80% from their peak in 2015, and average
per-case monetary relief for victims was down by 96%. The Bureau’s law enforcement track
record also shows wide gaps, including providing no restitution to victims of illegal credit
reporting practices and unlawful debt collection tactics. Under the Trump Administration’s
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 28
leadership, the nation’s primary consumer financial protection agency has not announced or
resolved a single student loan or fair lending case. Even more worrisome, the Bureau has
developed a pattern of agreeing to settle enforcement investigations without providing
restitution to consumers harmed by deceptive practices and other illegal activity.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 29
Appendix. Public CFPB Enforcement Actions:
Chronological List, 2012-2019
1. In re Capital One Bank, (USA) N.A., CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0001 (July 17, 2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_cfpb_consent_order_0001.pdf.
2. In re Discover Bank, CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0005 (Sept. 24, 2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_cfpb_consent_order_0005.pdf.
3. In re Am. Express Centurion Bank, CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0002 (Oct. 1, 2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2012-CFPB-0002-American-Express-Centurion-
Consent-Order.pdf.
4. In re Am. Express Bank, FSB, CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0003 (Oct. 1, 2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_001_Amex_Express_Bank_Conse
nt_Order.pdf.
5. In re Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0004 (Oct. 1,
2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_001_Amex_Express_Travel_Cons
ent_Order.pdf.
6. CFPB v. Jalan, No. SACV12-02088 AG (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_nlhc-tro.pdf.
7. CFPB v. Payday Loan Debt Sol., Inc., No. 1:12-cv-24410-MARTINEZ-MCALILEY
(S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2012), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201212_cfpb_plds-
final-judgment.pdf.
8. CFPB v. Gordon, No. CV12-6147-RSWL (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013),
http://www.cfpbconsumerprotection-
gordon.org/Content/Documents/Stipulated%20Final%20Judgment.pdf.
9. CFPB v. Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp., No. 1:13-cv-21187-GRAHAM/GOOMAN (S.D.
Fla. Apr. 5, 2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201304_cfpb_Doc5_MGIC-
Final-Order.pdf.
10. CFPB v. Genworth Mortg. Ins. Corp., No. 1:13 cv 21183-JLK (King) (S.D. Fla. Apr.
5, 2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201304_cfpb_Doc5_Genworth-Final-
Order.pdf.
11. CFPB v. United Guar. Corp., No. 1:13-cv-21189-KMW (Williams) (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5,
2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201304_cfpb_Doc5_UGI-Final-
Order.pdf.
12. CFPB v. Radian Guar., Inc., No. 1:13-cv-21188-JAL (Lenard) (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201304_cfpb_Doc5_Radian-Final-Order.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 30
13. In re Taylor, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0001 (May 17, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/291305_cfpb_consent-order-0001.pdf.
14. CFPB v. Am. Debt Settlement Sols., Inc., No. 9:13-cv-80548-DMM (S.D. Fla. June 6,
2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201306_cfpb_finalorder_adss_signed-
judgment.pdf.
15. In re Dealers’ Fin. Servs., LLC, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0004 (June 25, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201306_cfpb_consent-order-004.pdf.
16. CFPB v. Morgan Drexen, Inc., No. SACV13-01267 JST (JEMx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20,
2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201308_cfpb_complaint_morgan-
drexen.pdf.
17. In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0007 (Sept. 18, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_jpmc_consent-order.pdf.
18. CFPB v. Meracord LLC, No. 3:13-cv-05871 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201310_cfpb_meracord-proposed-stipulated-
final-judgment-and-consent-order.pdf.
19. In re Washington Fed., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0005 (Oct. 9, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201310_cfpb_consent-order_washington-
federal.pdf.
20. In re Mortg. Master, Inc., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0006 (Oct. 9, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201310_cfpb_consent-order_mortgage-
master.pdf.
