b'Major U.S. Supreme Court & Appellate Cases Decided In 2021A number of highly anticipated cases were decided inensure the accuracy of the consumers credit files. 2021 that affect the consumer finance industry. AsideThe Supreme Court stated that only those plaintiffs from Facebook v. Duguid, et al., No. 19-511 discussedwho have been concretely harmed by a defendants in the 2021 Year in Reviews TCPA Section, the U.S.statutory violation may sue that private defendant over Supreme Court revisited Article III standing principlesthat violation in federal court. The Court held that the in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297 and limitedclass members whose alleged misleading credit reports the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)were disseminated to third parties had been concretely in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Tradeharmed under Article III. The remaining class members Commission, No. 19-508. Courts of Appeals decisionswere unable to demonstrate that the inaccurate alerts were impactful as well, ranging from setting parametersin their credit files were ever provided to third parties on actionable FDCPA claims to class certificationor caused a denial of credit; thus, the Supreme Court requirements.held that they had not suffered a concrete harm and lacked standing. 2021 Highlights Supreme Court Finds FHFA Unconstitutionally U.S. Supreme Court StructuredIn June, the Supreme Court issued a decision inSupreme Court Limits the Authority of the FTC Collins v. Yellen, No. 19-422, holding that the single In April, the Supreme Court issued a unanimousdirector leadership structure of the Federal Housing decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FederalFinance Agency (FHFA), who can only be removed for Trade Commission, No. 19-508, that limited thecause, unconstitutionally restricted the Presidents authority of the FTC to seek equitable monetaryremoval power in violation of the separation of powers. relief. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act permits the FTCThe Supreme Court found that their 2020 decision in to obtain a permanent injunction in federal courtSeila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. for violations of any law the FTC enforces. The FTC19-7, dictated the results here. Shareholders argued had begun a practice of using Section 13(b) to seekthat the FHFA exceeded its authority as a conservator equitable monetary awards, such as restitution andunder the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (the disgorgement, in federal district courts without theRecovery Act) in adopting an amendment which prior use of traditional administrative proceedings. Thereplaced the fixed-rate dividend formula with a variable Supreme Court held that this was improper, holdingone. The Supreme Court held that, under the terms of that, as written, Section 13(b) does not permit thethe Recovery Act, the FHFA did not exceed its authority agency to seek monetary equitable relief. as a conservator; therefore, this claim was barred by the anti-injunction clause in Recovery Act which prohibits Supreme Court Reinforces Limits on courts from taking any action to restrain or affect the Federal Court Standing exercise of the powers or functions of the Agency as a In June, the Supreme Court issued a decision inconservator. The Supreme Court also held that while TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297 that expandedthe leadership structure was improper, there was no upon Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339. The Courtconstitutional defect in the statutorily prescribed method reinforced limits on Article III standing to plaintiffsof appointment; therefore, there was no reason to who have suffered a concrete harm and not just aregard any of the actions taken by the FHFA in relation bare procedural violation. Consumers brought anto the amendment as void. action against a credit reporting agency, alleging that the agency failed to use reasonable procedures to 54'