Last Week, This Morning

April 13, 2026

Below you will find several key developments in the financial services industry, including related developments in information privacy and data security, from the past week. We add an "Amicus Brief(ly)¹" comment to each item, where we briefly (see what we did there?) note for friends (and again?) of CounselorLibrary the important takeaways from the developments outlined in the email. Our legal reporters - CARLAW, HouseLaw, InstallmentLaw, PrivacyLaw, and BizFinLaw - provide more comprehensive, real-time updates of federal and state laws, regulations, litigation, and other industry items of interest. For a personal guided tour and free trial of any of these legal reporters, please contact Michael Willer at 614-855-0505 or mwiller@counselorlibrary.com.

On April 9, the Federal Trade Commission obtained a $10 million settlement with the country's largest ticket resale platform, resolving allegations that the company misrepresented ticket prices by failing to provide an all-in pricing disclosure at the beginning of the transaction. The FTC's current leadership has identified this type of deceptive pricing practice as one of its top enforcement priorities.

In May 2025, the FTC's Rule on Unfair and Deceptive Fees took effect. The rule prohibits hidden fees in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries under the theory that hiding fees during the checkout process is an unfair and deceptive practice. After the rule took effect, the FTC issued a letter to the ticket resale platform warning that it was in violation of the rule. The FTC has recently issued similar warning letters to 13 property management software providers and 97 auto dealerships. In each case, the FTC's warning letters have focused on potential deception of consumers by failing to provide all-in pricing disclosures. The FTC is also attempting to extend its express UDAP authority to more industries, most notably to housing rentals, with a potential new rule on unfair and deceptive rental housing fees in the early stages of the rulemaking process.

Shortly after sending the letter to the ticket resale platform, the FTC filed a complaint alleging violations of both the FTC Act (for alleged misrepresentation of the total price of a good or service) and the rule (for allegedly not displaying the total price at all stages of the ticketing process). The complaint also alleged that the ticket resale platform intentionally delayed full compliance with the rule to gain an unfair competitive advantage in sales of highly-sought-after tickets to particular sporting events.

In addition to the $10 million in redress to affected consumers, the settlement prohibits the ticket resale platform from: (1) offering, displaying, or advertising any price of a good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; (2) failing to disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information; (3) failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the amount of any fees or charges that have been excluded from the total price and what they are for, as well as the final payment amount - before the consumer agrees to pay for a product or service; and (4) further violating the rule.

Amicus Brief(ly): While this investigation and expensive settlement involve event ticket sales and resales, and not consumer credit issues, the theme in the allegations and the settlement is reminiscent of the themes of investigations and consent orders coming out of the FTC and the states in the context of vehicle price advertising. Specifically, price advertisements must be clear and inclusive of mandatory fees so that consumers have better information before they decide to buy. The FTC cast a wide net with its recent letter campaign targeted at property management software providers and vehicle dealers, cautioning them about the practices alleged in this $10 million settlement. The UDAP case is getting easier to make for government enforcement agencies as settlements like these accrue, and the issue is not going away as states adopt statutes and regulations focused on price advertising. Given all this activity, providers of all kinds should be checking their price advertisements to ensure that they are accurate and inclusive to avoid an investigation and costly settlement with the FTC or a state attorney general.

On April 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation jointly issued a final rule that codifies the elimination of reputation risk from their supervisory programs.

Among other things, the final rule "prohibits the agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk. The rule also prohibits the agencies from requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close an account, to refrain from providing an account, product, or service, or to modify or terminate any product or service on the basis of a person or entity's political, social, cultural, or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech, or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk. The rule further forbids the agencies from taking any supervisory action or other adverse action against an institution, a group of institutions, or the institution-affiliated parties of any institution that is designed to punish or discourage an individual or group from engaging in any lawful political, social, cultural, or religious activities, constitutionally protected speech, or, for political reasons, lawful business activities that the agencies or its personnel disagree with or disfavor."

The final rule defines "reputation risk" as "any risk, regardless of how the risk is labeled by the institution or regulators, that an action or activity, or combination of actions or activities, or lack of actions or activities, of an institution could negatively impact public perception of the institution for reasons not clearly and directly related to the financial or operational condition of the institution."

On February 26, the Federal Reserve Board issued a proposed rule that would codify the removal of reputation risk from the Board's supervisory programs. The comment period on the Board's proposed rule does not close until April 27.

Amicus Brief(ly): The agencies have to follow directives that come from the administration, and these actions by the OCC and the FDIC adhere to the administration's requirement to keep banks from using potential, speculative risk to their reputation as a reason to avoid doing business with a person or company. The OCC and the FDIC identify concerns about reputational risk as subjective, and they are, especially when contrasted with more measurable and objective factors like credit risk and liquidity risk. They also fairly identify an absence of clear evidence that supervisory interference based on reputational risk has protected banks from losses. Favoring predictable, reliable, and quantifiable risks as safety and soundness markers for banks, the agencies will no longer be examining supervised banks for more speculative, subjective concerns about potential reputational risks in the banks' relationships. Watch for the FRB to adopt its proposed rule on this issue later this year.

On April 3, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed Senate Bill 884, which authorizes the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") to license and regulate online used car dealers. An "online used car dealer" is defined as a "licensed used motor vehicle dealer that conducts sales exclusively through electronic or digital platforms and does not operate a physical retail display location in [Maine]." An online used car dealer may partner with a service center or inspection station but may not maintain an in-person sales lot.

An applicant for licensure as an online used car dealer must:

• hold valid authority as a corporation or limited liability entity in good standing with the Secretary of State;
• demonstrate motor vehicle sales in multiple jurisdictions within the U.S.;
• provide proof of a minimum of 100 annual motor vehicle sales; and
• meet all background check requirements established by the Secretary of State.