21. CFPB v. Borders & Borders, PLC, No. 3:13-mc-99999 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 24, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201310_cfpb_complaint_borders.pdf.
22. CFPB v. Castle & Cooke Mortg., LLC, No. 2:13CV684DAK (D. Utah Nov. 12, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_final-order_castle-cooke.pdf.
23. CFPB v. Republic Mortg. Ins., No. 1:13-cv-24146-JAL (Lenard) (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19,
2013), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_consent-order_RMIC.pdf.
24. In re Cash Am. Int’l, Inc., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0008 (Nov. 20, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2013-cfpb_0008_consent-order.pdf.
25. In re 3D Resorts-Bluegrass, LLC, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0002 (Dec. 2, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent-order_3dresorts-
bluegrass.pdf.
26. In re GE Capital Retail Bank, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0009 (Dec. 10, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent-order_0009.pdf.
27. CFPB v. CashCall, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-13167 (D. Mass. Dec. 16, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_cashcall.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 31
28. CFPB v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 1:13 cv-02025RMC (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403_cfpb_entered-judgment-with-
exhibits_ocwen.pdf.
29. In re Ally Fin., Inc., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0010 (Dec. 19, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent-order_ally.pdf.
30. In re Am. Express Bank, FSB, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0012 (Dec. 24, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_amex_FSB_012.pdf.
31. In re Am. Express Centurion Bank, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0011 (Dec. 24, 2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_amex_centurion_011.pdf.
32. In re Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0013 (Dec. 24,
2013),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_CFPB_Consent_AETRS_013.pdf.
33. CFPB v. Nat’l City Bank, No. 13-1817 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_national-city-bank.pdf.
34. In re Fidelity Mortg. Corp., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0001 (Jan. 15, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401_cfpb_consent-order_fidelity.pdf.
35. In re PHH Corp., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0002 (Jan. 29, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_0002_notice-of-charges.pdf.
36. In re 1st All. Lending, LLC, CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0003 (Feb. 24, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_consent-order_first-alliance.pdf.
37. CFPB v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-292 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_complaint_ITT.pdf.
38. In re Bank of Am., N.A., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0004 (Apr. 7, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201404_cfpb_bankofamerica_consent-order.pdf.
39. In re JRHBW Realty, Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0005 (May 24, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201405_cfpb_consent-order_realty-south-and-
title-south.pdf.
40. In re Stonebridge Title Servs., Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0006 (June 12, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consent-order_stonebridge-title-
services.pdf.
41. In re Synchrony Bank, CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0007 (June 19, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consent-order_synchrony-
bank.pdf.
42. In re ACE Cash Express, Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0008 (July 10, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_consent-order_ace-cash-
express.pdf.
43. CFPB v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C., No. 1:14-cv-02211-AT (N.D. Ga. July
14, 2014), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_complaint_hanna.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 32
44. CFPB v. Siringoringo, No. 2:14-CV-5681 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_complaint_clausen-cobb.pdf.
45. CFPB v. Mortg. Law Grp., LLP, No. 3:14-cv-00513 (W.D. Wis. July 22, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_complaint_cfpb-v-tmlg-et-al.pdf.
46. In re Colfax Capital Corp., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0009 (July 25, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201407_cfpb_consent-order_rome-finance.pdf.
47. In re Amerisave Mortg. Corp., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0010 (Aug. 12, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order_amerisave.pdf.
48. In re USA Discounters, Ltd., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0011 (Aug. 13, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order_usa-
discounters.pdf.
49. In re First Inv’rs Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0012 (Aug. 19, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order_first-investors.pdf.
50. CFPB v. Glob. Client Sols., LLC, No. 2:14-cv-06643-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27,
2014), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order_global-
client-solutions.pdf.
51. CFPB v. Moseley, No. 4:14-cv-00789-DW (W.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_complaint_hydra-group.pdf.
52. CFPB v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., No. 14-7194 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_complaint_corinthian.pdf.
