Consumer Finance Monitor

We're pleased to announce that our latest episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast is now live and it's one you won't want to miss. In this episode, our host Alan Kaplinsky, founder, Chair for 25 years, and now Senior Counsel of our Consumer Financial Services Group, is joined by Max Dubin, Chief of Staff to the Acting Superintendent of Banking at the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS). As a senior leader at one of the most influential state financial regulators in the country, Max offers a rare and insightful look into how DFS is approaching some of the most important issues facing the consumer financial services industry today. A central focus of the conversation is the Department's proposed framework for regulating the rapidly evolving "buy-now, pay-later" (BNPL) market (read more about BNPL on our Consumer Finance Monitor blog here.) Max provides valuable context on what DFS is aiming to accomplish and how it is thinking about balancing innovation with consumer protection. Among other points, he explains that the DFS is seeking to craft a regulatory approach that reflects how BNPL products actually function in today's marketplace, while also ensuring that consumers receive clear disclosures and are adequately protected from potential risks. We also cover a wide range of additional "hot" topics at DFS, including DFS regulatory, supervisory and enforcement priorities, emerging consumer protection concerns, the DFS' approach to fintech innovation and partnerships, crypto licensure and regulation, New York Governor Hochul's budget priorities, which includes reforms of the insurance industry to make it more affordable, coordination with other state and federal regulators, and what industry participants should expect from DFS in the months ahead. This episode offers practical insights for banks, nonbanks, fintech companies, and their counsel, particularly those focused on compliance, product development, and regulatory strategy. Max's candid and thoughtful perspectives provide a valuable window into the thinking of DFS at a time when state-level regulation is playing an increasingly prominent role. We hope you enjoy the conversation. This is the second of our 3-part series focused on agencies in New York City and State which have a major impact on banks and non-banks who do business with New York City and State residents. On February 12, we released a podcast show, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, featuring Jane Azia, Chief of the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection and Alec Webley, Assistant Attorney General of the New York Attorney General's Office. Among other things, Jane and Alec discussed the New York FAIR Business Practices Act which expanded the scope of New York's consumer protection law to cover unfair and abusive acts and practices as well as deceptive acts and practices. Very soon, we will be releasing Part 3 of the series which will be a conversation between Alan and Commissioner Sam Levine, the head of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

We are pleased to release Episode 1 of our new podcast mini-series, Debt Sales 101. In this first episode, we start with the fundamentals and discuss what a debt sale is, how these transactions are structured, and why companies choose to sell debt. Debt sales are often discussed in simple terms, but in practice they sit at the intersection of business strategy, legal structure, and regulatory compliance. In this episode, we explain that a debt sale is fundamentally the sale of charged-off accounts where the seller transfers title and the right to collect to a debt buyer in exchange for an upfront payment. This is different from placing accounts with a collection agency or outsourcing collections. In a true debt sale, ownership of the account is transferred, and that distinction has important legal and operational consequences. We also discuss several of the primary reasons companies sell debt. First, a debt sale allows a company to accelerate revenue and recognize recoveries immediately rather than over many years through traditional recovery strategies. Second, a debt sale generates immediate cash flow that companies can reinvest into their business. Third, for many companies, a debt sale is operationally simpler than building and maintaining an in-house recovery strategy or managing a large agency and legal network. Finally, in some cases, debt sales are used as a tool to exit a line of business in an orderly and efficient way. From a legal perspective, we also introduce several concepts that are critical to a successful debt sale, including chain of title, documentation, data integrity, and the purchase and sale agreement. Buyers need to be able to trace ownership of the account, verify the underlying documentation, and rely on accurate data in order to collect on the accounts they purchase. These legal and documentation issues often determine whether a debt sale is successful and how a portfolio will be priced. One of the key themes of this episode, and the series as a whole, is that debt sales are fundamentally a business decision, but one that lives or dies on legal execution and regulatory compliance. Companies that prepare properly, maintain strong documentation and data, and structure transactions carefully are far more likely to execute successful debt sale programs. In our next episode, we will build on this foundation and discuss what types of debt can be sold, how portfolios are typically structured, and where the legal and practical boundaries begin to matter.

