Texas judge says the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exceeded its authority

• Texas judge rules CFPB lacked authority to bar medical debt from credit files

• Decision preserves lenders ability to consider medical debt in credit decisions

• Industry groups hail ruling as vital for accurate credit reporting

A federal judge in Texas has voided a Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that sought to ban medical debt from appearing in consumer credit reports, handing a significant victory to credit reporting agencies and lenders.

In his opinion, Judge Sean D. Jordan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas concluded that the CFPB overstepped its statutory authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by trying to bar the inclusion of medical debts in credit reports. The Bureau has no such power to define what in a consumer report is permissible, Judge Jordan wrote, adding that Congress alone determines the permissible purposes for which credit reports may be used.

The CFPB issued the rule in the closing days of the Biden Administration, aiming to prevent credit reporting agencies from listing medical debts, even if coded to obscure the nature of the medical treatment. The rule also would have blocked lenders from considering medical debts in credit decisions, which the administration estimated could have erased nearly $50 billion in medical debts from the records of approximately 15 million Americans.

Congress has also been considering a measure that would have vacated the rule.

The CFPB going beyond their statutory authority to eliminate all medical debt from credit reports is irresponsible and a clear example of regulatory overreach, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. He warned that the rule could lead to banks having a less clear credit picture and limit access to credit for consumers.

Credit industry applauds the action

The Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) and the Cornerstone Credit Union League challenged the rule, arguing it exceeded the Bureaus authority and violated the FCRA and the Administrative Procedure Act. When the Trump Administration assumed office, the CFPB reversed its stance and joined the industry in seeking to vacate the rule. However, intervenorsincluding two individuals with medical debt and two clinics assisting patients with related issuestried to keep the rule in place.

Ultimately, Judge Jordan sided with the industry groups, declaring the CFPBs action unlawful. [The] FCRA expressly allows creditors to obtain and use properly coded medical-debt information in credit decisions, but the Medical Debt Rule would prohibit them from doing so, he wrote. As it now recognizes, the Bureau was powerless to promulgate such a rule that flouts a federal statute by functionally rewriting it.

Dan Smith, President and CEO of the CDIA, applauded the ruling. We applaud the courtsdecision to vacatethe prior administrations medical debt rule, he said. Americas financial system is the best in the world because it is based on a full, fair and accurate credit reporting system. Information about unpaid medical debts is an important element in assessing a consumers ability to pay.

Smith added that the decision ensures lenders maintain access to complete credit information, which he argued is critical for responsible lending and consumer access to financial products.

It remains unclear whether the intervenors or other consumer advocates plan to appeal the ruling.

Danone issues nationwide recall after finding hard plastic in popular yogurt toppings

• Select YoCrunch yogurt products are being recalled due to potential plastic pieces in the topping dome, which can be a choking hazard.

• The recall affects multiple flavors sold across the U.S., including Oreo, M&Ms, and Nestl Crunch.

• Consumers are urged not to eat the affected products and can request a refund or replacement.

YoCrunch yogurt fansheres an important heads-up: Danone North America, the company behind YoCrunch yogurts, has voluntarily recalled several popular products because the dome-shaped toppers may contain small, hard plastic pieces.

The recall, announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), includes a variety of YoCrunch yogurt cups with mix-in toppings like M&Ms, Oreo cookie pieces, and Nestl Crunch bits. These products were distributed nationwide and could still be sitting in your fridge.

Whats going on?

Danone says the issue was traced back to a third-party supplier that provides the dome-shaped toppers used for the crunchy toppings. Some of those toppers may include pieces of plastic that could pose a choking hazard or cause injury if consumed. While no injuries or illnesses have been reported so far, the company issued the recall out of an abundance of caution.

This is not a contamination issue with the yogurt itself just the plastic dome that holds the toppings. Still, if you have any of the affected products, its best not to eat them.

Which YoCrunch products are affected?

The recall includes the following six-ounce multipack and single-serve yogurt varieties:

• YoCrunch Oreo 6oz 4-pack

• YoCrunch M&Ms 6oz 4-pack

• YoCrunch Nestl Crunch 6oz 4-pack

• YoCrunch M&Ms Vanilla Lowfat Yogurt 6oz

• YoCrunch Oreo Vanilla Lowfat Yogurt 6oz

• YoCrunch Nestl Crunch Vanilla Lowfat Yogurt 6oz
  

For a full list of the UPCs and expiration dates, you can visit the official recall page on YoCrunch.com or FDA.gov.

What should you do if you have one?

If you have one of the recalled YoCrunch yogurts, Danone asks that you not eat it. Instead, take a photo of the products UPC and expiration date, then discard the yogurt. You can use that information to request a refund or replacement through YoCrunchs website or by calling their toll-free number listed on the recall notice.