53. In re U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0013 (Sept. 24, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_consent-order_us-bank.pdf.
54. In re Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0014 (Sept. 29, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_consent-order_flagstar.pdf.
55. In re Lighthouse Title, Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0015 (Sept. 25, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_consent-order_lighthouse-
title.pdf.
56. United States v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. 14-1028 (RMC) (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consent-judgement_sun-trust.pdf.
57. In re Mfrs. & Traders Tr. Co., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0016 (Oct. 9, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201410_cfpb_consent-order_m-t.pdf.
58. In re DriveTime Auto. Grp., Inc., CFPB No. 2014-CFPB-0017 (Nov. 17, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201411_cfpb_consent-order_drivetime.pdf.
59. In re U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, CFPB No. 2013-CFPB-0003 (Nov. 12, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201411_cfpb_order-terminating-the-consent-
order.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 33
60. CFPB v. Franklin Loan Corp., No. 5:14-cv-02324-JGB (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201411_cfpb_stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order_franklin-loan.pdf.
61. CFPB v. Premier Consulting Grp. LLC, No. 1:13-cv-03064 (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4,
2014), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb-cfpb-v-premier-consulting-
group-et-al-proposed-stipulated-final-judgment-and-order.pdf.
62. CFPB v. IrvineWebWorks, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-1967 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_complaint_student-loan-
processing.pdf.
63. CFPB v. Freedom Stores, Inc., No. 2:14cv643 ANA/TEM (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2014),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_proposed-order_freedom-
stores_va-nc.pdf.
64. CFPB v. Coll. Educ. Servs. LLC, No. 8:14-cv-03078-T-36-EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201412_cfpb_consent-order_the-college-
education-services.pdf.
65. CFPB v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-cv-00179-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_stamped-exhibit-a-jpmorgan-
consent-judgment-document-3-1.pdf.
66. In re JPMorgan Chase, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0001 (Jan. 22, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_consent-order_jp-morgan-chase-
bank-na.pdf.
67. In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0002 (Jan. 22, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201501_cfpb_consent-order_wells-fargo-bank-
na.pdf.
68. CFPB v. Union Workers Credit Servs., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04410-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_proposed-stipulated-
judgement-and-order_union-workers-credit-services.pdf.
69. In re Cont’l Fin. Co., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0003 (Feb. 4, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_consent-order_continental-
finance.pdf.
70. In re NewDay Fin., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0004 (Feb. 10, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_consent-order_newday-
financial.pdf.
71. In re Am. Preferred Lending, Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0005 (Feb. 10, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_consent-order_american-
preferred-lending.pdf.
72. In re Flagship Fin. Grp., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0006 (Feb. 11, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_consent-order_flagship-financial-
group.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 34
73. CFPB v. All Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00420-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201502_cfpb_complaint_all-financial-
services.pdf.
74. CFPB v. Universal Debt & Payment Sols., LLC, No. 1:15-cv-0859 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_complaint-universal-
debt.pdf.
75. CFPB v. Nat’l Corrective Grp., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00899-RD13 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_proposed-order-national-
corrective-group.pdf.
76. In re RMK Fin. Corp., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0007 (Apr. 8, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_consent-order_rmk-financial-
corporation.pdf.
77. CFPB v. S/W Tax Loans, Inc., No. 15-cv-00299 (D.N.M. Apr. 16, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_stipulation-sw-tax-loans.pdf.
78. In re Fort Knox Nat’l Co., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0008 (Apr. 20, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_regulation-fort-knox-mac-
settlement.pdf.
79. FTC v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 15-cv-02064 (SRN-JSM) (D. Minn. Apr. 23,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_proposed-consent-order-green-tree.pdf.
80. In re Regions Bank, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0009 (Apr. 28, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_consent-order_regions-bank.pdf.
81. CFPB v. Genuine Title, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-01235-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_proposed-order_zukerberg.pdf.
