b'Court of Appeals Financial Services (DFS) action against the Office of Eleventh Circuit Holds Administrative Feasibility isthe Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in Lacewell Not a Requirement for Class Certification v. Office of the Comptroller, No. 19-4271. DFS sued In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Elevenththe OCC, challenging the OCCs decision to begin Circuit issued a decision in Cherry v. Dometic Corp., No.accepting applications for special-purpose national 19-13478, holding that a putative class representativebank charters from financial technology companies does not need to establish an administratively feasibleengaged in the business of banking, including those method to identify absent class members as a pre- that do not accept deposits. DFS argued that the requisite for class certification under Federal Rule ofOCC had exceeded its authority under the National Civil Procedure 23. The Eleventh Circuit noted thatBank Act because, they believed, the business of manageability alone will rarely be sufficient to preventbanking required that national banks take deposits. class certification. This decision may lead to an increaseThe Second Circuit found that DFS lacked standing to of class actions certified in the Eleventh Circuit, whichsue because it did not allege that the OCCs decision hosts a number of consumer financial services putativehad or would cause it to suffer an actual injury in fact. class actions.It also found that the claims were constitutionally unripe for judicial review because the OCC had not Seventh Circuit Reaffirms that Bare FDCPA Violationyet received or granted any applications. The Second is not Actionable Circuit expressed no view as to whether the business In May, in Markakos v. Medicredi, Inc., No. 20-2351, theof banking requires the receipt of deposits. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued aSecond Circuit Holds Settlement Offer Collection decision that a breach of the FDCPA does not aloneNotices Need Not Advise Consumer of Accruing cause an injury in fact. A debtor brought an action againstInterest to Comply with FDCPAa collection agency for violating the FCDPA, allegedly byIn June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sending debt collection letters with deficient information.issued a decision concerning required information in The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district courts dismissaldebt collection letters in Cortez v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, on the grounds that the debtor lacked standing to sueNo. 20-1134. A debtor received a collection notice that because she did not allege that the missing informationdid not state whether interest and fees were accruing in the letter caused her any harm. In coming to thison the debtors account. The Second Circuit held that a conclusion, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged thedebt collector is not liable for failing to disclose accruing somewhat contradictor[y] decree[] in Spokeo, Inc.interest so long as the notice clearly states that the v. Robins, No. 13-1339, that on the one hand Article IIIholder of the debt will accept payment of the amount standing requires a concrete injury even in the contextset forth in full satisfaction of the debt if payment is of a statutory violation but on the other hand that themade by a specified date. The Court held that because violation of a procedural right granted by statute can bethe debtors collection notice extended a settlement sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury inoffer that, if accepted, would have cleared the debtors fact. The Seventh Circuit also noted that this was theaccount, the collection notice was not in violation ofeighth time in 2021 that it had held a breach of the FDCPAthe FDCPA.does not alone cause an injury in fact. Second Circuit Dismisses Legal Challenge to OCCFifth Circuit Holds That Waiver of Right to Arbitrate is Fintech Charter Program Claim SpecificIn June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SecondIn September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the New York State Department ofCircuit held in Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 20-10088, that an operator of a website did not waive 55'