b'Total Actions by Product (with Recoveries)Number of Actions Amount of RecoveryCredit, Debit + Prepaid CardsDebt Collection + Settlement 4$3.1B Mortgage32 Origination + Servicing$63.1M 27Payday + Small $174.1MDollar Lending17 Auto Lending$50.7M CreditStudent Lending Reporting 117 7 $562.3M$368.1M $19.2M21-0057 (S.D.N.Y.), and likely other challenges to theAppellate Highlightsrule, will continue to wind their way through the courtSupreme Court Rules CFPB Director Removable at system in 2021.Will by President, but Declines to Invalidate Entirety California Creates Mini-CPFB of Dodd-Frank ActIn September, California Governor Gavin Newsom signedIn June, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated into law the California Consumer Financial Protection Lawdecision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, No. 19-7, holding that (CCFPL), which transformed the Department of BusinessCongress attempt to insulate the CFPB Director from Oversight into the DFPI. The DFPI is a state-analogue topolitical pressure by permitting removal of the Director the federal CFPB: it has broad rulemaking authority overonly for cause violates the separation of powers. The unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAP),Court held that Article II of the Constitution vests in can require consumer finance companies (includingthe President the power to remove federal officials. Fintech companies and debt collectors) to register withInstead of striking down the Dodd-Frank Act in its the DFPI, and has enforcement authority over some 50entirety, however, the Court chose a middle ground by California and 20 federal consumer finance laws. Finally,ruling that the Acts for-cause removal provision could as part of the same suite of laws, California enacted thebe severed from the rest of the statute, preserving the Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights, which gives theother provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that establish DFPI broad authority to regulate student loan servicers.the CFPB (and the CFPB itself). OCC Charters First Fintech Companies Pursuant toTCPA Circuit Split Grows, Prompting Supreme Fintech Charter Court to Grant CertIn July, the OCC granted its first special-purposeWhat constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system national bank charter to a Fintech company, and in(ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection October, granted the second such charter. But theseAct (TCPA) has bedeviled district and circuit courts Fintech Charters may be short-lived. In 2019, ain recent years. In January, the Eleventh Circuit in federal district court in Lacewell v. OCC, No. 19-4271,Glasserv.Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, No. 18-agreed with the New York Department of Financial14499, joined the Third Circuit in narrowly interpreting Services (DFS) that the OCCs granting of a charterthe term ATDS, holding that neither phone system to a non-depository institution exceeded its authorityused in the pair of consolidated cases was an ATDS under the National Bank Act. That decision is currentlybecause neither used a random or sequential number on appeal to the Second Circuit, with argumentsgenerator. The Seventh Circuit endorsed a similar scheduled in early March 2021.interpretation of the ATDS in its February decision in Ali Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc, No. 19-1738. In contrast, 9'