82. In re Int’l Land Consultants, Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0010 (May 1, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb_consent-order-international-land-
consultants.pdf.
83. CFPB v. Harper, No. 14-80931-CIV-COHN-SELTZER (S.D. Fla. May 5-6, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb-stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order-as-to-defendant-marc-hoffman.pdf;
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb-stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order-as-to-defendant-benn-willcox.pdf;
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb_stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order-as-to-defendant-michael-harper.pdf.
84. CFPB v. Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02106 (N.D. Cal. May 11,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb_complaint-nationwide-
biweekly-administration-inc-loan-payment-administration-llc-and-daniel-s-lipsky.pdf.
85. CFPB v. PayPal, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01426 (D. Md. May 20, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb_consent-order-paypal.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 35
86. United States v. Provident Funding Assocs., L.P., No. 15-2373 (N.D. Cal. June 18,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb_consent-order-provident-
funding-associates.pdf.
87. In re Guarantee Mortg. Corp., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0011 (June 3, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_consent-order-guarantee-
mortgage-corporation.pdf.
88. CFPB v. Cellco P’ship, No. 15-3268 (P65) (D.N.J. May 14, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb-cfpb-v-verizon-stipulated-final-
judgment-and-order.pdf.
89. CFPB v. RPM Mortg., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-02475 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2015) (CFPB),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order-as-to-rpm-mortgage-inc-and-erwin-robert-hirt-individually-stamped.pdf.
90. CFPB v. Sec. Nat’l Auto. Acceptance Co., No. 1:15-cv-401 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_complaint-security-national-
automotive-acceptance-company.pdf.
91. In re Syndicated Office Sys., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0012 (June 18, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_order-syndicated.pdf.
92. CFPB v. Sprint Corp., No. 14-cv-09931 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201505_cfpb-cfpb-v-sprint-corporation-
proposed-order.pdf.
93. CFPB v. Affinion Grp. Holdings, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-01005 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_stipulated-final-judgment-and-
order_affinion.pdf.
94. CFPB v. Intersections Inc., No. 1:15cv835 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_stipulated-consent-order-
INTX.pdf.
95. In re Chase Bank, USA N.A., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0013 (July 8, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-chase-bank-usa-na-
and-chase-bankcard-services-inc.pdf.
96. In re Am. Honda Fin. Corp., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0014 (July 14, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order_honda.pdf.
97. In re Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0015 (July 21, 2015)
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na-
department-stores-national-bank-and-citicorp-credit-services-inc-usa.pdf.
98. In re Discover Bank, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0016 (July 22, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-in-the-matter-of-
discover-bank-student-loan-corporation.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 36
99. In re Paymap Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0017 (July 22, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order_paymap.pdf.
100. In re LoanCare, LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0018 (July 23, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order_loan-care.pdf.
101. In re Residential Credit Sols., Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0019 (July 30, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order_residential-credit-
solutions.pdf.
102. CFPB v. NDG Fin. Corp., No. 1:15-cv-05211-CM (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201508_cfpb_complaint-northway.pdf.
103. In re RBS Citizens Fin. Grp., Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0020 (Aug. 11, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order-rbs-citizens.pdf.
104. CFPB v. Orion Processing, LLC, No. 15-23070 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb-complaint-orion-processing-llc-
world-law.pdf.
105. In re Springstone Fin., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0021 (Aug. 17, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201508_cfpb_consent-order-springstone-
financial-llc.pdf.
106. CFPB v. Pension Funding, LLC, No. 8:15-cv-01329 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201508_cfpb_complaint-pension-funding-llc-
pension-income.pdf.
107. In re Encore Capital Grp., Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0022 (Sept. 3, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-
group.pdf.
108. In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0023 (Sept. 8, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-portfolio-recovery-
associates-llc.pdf.
109. CFPB v. Student Fin. Aid Servs., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01581-GEB-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sept.