In today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Show, our host, Ballard Spahr's Alan Kaplinsky, was joined by colleagues Steven Burt and Melanie Vartabedian to explore a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex area of consumer financial services: residential solar finance. Building on prior discussions of the broader solar finance landscape, this episode zeroes in on the regulatory and litigation developments that are reshaping the residential solar market in real time. The discussion highlights how an industry that experienced explosive growth over the past decade is now facing heightened scrutiny from regulators, enforcement agencies, and private litigants alike. From Rapid Growth to Market Headwinds As Steven explained, the residential solar industry expanded dramatically between 2015 and 2022, driven by: Federal and state tax incentives Declining equipment costs Innovative financing models Aggressive direct-to-consumer sales strategies Growth peaked around 2023, but the market began to slow in 2024 and beyond due to several converging factors: Changes to net energy metering policies (particularly in California) Rising interest rates impacting financing affordability Supply chain constraints Increased emphasis on battery storage solutions Federal policy shifts, including reduced support for renewable energy and changes to tax credits These developments have forced industry participants to adapt quickly—often while still operating under legacy business models that are now attracting scrutiny. A Surge in Government Investigations and Enforcement One of the most significant themes discussed in the podcast is the sharp rise in government scrutiny. State attorneys general and consumer protection agencies across the country have launched investigations and enforcement actions targeting: Direct-to-consumer sales practices Marketing representations about energy savings and tax benefits Long-term financing structures, particularly loan-related fees A notable inflection point came in 2024, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a spotlight on solar financing, identifying risks such as: Alleged "hidden" dealer or platform fees Misleading claims regarding tax credits Misrepresentations about system performance and savings Since then, enforcement activity has expanded across numerous states, with additional investigations ongoing. Notably, even local regulators—such as New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection—have begun to assert jurisdiction, signaling a broader and more aggressive enforcement landscape. Private Litigation: Class Actions and the "Dealer Fee" Controversy Parallel to government activity, private litigation has surged. Melanie Vartabedian highlighted two major waves of litigation: 1. Earlier Cases: Sales Practices Initial lawsuits focused on: Unauthorized credit checks (FCRA claims) High-pressure or deceptive sales tactics Misrepresentations about tax savings and energy production 2. Current Wave: Financing Structures More recent cases center on dealer fees (also called platform or financing fees), with plaintiffs alleging that: · These fees are effectively hidden finance charges · They should be disclosed under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Courts in Minnesota have allowed these claims to proceed past motions to dismiss, rejecting arguments—at least at the early stage—that such fees are merely "seller's points" exempt from disclosure. While these rulings are preliminary, they have: · Opened the door to costly discovery · Encouraged additional class actions and enforcement cases · Created significant uncertainty regarding how courts will ultimately resolve the issue The Expanding Role of the FTC Holder Rule Another important litigation risk involves the FTC Holder Rule, which allows consumers to assert claims against loan holders that they could assert against installers. This creates potential exposure for: · Lenders · Secondary market participants · Securitization investors Although liability is generally capped at the amount of the loan, the rule can still create substantial risk, especially where plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts. Practical Guidance for Industry Participants The speakers emphasized that companies operating in the residential solar space must take proactive steps to manage risk. Key recommendations include: 1. Strengthen Compliance and Oversight Conduct comprehensive reviews of sales and marketing practices Ensure clear, accurate, and compliant disclosures Align legal and compliance teams with customer service functions to identify emerging issues early 2. Enhance Dealer and Partner Management Perform rigorous upfront diligence on third-party installers and sales organizations Implement ongoing monitoring and auditing Act quickly to address complaints or misconduct 3. Improve Transactional Transparency Reassess how pricing and fees—particularly dealer fees—are structured and disclosed Evaluate potential exposure under TILA and state consumer protection laws 4. Conduct Portfolio-Level Risk Assessments Carefully diligence solar loan portfolios prior to acquisition Consider litigation and regulatory risks embedded in originated assets 5. Stay Ahead of Policy and Enforcement Trends Monitor federal, state, and local regulatory developments Engage with industry groups and legal advisors Anticipate—not react to—regulatory changes What Lies Ahead: The Next 18–24 Months Looking forward, the panelists expect: Continued and expanding enforcement activity, particularly at the state level More class actions and private litigation, fueled by early court rulings Greater clarity regarding dealer fee treatment, as courts begin to rule on the merits Increased scrutiny of sales practices, especially those involving third-party dealers Importantly, the regulatory and litigation environment is unlikely to ease in the near term. Instead, companies should expect more investigations converting into enforcement actions and greater coordination among regulators. Key Takeaways As Alan Kaplinsky summarized, the message for industry participants is clear: · The residential solar market is entering a more challenging and regulated phase · Government scrutiny and private litigation are rising in tandem · Compliance, transparency, and oversight are no longer optional, they are essential Companies that proactively adapt to this new environment will be far better positioned than those that wait to respond under the pressure of an investigation or lawsuit. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

