Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32Key Trends For all of 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) remained extremely active on the supervisory, enforcement and rulemaking fronts. The CFPB’s view of its jurisdiction remains expansive, and in 2015, it continued an aggressive enforcement agenda involving indirect auto lenders and captive auto finance companies, telecommunications companies, and other enterprises outside the scope of the traditional bank and non-bank lenders the agency was enacted to help reg- ulate. Likewise, the CFPB has shown continued willing- ness to leverage its UDAAP powers under Dodd-Frank to police conduct that would otherwise comply with enu- merated consumer finance laws. Beyond these forms of “jurisdiction creep,” 2015 saw the CFPB decree itself free of any statute of limitations period in administrative proceedings, and depart from prior HUD and judicial doctrine concerning RESPA in the first CFPB admin- istrative appeal decision. In addition to the CFPB, the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and state financial services regulators all remained vigorous enforcers in the consumer finance space, at times part- nering with the CFPB on significant matters. In the courts, 2015 marked a year in which several issues with the potential to impact the adjudication of class action litigation and consumer finance laws were taken up by appellate courts. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court heard various challenges to a plaintiff’s ability to bring or continue a class action law suit, includ- ing: standing challenges in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, argu- ments for mootness in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, and challenges to the continuing viability of a class action when the class has members with no damages in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo. The D.C. Circuit, meanwhile, is set to consider, among other things, the constitu- tionality of the CFPB in PHH Corp. et al., v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 15-1177. Finally, the explosion of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) actions has led to several new appellate rulings, includ- ing the pending appeal of the FCC’s controversial declar- atory rulings construing the Act. overview In 2015, the consumer financial services industry continued to face increasing pressure, from regulators and government enforcement activity, and ever-more creative litigation tactics. In order to stay competitive—and to avoid government scrutiny and high-stakes consumer litigation—lenders must stay on top and ahead of changes in the law, new regulatory interpretations, and shifting legislative and enforcement priorities. Through our LenderLaw Watch and Consumer Finance Enforcement Watch blogs, Goodwin Procter’s Consumer Financial Services Litigation and Enforcement group analyzed key industry and legal developments and provided real-time reporting on a full range of federal and state consumer finance enforcement activity, keeping our clients current and informed on key legal developments and how they could impact the industry. We also con- tinued to grow the proprietary database of information on enforcement actions undergirding the Enforcement Watch blog, allowing us to provide detailed, quantitative enforcement trend analyses. In this year-end review, we synthesize our prior coverage of the year’s most significant developments and ac- tions from both blogs and use our detailed industry and regulatory knowledge to offer our predictions on what the industry should expect during 2016 in several key spaces, including the mortgage, credit card, student, auto, debt collection, and payday areas. This review includes detail on litigation tactics and trends, federal and state enforcement activity, noteworthy appellate matters, and covers hot topics for online lenders and other FinTech companies.