11, 2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_stipulated-final-
judgment-and-order-student-financial-aid-services-inc.pdf.
110. CFPB v. Hudson City Sav. Bank, F.S.B., No. 15-7056 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_hudson-city-consent-order.pdf
.
111. In re Fifth Third Bank, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0024 (Sept. 28, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-fifth-third-
bank.pdf.
112. In re Fifth Third Bank, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0025, (Sept. 28, 2015)
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-fifth-third-bank-
add-on.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 37
113. In re Westlake Servs., LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0026 (Sept. 30, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-westlake-services-
llc.pdf.
114. In re Gen. Info. Servs., Inc., Administrative Filing No. 2015-CFPB-0028 (Oct. 29,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_consent-order_general-
information-service-inc.pdf.
115. CFPB v. Glob. Fin. Support, Inc., No. 15 CV 02440 GPC WVG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_complaint-for-permanent-
injunction-and-other-relief-college-financial-advisory.pdf.
116. In re Integrity Advance, LLC, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0029 (Nov. 18, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201511_cfpb_notice-of-charges-integrity-
advance-llc-james-r-carnes.pdf.
117. In re Clarity Servs., Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0030 (Dec. 1, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_consent-order_clarity-services-inc-
timothy-ranney.pdf.
118. CFPB v. Collecto, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-14024 RGS (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_proposed-consent-order-eos.pdf.
119. In re EZCORP, Inc., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0031 (Dec. 15, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_ezcorp-inc-consent-order.pdf.
120. In re Interstate Auto Grp., Inc., Administrative Filing No. 2015-CFPB-0032 (Dec. 16,
2015), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_carhop-consent-order.pdf.
121. CFPB v. D & D Marketing, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-9692 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_complaint-v-d-and-d-marketing-
inc-et-al.pdf.
122. In re Sancho, CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0033 (Dec. 15, 2015),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_eric-v-sancho-consent-order.pdf.
123. In re Y King S Corp., also doing business as Herbies Auto Sales, CFPB No. 2016-
CFPB-
0001 (Jan. 21, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201601_cfpb_consent-order_y-kings-corp-also-
doing-business-as-herbies-auto-sales.pdf.
124. In re Auto Cash Leasing, LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0017 (Jan. 30, 2017), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20170130_cfpb_2016-CFPB-
0017_Document-026.pdf.
125. In re Toyota Motor Credit Corp., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0002 (Feb. 2, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-toyota-motor-credit-
corporation.pdf.
126. In re Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0003 (Feb. 23, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 38
127. In re Citibank, N.A., Department Stores National Bank, and CitiFinancial Servicing,
LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0004 (Feb. 23, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/
201602_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na-department-stores-national-bank-and-
citifinancial-servicing-llc.pdf.
128. In re Solomon & Solomon, P.C., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0005 (Feb. 23, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-solomon-and-solomon-
pc.pdf.
129. In re Faloni & Assocs., LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0006 (Feb. 23, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-faloni-and-associates-
llc.pdf.
130. In re Dwolla, Inc., CFPB NO. 2016-CFPB-0007 (March 2, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201603_cfpb_consent-order-dwolla-inc.pdf.
131. In re Phx. Title Loans, LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0020 (March 13, 2017), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_cfpb_2016-CFPB-
0020_Document-027.pdf.
132. In re Student Aid Inst., Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0008 (March 30, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201603_cfpb_consent-order-student-aid-institute-inc-
steven-lamont.pdf.
133. CFPB v. Fomichev, No. 2:16-cv-2724 (C.D. Cal April 21, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201604_cfpb_complaint-for-violations-of-the-
consumer-financial-protection-act-of-2010-dmitry-fomichev-defendant.pdf.
134. CFPB v. Gasparyan, No. 2:16-cv-2725 (C.D. Cal Apr. 21, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201604_cfpb_complaint-for-violations-of-the-
consumer-financial-protection-act-of-2010-davit-gasparyan-aka-david-gasparyan.pdf.