On today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast our host, Alan Kaplinsky, discusses the rapidly evolving landscape of federal financial supervision with Sherra Brown, Head of Regulatory Research and Analysis for the Americas at Vixio Regulatory Intelligence. Our conversation focuses on what may be a fundamental shift in supervisory practices at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the implications of parallel changes at the federal banking agencies. Recent reports suggest that the CFPB may dramatically scale back its supervisory program—potentially reducing the number of examinations from roughly 600 annually to about 70, conducting examinations entirely virtually, narrowing the scope of reviews, and even Introducing a so-called "humility pledge" for examiners. If implemented, these developments would represent a significant departure from the Bureau's prior supervisory posture. At the same time, the federal prudential banking regulators—the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Federal Reserve Board—are moving toward a more risk-focused examination model, eliminating "reputation risk" as a supervisory category and signaling a broader effort to reduce regulatory burden. Below are several key themes from our discussion. Possible Structural Changes to CFPB Supervision Sherra and Alan discussed reports that the CFPB could significantly reduce the scope and frequency of its supervisory examinations. The Bureau may move toward a model involving: 1. Fully virtual examinations 2. A dramatically smaller number of exams each year 3. Narrower, risk-focused review areas 4. Greater reliance on institutions' internal compliance testing The shift could also reflect staffing reductions and broader policy priorities under the current administration. While virtual examinations are not new, as they were widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential reduction in exam scope and volume would mark a major change. As Sherra noted, a narrower supervisory footprint raises an important question: is the Bureau fundamentally redesigning its supervisory model or simply doing the minimum necessary while its future remains uncertain? What a Virtual Examination Looks Like For institutions that have not experienced a virtual exam, the process is procedurally similar to traditional on-site supervision. Institutions typically receive a document request list and must provide materials electronically. Interviews and meetings with examiners occur via videoconference. However, the key difference is relational. Virtual supervision makes it harder for examiners and institutions to build the working relationships that often facilitate dialogue and clarification during an on-site review. Data integrity, document accessibility, and centralized record management become even more important in a virtual environment. Likely Areas of CFPB Focus Although the Bureau has not yet clearly identified which institutions will be examined, Sherra suggested that the focus will likely be on large banks rather than non-bank entities. She also noted that several areas historically emphasized by the CFPB appear unlikely to receive the same attention going forward. For example, the Bureau has backed away from certain fair-lending theories such as disparate impact. One area that appears likely to remain a priority is protections for service members, including compliance with the Military Lending Act. Prudential Regulators: A Parallel Shift While the CFPB's future direction remains uncertain, the prudential regulators have continued their examination programs. One of the most notable developments is the elimination of "reputation risk" as a supervisory category. The OCC has already removed it from examination practices, and both the FDIC and Federal Reserve have indicated similar intentions. Historically, reputation risk sometimes served as a catch-all category allowing regulators to pressure institutions even when no specific legal violation was identified. Its removal is part of a broader effort to focus supervision on clearly defined financial, operational, and compliance risks. At the same time, regulators appear to be tailoring examination intensity more carefully based on institutional size and risk profile, potentially reducing the burden on community banks. Compliance Should Not Be Relaxed Despite the apparent reduction in federal supervisory activity, Sherra emphasized that institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. Several factors make continued vigilance essential: 1. State attorneys general remain active in consumer protection enforcement. 2. Private litigation risk persists. 3. Future administrations could revive aggressive federal supervision, potentially accompanied by look-back reviews. Strong documentation, robust complaint management processes, and clear audit trails remain essential. The Growing Role of States Another important theme from our discussion is the expanding role of state enforcement. Several states, including New York, California, and Massachusetts, have signaled their intention to fill any perceived gaps left by reduced federal oversight. State regulators and attorneys general continue to focus on issues such as fair lending, consumer protection violations, and deceptive practices. Accordingly, institutions operating nationally must consider not only federal expectations but also evolving state regulatory priorities. Five Practical Takeaways Five key takeaways for financial institutions navigating this changing supervisory environment are: 1. Fewer examinations do not mean less regulatory risk. 2. Complaint management and data analytics will become increasingly important. 3. Documentation discipline is even more critical in a virtual examination environment. 4. Institutions should not weaken their compliance management systems. 5. Board and senior management oversight remain essential. In short, while federal supervision may be evolving, the fundamental expectations for sound compliance and risk management remain unchanged. Listeners can access the full discussion on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, where Sherra Brown provides valuable insight into what may be one of the most significant shifts in federal financial supervision in recent years. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Joseph Schuster, Ballard Spahr partner advising banks on AI, fraud, and compliance. Adam Maarec, attorney on AI governance and regulatory issues in finance. Oren Bar-Gill, NYU law professor studying algorithmic decision-making and consumer harm. They discuss agentic AI acting autonomously with consumers, risks in personalization and collections, liability and regulatory scrutiny, and governance and model risk management.

