b'Payday/Small Dollar LendingNumber of Actions Amount of Recovery 1026 $149.0M31 $96.2M$1.5M13$84.2M17$50.7M13$17.8M2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021on consumer accounts due to a coding error. Theattempts, without a new consumer authorization. In CFPB also concluded that such actions were likely2020, the Supreme Court held that the leadership to cause substantial injury, depriving consumers ofstructure of the CFPB was unconstitutional. Seila Law access to needed funds and creating a risk of bankLLC v. CFPB, 140 S .Ct. 2183, 2192 (2020) (Seila Law). fees. At bottom, despite this years decrease in publicly- Shortly thereafter, the CFPB rescinded the underwriting announced enforcement activity, the new leadership atprovision of the Rule, but ratified the payments provision the CFPB and the enactment of the payday lending ruleof the Rule. 85 Fed. Reg. 4 1,905-02 (July 13, 2020).will almost certainly lead to increased supervisory andCommunity v. CFPB was brought on behalf of lenders enforcement activity for small dollar lending in the yearsand businesses impacted by the Rule and its ratification, ahead. Thus, we expect that 2021 was likely a blip,relying on Seila Law to present a direct challenge to rather than a trend, in enforcement in this space. the Rules payment provisions. Ultimately, the district court rejected plaintiffs position, siding with the CFPB 2021 Highlights in holding that the payment provision should not be set aside. The district court relied, in part, on Supreme CFPB Overcomes Challenge to Payday Lending Rule Court precedent that Seila Law does not mean In August, the U.S. District Court for the Westernactions taken by an agency with an unconstitutional District of Texas issued an opinion upholding the CFPBstructure are void ab initio or must necessarily be Rule regulating payday lending. Community Financialundone. Further, the court found the ratification cured Services Association of America, LTD., et al. v. CFPB,the constitutional injury. In addition to the Seila Law Case No. 1:18-CV-00295 (W.D. TX.) (Community v.challenges, plaintiffs also argued that the CFPBs denial CFPB). The November 2017 Payday, Vehicle Title, andof one of its members rulemaking petition to amend the Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Rule (Rule) atRule to exclude debit card payments was arbitrary and issue included an underwriting provision, which restrictscapricious. Again the court sided with CFPB, finding lenders from making covered loans without reasonablyit had established the rational connection between determining that the consumers will have the abilitythe facts found and the choice made when it chose to to repay the loans and a payment provision, whichinclude debit card payments in the Rule.restricts certain lenders from attempting to withdrawFollowing the courts ruling, then-Acting Director from a consumers account after two failed withdrawalUejio issued a statement applauding the ruling and 37'