135. In re Pressler & Pressler, LLP, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0009 (Apr. 25, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order-pressler-
pressler-llp-sheldon-h-pressler-and-gerard-j-felt.pdf.
136. In re New Century Fin. Serv., Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0010 (Apr. 25, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order_new-century-
financial-services-inc.pdf.
137. CFPB v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00356-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. May,
11, 2016), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201605_cfpb_complaint-
for-permanent-injunction-and-other-relief-all-american-check-cashing-inc.pdf.
138. In re Eghbali, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0011 (May 25, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201605_cfpb_consent-order-david-
eghbali.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 39
139. CFPB v. Intercept Corp., No. 3:16-cv-00144-ARS (D. N.D June 6, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/3_16_cv_00144_ars_CFPB_v_Intercept.pd
f.
140. CFPB v. Bancorpsouth Bank, No. 1:16-cv-00118-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. June 29,
2016), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201606_cfpb_bancorpsouth-
joint-complaint.pdf.
141. In re Santander Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0012 (July 14, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20160714_cfpb_Consent_Order.pdf.
142. In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0013 (Aug. 22, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/2016-CFPB-0013Wells_Fargo_Bank_N.A.-
-_Consent_Order.pdf.
143. In re First Nat’l Bank of Omaha, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0014 (Aug. 25, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/082016_cfpb_FNBOconsentorder.pdf.
144. In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0015 (Sept. 8, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_WFBconsentorder.pdf.
145. In re Bridgepoint Educ. Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0016 (Sept. 12, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_BridgepointConsentOrder.pd
f.
146. CFPB v. Prime Mktg. Holdings, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-07111 (C.D. Cal Sept. 22, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_PrimeMarketingHoldi
ngs_Complaint.pdf.
147. In re TMX Fin., LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0022 (Sept. 26, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_TitleMaxConsentOrder.pdf.
148. In re Flurish, Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0023 (Sept. 27, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_LendUpConsentOrder.pdf.
149. In re Navy Fed. Credit Union, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0024 (Oct. 11, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/102016_cfpb_NavyFederalConsentOrder.p
df.
150. In re Oasis Title Loans, LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0019 (Nov. 1, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/2016-CFPB-0019_Document_017_
11012016.pdf
151. CFPB v. MacKinnon, No. 1:16-cv-00880 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/112016_cfpb_NorthernResolutionGroupC
omplaint.pdf.
152. CFPB v. B&B Pawnbrokers, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00887-JAG (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/112016_cfpb_BBPawn_Complaint.
pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 40
153. CFPB v. Access Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-03759-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2016),
http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201611_cfpb_Access_Funding_Complaint_
filed.pdf.
154. In re Aegean Fin., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0025 (Dec. 7, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_AegeanFinancial-
consentorder.pdf.
155. In re Am. Advisors Grp., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0026 (Dec. 7, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_AmericanAdvisorsGroup-
consentorder.pdf.
156. In re Reverse Mortg. Sols., Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0027 (Dec. 7, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_ReverseMortgageSolutions-
consentorder.pdf.
157. In re Preston Auto Loans, Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0021 (Dec. 12, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_0021-Document027-
12202016.pdf.
158. In re Moneytree, Inc., CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0028 (Dec. 16, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_Moneytree-consentorder.pdf.
159. CFPB v. Pawn U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01566-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20161216_cfpb_PawnUSAComplai
nt.pdf.
160. CFPB v. A To Z Pawn, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01567-JCC-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2016),
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20161216_cfpb_AtoZComplaint.pd
f.
161. CFPB v. Fredericksburg Gold & Pawn, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00987-REP (E.D. Va. Dec.
19, 2016), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20161216_cfpb_
FredericksburgComplaint.pdf.
162. CFPB v. Spotsylvania Gold & Pawn, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00988-MHL (E.D. Va. Dec. 19,
2016), http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20161216_cfpb_
SpotsylvaniaComplaint.pdf.
