Regulation E: Authorization Language and Thoughts on the Future
With the help of a few experts, PDCflow spent the past few months discussing the components of Regulation E that impact the accounts receivable industry. Part one of the series covered why to comply and the potential damages of violating Regulation E. Part two discussed to whom the regulation applies.
Now, in third and final installment of the series, Mike Edmund, attorney at Moss & Barnett, P.A. and Scott Wortman, partner at Blank Rome LLP, address authorization language, types of recurring payments to which Regulation E applies, and share thoughts on the future of industry regulation.
Final thoughts on BCFP changes and Regulation E
Wortman:
“If there is one truth that became apparent during the heyday of the CFPB under Cordray, it is that attitudes towards its role as a regulator were based on politically motivated anecdotes that were intolerant of contrary views, leading to unconstitutional rulemaking through enforcement of non-existent or ambiguous regulations with impunity. The cost of defending these politically manufactured enforcement actions directly impacted many legitimate businesses, with costs ultimately passed on to the consumers.
So, in direct response to your question, considering the effective date of the prepaid rule (amending Regulations E and Z) has been extended to April 1, 2019, I am hopeful that what appears to be a change in attitude at the CFPB will mean an end to deterring industry members from participating in ongoing deliberations about the role and scope of upcoming rules. And beyond mere hope, we have many reasons to believe that the CFPB’s prior affront to the values underlying our Constitution is coming to an end (at least for now).
To read the full article, please click here.
"Regulation E: Authorization Language and Thoughts on the Future," by Hannah Huerta was published in AccountsRecovery.net on August 1, 2018.