We are releasing today on our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast our host Alan Kaplinsky's discussion with Marisa Calderon, President and CEO of Prosperity Now, about two high-profile policy proposals raised or embraced by President Trump as part of a broader populist affordability agenda: 1. A nationwide 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year. 2. The Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), long championed by Senator Dick Durbin which would require large credit card issuers to enable at least two unaffiliated payment networks (only one of which could be MasterCard or VISA) on their cards. Each proposal is framed as pro-consumer. Each has generated significant pushback from banks, card issuers, and trade associations. However, even consumer advocacy groups have raised serious questions about the wisdom of such initiatives. Prosperity Now is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing economic mobility, with a focus on those facing economic barriers. Each raises fundamental questions about how to balance affordability and access in the consumer credit market. Our discussion focused on a central theme: affordability is a real and pressing concern, but policy design matters enormously. Credit Card APRs: A Real Affordability Pressure As Calderon emphasized, policymakers are not wrong to focus on credit card interest rates. Average credit card APRs now hover around 22%, up sharply from roughly 13% a decade ago. Approximately half of cardholders carry a balance, and many rely on credit cards not for discretionary spending, but as liquidity bridges, covering emergency medical bills, car repairs, groceries, and other essentials. For lower and moderate-income households, credit cards are often the only readily available, regulated source of short-term liquidity. That makes rising APRs particularly painful. Calderon's formulation is apt: policymakers have identified the right problem. The harder question is whether they have identified the right solution. The 10% Interest Rate Cap: Lessons from History The proposal to impose a flat 10% nationwide cap on credit card interest rates for one year would represent an unprecedented federal intervention into unsecured revolving credit markets. Credit cards are unsecured and priced for risk. Interest margins help issuers cover expected charge-offs, volatility, and operational costs. If pricing flexibility is removed, lenders cannot simply absorb the loss, they adjust. Historically, those adjustments take predictable forms: • Tighter underwriting standards • Higher minimum credit scores • Lower credit limits • Reduced rewards programs • Increased non-interest fees • Exit from higher-risk market segments The likely result, as Calderon noted, is credit contraction, particularly affecting marginal and lower-income borrowers. The most relevant historical example may be the 1980 credit controls imposed during the Carter Administration, which were rescinded within months after causing severe market disruption. A more targeted example is the 36% APR cap under the Military Lending Act, which illustrates both the importance of bipartisan legislative design and the reality that even well-intentioned caps can reduce access at the margins. Recent Federal Reserve research on state usury caps reinforces this concern: when interest rate ceilings are imposed, credit to higher-risk borrowers contracts, credit to lower-risk borrowers expands, and delinquency rates do not meaningfully improve. In other words, credit is reallocated, not necessarily improved. Even a "temporary" cap may have durable consequences. Issuers that exit certain segments or reduce credit lines are not obligated, and may not be economically inclined, to restore them once the cap expires. Credit score impacts and reduced access can linger well beyond the formal life of the policy. As Calderon put it, blunt price controls are a chainsaw when what is needed is a scalpel. Affordability in Context: What Drives Household Budgets? An additional consideration is scale. Research recently highlighted by the Consumer Bankers Association shows that the fastest-growing household expenses from 2013–2024 were healthcare, shelter, food, and vehicles. Credit card interest represents a relatively small share of average household expenditures. This does not minimize the pain of high APRs, especially for households carrying persistent balances, but it does raise an important structural question: can credit card rate caps meaningfully solve broader affordability challenges rooted in housing, medical costs, food inflation, and transportation? Credit cards are often the mechanism households use to cope with those rising costs. Constraining access to that liquidity may exacerbate, rather than relieve, financial stress. The Credit Card Competition Act: Structural Reform or Indirect Price Control? The second proposal we discussed, the Credit Card Competition Act (the "CCCA"), takes a different approach. Rather than capping interest rates, the CCCA would require large issuers to offer merchants at least two unaffiliated network routing options (only one of which could be Visa or Mastercard). The theory is that routing competition would reduce interchange fees ("swipe fees"), lowering merchant costs and ultimately consumer prices. Merchants have generally supported the proposal. Banks and card issuers have strongly opposed it. The consumer-facing promise is straightforward: lower merchant fees should translate into lower retail prices, but history complicates that assumption. The Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act imposed caps on