163. In re Interstate Lending, LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0018 (Dec. 20, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_0018-Document030-
12202016.pdf.
164. In re Military Credit Servs., LLC, CFPB No. 2016-CFPB-0029 (Dec. 20, 2016), http://
files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201612_cfpb_MilitaryCreditServices-
consentorder.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 41
165. In re Equifax Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0001 (Jan. 3, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Equifax-consent-
order.pdf.
166. In re TransUnion Interactive, Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0002 (Jan. 3, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Transunion-consent-
order.pdf.
167. In re Works & Lentz, Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0003 (Jan. 9, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Works-and-Lentz-
consent-order.pdf
168. CFPB v. Navient Corp., No. 3:17-cv-00101-RDM (M.D. Pa. Jan. 18, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Navient-Pioneer-
Credit-Recovery-complaint.pdf.
169. In re CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0004 (Jan. 23, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_CitiFinancial-
consent-order.pdf.
170. In re CitiMortgage, Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0005 (Jan. 23, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_CitiMortgage-
consent-order.pdf.
171. CFPB v. Vincent Howard, No. 8:17-cv-00161 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Howard-Williamson-
complaint.pdf.
172. In re Prospect Mortgage LLC, CPFB No. 2017-CFPB-0006 (Jan. 31, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_ProspectMortgage-
consent-order.pdf.
173. In re Planet Home Lending, LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0007 (Jan. 31, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_PlanetHomeLending
-consent-order.pdf.
174. In re Willamette Legacy, LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0008 (Jan. 31, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_Willamette-Legacy-
consent-order.pdf.
175. In re RGC Servs., Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0009 (Jan. 31, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201701_cfpb_RGCServices-
consent-order.pdf.
176. In re UniRush LLC., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0010 (Feb. 1, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201702_cfpb_UniRush-
Mastercard-consent-order.pdf.
177. CFPB v. Woodbridge Coins and Jewelry Exchange, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00141-JCC-TCB
(E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2017),
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 42
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201702_cfpb_Woodbridge-Gold-
Pawn-complaint.pdf.
178. CFPB v. RD Legal Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00890 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201702_cfpb_RD-Legal-
complaint.pdf.
179. In re Nationstar Mortgage LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0011 (Mar. 15, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_cfpb_Nationstar-
Mortgage-consent-order.pdf.
180. In re Experian Holdings, Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0012 (Mar. 23, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_cfpb_Experian-Holdings-
Inc-consent-order.pdf.
181. CFPB v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., No. 1:17-cv-00817 (N.D. Ohio Apr.
17, 2017), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_cfpb_Weltman-
Weinberg-Reis_Complaint.pdf.
182. CFPB v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 9:17-cv-80495 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20170420_cfpb_Ocwen-
Complaint.pdf.
183. In re Security Nat. Auto. Acceptance Co., LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0013 (Apr. 26,
2017), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_SNAAC-consent-
order.pdf.
184. CFPB v. Golden Valley Lending, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03155 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_cfpb_Golden-
Valley_Silver-Cloud_Majestic-Lake_complaint.pdf.
185. In re Fay Servicing, LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0014 (Jun. 7, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/062017_cfpb_Fay_Servicing-
consent_order.pdf.
186. CFPB v. Commercial Credit Consultants, No. 2:17-cv-04720 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201706_cfpb_Johnson-
Complaint.pdf.
187. Park View Law, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-04721 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201706_cfpb_Barens-
Complaint.pdf.
188. In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0015 (Aug. 2, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201708_cfpb_JPMorgan-
Chase_consent-order.pdf.
189. CFPB v. Aequitas Capital Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01278-MO (D. Or. Aug. 17, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201708_cfpb_aequitas-
complaint.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 43
190. In re Am. Express Centurion Bank, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0016 (Aug. 23, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201708_cfpb_american-
express_content-order.pdf.