If youve already eaten one and feel fine, theres no need to panic again, there have been no reports of injury. But if you experience anything unusual, it's always smart to consult a health care provider.

A quick reminder

YoCrunch says it takes product safety seriously and is working closely with retailers and the FDA to remove affected items from shelves. The company also emphasized that this issue was limited to specific lots and that their other products are not affected.

Nutritionists wants to call out sugar, sodium, fats more clearly

• Coalition Urges Stronger FDA Front-of-Package Labels on Sugars, Sodium, Fats

• 28 consumer and health groups plus 12 researchers back mandatory nutrition labels

• Advocate simpler High In warnings and sweetener disclosures

• Industry expected to push back in favor of voluntary labeling

A broad coalition of 28 leading consumer, public health, and nutrition organizations, alongside 12 academic researchers, has called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt a strong and simplified front-of-package nutrition labeling system that clearly alerts consumers when foods are high in added sugars, sodium, or saturated fat.

The joint comments, submitted this week, respond to the FDAs January 2025 proposed rule requiring prominent front-of-package labels to classify packaged foods as high, medium, or low in key nutrients of concern.

The rule would apply to products marketed to adults and children aged four years and older and was advanced under the Biden administration. It now awaits potential finalization under the Trump administration, which has not yet released its regulatory agenda but has signaled that nutrition labeling remains a priority.

While endorsing the FDAs push for mandatory, interpretive labels, the coalitionincluding the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)urged regulators to go further. They recommended using simpler, attention-grabbing icons, such as an exclamation mark, to quickly communicate health risks posed by excessive added sugars, sodium, or saturated fats.

"It's time to act"

Front-of-package labeling is one of the most impactful approaches we have to address overconsumption of harmful ultra-processed foods and improve our nations health, said CSPI senior policy scientist Eva Greenthal. Its time to act on evidence-based solutions.

The groups also pressed the FDA to require front-of-package disclosures for products containing non-nutritive sweeteners, especially since these calorie-free additives are not recommended for children. Such disclosures, they argued, would help deter manufacturers from reformulating products with these ingredients as a workaround to avoid high in labels. The original Biden-era proposal did not address this issue.

Additional recommendations included extending front-of-package labeling requirements to foods intended for infants and toddlers and pairing the new rules with robust public education to ensure consumers understand and use the labels effectively.

Despite the coalitions support, the FDAs proposal faces likely resistance from the food and beverage industry, which has long favored a voluntary Facts Up Front labeling system. Studies show the voluntary labels fail to help consumers quickly identify foods high in unhealthy nutrients, while High In-style warnings have been proven to influence healthier purchasing decisions, encourage product reformulation, and reduce deaths linked to diet-related diseases.

CSPI also submitted separate comments detailing further steps the agency could take to maximize the rules impact on public health.

FDA officials have not yet set a timeline for issuing a final rule.

Company to pay $9 million in refunds and penalties

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• FirstCash to pay $9 million in refunds and penalties for illegal pawn loans to servicemembers

• CFPB lawsuit alleged loans exceeded 36% APR cap and imposed illegal arbitration terms

• Settlement mandates compliance reforms and restitution for affected military families

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has reached a settlement with FirstCash, Inc., and its nineteen subsidiaries over allegations that the company violated the Military Lending Act (MLA) by issuing high-interest pawn loans to active duty servicemembers and their families.

The parties jointly filed a stipulated final judgment and proposed order to resolve the CFPBs November 2021 lawsuit, which isawaiting court approval.

FirstCash, a Delaware-based nonbank corporation headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, operates more than 1,000 pawnshops across the United States through its wholly owned subsidiaries. The CFPB alleged that since at least October 3, 2016, FirstCash and its subsidiaries charged borrowers covered under the MLA annual percentage rates exceeding the legal 36% cap.

Additionally, the agency claimed that FirstCashs loan agreements unlawfully required arbitration clauses and failed to provide mandatory loan disclosures, further violating protections granted under the MLA.

The alleged misconduct also constituted violations of a 2013 CFPB order against a predecessor entity of FirstCash, heightening regulatory concerns over the companys lending practices.

Servicemembers to be compensated

Under the proposed settlement terms, FirstCash would be required to set aside $5 million to compensate harmed servicemembers and their dependents for thousands of unlawful pawn loans.

The company must also pay a $4 million civil penalty to the CFPBs victims relief fund. Beyond financial penalties, FirstCash is obligated to ensure strict compliance with the MLA going forward, either by offering MLA-compliant loan products or implementing regulatory safeguards to prevent lending to protected military borrowers where prohibited.

The CFPB said the settlement underscores its commitment to protecting military families from predatory lending practices. The proposed order awaits final approval from the court.