debit card interchange fees for large issuers and included routing requirements. While interchange revenue declined, Calderon pointed out that empirical evidence suggests that cost savings were not consistently passed through to consumers in the form of lower prices. At the same time, banks offset lost revenue through higher account fees and reduced benefits. A similar dynamic could unfold in the credit card market. Interchange revenue helps fund: • Rewards programs • Fraud detection and prevention • Customer service infrastructure • Risk management If that revenue is compressed, issuers may respond with tighter underwriting, reduced rewards, or new fee structures. As Calderon observed, although the CCCA operates through indirect price pressure rather than a direct APR ceiling, downstream effects could look similar. Distinguishing Populist Framing From Durable Reform Both the rate cap and the CCCA are framed as pro-consumer, populist reforms. The political appeal is clear, but distinguishing headline appeal from durable consumer benefit requires careful analysis. Calderon suggested several guideposts policymakers should consider: • Access – Does the reform preserve or expand access for low- and moderate-income borrowers? • Incidence – Who actually captures the gains? Consumers, merchants, intermediaries, or some combination? • Substitution effects – Does the policy push consumers toward higher-cost, less-regulated alternatives such as payday or fringe products? • Durability – What happens after implementation? Do markets rebound, or do credit line reductions and underwriting changes persist? These questions are not ideological. They are structural. Affordability and access are not opposing values. The policy challenge is designing reforms that alleviate financial strain without narrowing the regulated credit tools families rely on when emergencies arise. The Bottom Line Affordability concerns are real. Rising APRs are real. Financial stress among many households is real. But blunt price caps may reduce rates on paper while reducing access in practice. Structural competition mandates may promise savings that do not materialize at the checkout counter. Durable consumer protection requires careful calibration — the scalpel, not the chainsaw. For industry participants, policymakers, and advocates alike, the takeaway is straightforward: evidence and market mechanics matter. Populist framing may win headlines, but long-term financial stability depends on policy design that accounts for how credit markets actually function. As always, we will continue to monitor these proposals and their evolution in Congress and the Administration. It may be noteworthy that President Trump did not mention either proposal during his almost two-hour State of the Union Address on January 24th. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

In a recent episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, Alan Kaplinsky was joined by Nick Bourke, Kate Griffin, and Ballard Spahr partner Joseph Schuster to discuss a groundbreaking new report from the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program: United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams. The episode builds on Nick and Kate's prior appearance on the podcast last July, when the report was still in development. Now finalized, the report offers one of the most comprehensive frameworks to date for addressing what has become a systemic threat to American households and the broader financial system. The Scope of the Problem: A Systemic Threat Frauds and scams are no longer isolated consumer protection issues. According to the report, U.S. households are losing an estimated $196 billion annually to scams — roughly $1 billion every couple of days. One in five American adults reports having lost money to an online scam. As Nick Bourke explained, today's scams are: · Technology-enabled · Highly organized and industrialized · Often operated by transnational criminal organizations · Accelerating due to AI and faster payment systems The so-called scam "lifecycle" includes four stages: 1. Lead – Hooking the victim 2. Deceive – Building trust (often through impersonation or relationship-building) 3. Bleed – Extracting funds 4. Clean – Laundering proceeds, often through cryptocurrency or offshore channels Different sectors see only fragments of this lifecycle; social media platforms may see the "lead," financial institutions the "bleed," and law enforcement the "clean." That fragmentation allows criminals to scale operations while defenders remain siloed. Why Scams Are Rising Despite Heavy Investment As Kate Griffin noted, industry and government are investing heavily in prevention. Yet scams continue to grow. Why? · Fragmentation across sectors: No single actor sees the entire attack sequence. · Outdated reporting infrastructure: Federal systems at agencies like the FBI and FTC remain manual and technologically antiquated. · Regulatory uncertainty: Financial institutions and technology platforms face unclear expectations about what data they can use and share. · Speed of modern payments: Faster money movement means faster losses. Joseph Schuster emphasized that many financial institutions are strongly incentivized to prevent fraud as they often bear reputational and financial risk when scams succeed. But legal ambiguity, especially under statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, can chill data-sharing and innovation. Core Recommendations from the Aspen Report The report outlines both high-level national reforms and granular operational improvements with more than 180 specific ideas. 