191. In re Zero Parallel, LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0017 (Sept. 6, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_zero-parallel-
llc_consent-order.pdf.
192. CFPB v. Nat. Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, No. 1:17-cv-01323-UNA (D. Del. Sept.
18, 2017), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_national-
collegiate-student-loan-trusts_complaint.pdf.
193. In re Transworld Sys., Inc., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0018 (Sept. 18, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_transworld-
systems_consent-order.pdf.
194. CFPB v. Top Notch Funding II, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-07114 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_top-
notch_complaint.pdf.
195. In re Meridian Title Corp., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0019 (Sept. 27, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_meridian-title-
corp_consent-order.pdf.
196. CFPB v. Fed. Debt Assistance Ass’n., LLC, No. 1:17-cv-02997-GLF (D. Md. Oct. 12,
2017), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201710_cfpb_FDAA-
complaint.pdf.
197. CFPB v. Tempo Venture, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00075 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_complaint-
culpeper_102017.pdf.
198. CFPB v. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-06484 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_freedom-debt-relief-
llc_complaint_112017.pdf.
199. CFPB v. Think Finance, LLC, No. 4:17-cv-00127-BMM (D. Mont. Nov. 15, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_think-
finance_complaint_112017.pdf.
200. In re Conduent Bus. Servs., LLC, CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0020 (Nov. 20, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_conduent-business-
services_consent-order_112017.pdf.
201. In re Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2017-CFPB-0021 (Nov. 21, 2017),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_citibank-n.a._consent-
order_112017.pdf.
202. In re Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0001 (Apr. 20, 20180,
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_wells-fargo-bank-na_consent-
order_2018-04.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 44
203. In re Security Group, Inc., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0002 (Jun. 13, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_security-group-inc_consent-
order_2018-06.pdf.
204. In re Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0003 (Jun. 29, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_citibank-na_consent-
order_2018-06.pdf.
205. In re Nat. Credit Adjusters, LLC, CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0004 (Jul. 13, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_national-credit-
adjusters_consent-order_2018-07.pdf.
206. In re Triton Mgmt. Group, Inc., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0005 (Jul. 19, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_triton-management-
group_consent-order_2018-07.pdf.
207. CFPB v. Future Income Payments LLC, No. 8:18-cv-01654 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_future-income-
payments_complaint_2018-09.pdf.
208. In re Bluestem Brands, Inc., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0006 (Oct. 4, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_bluestem-brands-
inc_consent-order_2018-10.pdf.
209. In re Cash Express, LLC, CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0007 (Oct. 24, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_cash-express-llc_consent-
order_2018-10.pdf.
210. In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc., CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0008 (Nov. 20, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_santander-consumer-
usa_consent-order_2018-11.pdf.
211. CFPB v. Village Capital & Investment LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02304 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_village-
capital_complaint_2018-12.pdf.
212. In re State Farm Bank, FSB, CFPB No. 2018-BCFP-0009 (Dec. 6, 2018),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_state-farm-bank_consent-
order.pdf.
213. In re USAA Fed. Savings Bank, No. 2019-BCFP-0001 (Jan. 3, 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_usaa-federal-savings-
bank_consent-order.pdf.
214. CFPB v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00448 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_sterling-
jewelers_complaint.pdf.
215. In re Mark Corbett, CFPB No. 2019-BCFP-0002 (Jan. 23, 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_mark-corbett_consent-
order_2019-01.pdf.
Dormant: The CFPB’s Law Enforcement Program in Decline | Consumer Federation of America 45
216. In re Enova Int’l., Inc., CFPB No. 2019-BCFP-0003 (Jan. 25, 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_enova-international_consent-
order_2019-01.pdf.
217. In re Cash Tyme, CFPB No. 2019-BCFP-0004 (Feb. 5, 2019),
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_cash-tyme-consent-
order_2019-02.pdf.