An online used car dealer must apply for a license in accordance with the requirements under Maine Revised Statutes, Title 29-A § 901 (Application for Dealer License). An online used car dealer is exempt from the established place of business requirements but may maintain a physical location in the state. If an online used car dealer elects to establish or operate a physical office, inspection station, or repair facility in the state, that location must fully comply with all applicable dealer licensing and regulatory requirements for used car dealer licensees. An online used car dealer must also maintain a surety bond and submit an annual licensing fee.

An online used car dealer is subject to all applicable laws and regulations governing the licensing and sale of new and used motor vehicles in the state.

An online used car dealer's failure to comply with these provisions or breach of a consumer sales contract constitutes grounds for license suspension or revocation.

Amicus Brief(ly): Maine's effort to modernize the operation of its BMV is reflected in this dealer licensing law, which will require online-only vehicle dealers to have a license just like dealers with physical locations. The number of online vehicle sales is relatively low compared to physical sales, but it is growing. As the consumer world becomes increasingly digital, this trend should continue over the next decade and beyond. The traditional regulation of physical dealerships does not work well for online-only dealers, and this new law recognizes that, while including some conditional rules for online dealers who expand their business model in Maine to include some physical facilities. Those dealers will be subject to more traditional (and thorough) regulation by the BMV.

On April 6, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions issued a Statement of Charges against a large non-bank mortgage servicer, alleging violations of the Washington Consumer Loan Act. The DFI seeks to impose a fine of $4,175,000, which, according to the DFI's press release "is one of the most significant fines [the] DFI has sought outside of multi-state enforcement actions due to the number and nature of the alleged violations."

Specifically, the Statement of Charges alleges that the mortgage servicer, among other things:

• engaged in unfair or deceptive practices against borrowers, including: (1) failing to mediate in good faith during the foreclosure process, (2) providing misleading or inaccurate information to borrowers over the phone regarding escrows, appraisals, and home equity lines of credit, (3) responding to borrower concerns in an untimely manner, (4) sending a letter of default to a borrower on a closed loan, and (5) failing to maintain the security of borrowers' private information;
• onboarded new loans incorrectly, leading to errors with private mortgage insurance, inaccurate credit reporting, and inaccurate escrow accounts;
• applied borrowers' mortgage payments incorrectly;
• improperly maintained and serviced escrow accounts for borrowers, including purchasing forced-placed insurance for borrowers who were already insured, disbursing a duplicate force-placed insurance premium payment, and failing to timely cancel a forced-placed insurance policy;
• failed to provide timely and complete responses to the DFI's investigation of consumer complaints;
• provided incomplete and inaccurate periodic statements to borrowers;
• failed to maintain an adequate compliance management system;
• failed to send formal response letters after receiving a Notice of Error from borrowers; and
• filed inaccurate mortgage call reports.

The DFI seeks entry of an order that the mortgage servicer cease continued violations of the CLA cited in the Statement of Charges and cease acquiring new mortgage servicing rights for properties located in the state until it remediates the violations cited in the Statement of Charges.

Amicus Brief(ly): State regulators are often understaffed, so they conduct examinations and investigations as best they can with the staff they have. It is often the case that state regulators will follow smoke (in the form of consumer complaints) to see if there is fire, and that appears to be what happened in Washington with this settlement. After receiving 125 consumer complaints about the mortgage loan servicer in this case, the DFI ran a 5-year investigation and cited a number of exceptions in a licensing examination last year to arrive at its Statement of Charges. The claims made in the Statement of Charges suggest that the servicer may be understaffed, just like the regulators - there is some low-hanging, avoidable fruit in that list of alleged violations that unfortunately can result from servicing and audit teams running thin. The proposed fine is expensive for a single-state action, which underscores the seriousness of the claims. This action is not final yet, but servicers can use the list of allegations as a reminder to audit for the kinds of claims the DFI made against this servicer.

On April 8, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear signed Senate Bill 157, which amends Kentucky Revised Statutes § 286.8-125 (concerning limitations on a loan originator's fee) to allow consumers to buy down their interest rates on their mortgages through the use of discount points.

Currently, Section 286.8-125(a) provides that is "unlawful for any licensee or person holding a claim of exemption to originate a loan secured by a mortgage on residential real property in Kentucky if the total net income generated by the licensee or person exceeds the greater of [$2,000 or 4%] of the total loan amount." "Total net income" is defined as "all fees, income, or compensation of any kind collected, received, or charged by" the loan originator including, among other things, discount points.

S.B. 157 adds subsection (b) to Section 286.8-125 to provide that subsection (a) does "not apply to a loan for which the total points and fees on the loan do not exceed the threshold set forth in [Section 1026.43(e)(3) of the Truth in Lending Act]." Section 1026.43(e)(3) of TILA places limits on points and fees for qualified mortgages.

Amicus Brief(ly): In higher mortgage interest rate environments like the one we are in now (and have been for more than four years, coming off record-low mortgage rates that preceded pandemic-induced inflation over the past several years), it is common for consumers to consider paying discount points at origination as a means of reducing the interest they pay over the life of their mortgage loans. Kentucky makes a sensible adjustment to its mortgage loan origination rules to ease the restrictions on licensed loan originator earnings and increase the options for consumers who want to pay a little more up front to secure a lower long-term periodic interest rate.

---

¹ For the unfamiliar, an “Amicus Brief” is a legal brief submitted by an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a case where the person or organization (the “friend”) submitting the brief is not a party to the case, but is allowed by the court to file the brief to share information or expertise that bears on the issues in the case.