1. Elevate Scam Prevention to a National Priority The report calls for: · A designated federal lead (or "czar") to coordinate strategy · A whole-of-government approach · Clear national goals and metrics Without centralized leadership, enforcement and regulatory actions remain fragmented. 2. Modernize Law Enforcement Reporting Systems Federal reporting portals, including Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the FBI's complaint systems, and the FTC's databases, require modernization. The report recommends: · Streamlined, automated reporting · Backend data interoperability across agencies · Advanced analytics and AI tools for enforcement 3. Establish Clear Duties to Act Paired with Safe Harbors One of the most important themes discussed was the need for: · Clear expectations for banks, telecom companies, and digital platforms · Safe harbors that protect companies when sharing scam intelligence in good faith Countries like Australia have already codified such frameworks. The U.S. has yet to establish similarly coordinated standards. 4. Build a Cross-Sector Information-Sharing Ecosystem Effective scam prevention requires: · Exchange of scam indicators (malicious URLs, compromised phone numbers, device patterns) · Interoperable information-sharing platforms · Privacy-preserving architecture · Legal clarity to mitigate antitrust and consumer reporting concerns Joseph noted that industry appetite for collaboration is strong but clarity and guardrails are essential. 5. Consider a U.S. National Anti-Scam Center The report explores the idea of a centralized "front door", potentially something like stopscams.gov, that would: · Serve as a national reporting hub · Provide victim resources · Facilitate coordination among law enforcement · Support public education campaigns Social Media and Platform Responsibility The discussion also addressed the evolving role of digital platforms. Scam activity frequently originates through: · Paid advertisements · Dating applications · Direct messaging · Fake investment websites Compared to banks, social media companies operate within a less clearly defined regulatory structure. Courts are increasingly developing theories of "platform liability," but statutory clarity is lacking. The report urges policymakers to define reasonable expectations for platforms — paired with safe harbors and practical tools that empower prevention rather than merely assign blame. What Happens Next? The key question: who implements this strategy? Kate Griffin emphasized that this is a whole-of-society problem requiring coordinated action by: · Federal leadership · Congress · Financial institutions · Telecom and digital platforms · Law enforcement · Civil society There have been encouraging developments, including: · Treasury and State Department sanctions targeting transnational scam networks · A joint DOJ–FBI–Secret Service initiative targeting Southeast Asian scam operations o But much more remains to be done. Nick Bourke suggested that, one year from now, real success would include: · A designated federal anti-scam lead · A congressional commission · Measurable national prevention goals · Corporate adoption of formalized anti-scam strategies Joseph Schuster added that industry innovation is ongoing, particularly in artificial intelligence, biometrics, and authentication, but warned that fragmented state-level regulation could complicate progress. Key Takeaways Alan Kaplinsky closed the episode with several important observations: · Fraud and scams are now a systemic threat, not a niche compliance issue. · Prevention, not just reimbursement, must be the organizing principle. · Coordination matters as much as authority. · Good-faith companies need regulatory clarity, not just enforcement pressure. · Reducing scams strengthens trust in the U.S. financial system and digital economy. The Aspen report reframes the debate. Rather than assigning blame, it calls for aligned incentives, shared responsibility, and coordinated national action. If the title of the report, United We Stand, becomes reality, the United States may finally begin to bend the curve on one of the most costly and fast-growing threats facing consumers today. For more insights on consumer financial services developments, visit Ballard Spahr's Consumer Finance Monitor blog and explore the full Aspen Institute report here. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Louis Caditz-Peck, Executive Director of the Responsible Business Lending Coalition and former fintech and community-lender executive, discusses the consumerization of small business lending. He covers the rise of state truth-in-lending laws, the Small Business Borrower’s Bill of Rights, uniform disclosure efforts, merchant cash advance dynamics, and the interplay between federal rules and state regulation.

Alec Webley, Assistant Attorney General focused on consumer protection litigation and reform. Jane Azia, long-time Chief of New York’s consumer protection bureau with decades of enforcement experience. They discuss the FAIR Act’s shift from deception to unfair and abusive practices. Topics include statutory changes, enforcement reach beyond finance, remedies and penalties, territorial reach, coordination with regulators, and practical compliance concerns.

Deborah Thorne, sociologist who centers filers' lived experience; Pamela Foohey, law professor who studies how rules shape financial distress; Robert M. Lawless, empirical bankruptcy scholar with decades of data. They explore which debts drive collapse, how households scramble to stay afloat, debt collection and questionable relief practices, and the policy choices that shift risk onto individuals.