Explainer-Is Britain on the cusp of another multibillion-pound consumer finance scandal?
By Sinead Cruise
LONDON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will on Tuesday hear arguments to overturn a judgment that could cost Britain's financial industry billions of pounds in fresh legal costs and potential customer compensation.
The Court of Appeal ruled in October that it was unlawful for lenders to pay commissions to motor dealers without a customer's informed consent, triggering speculation about the nature and scale of possible remedies for affected borrowers.
Lloyds Banking Group, Close Brothers and Santander UK have together already set aside more than 1.5 billion pounds ($1.9 billion) to cover potential compensation claims.
Some analysts say the fallout could be the costliest for banks since they paid almost 40 billion pounds in compensation to customers for mis-selling payment protection insurance.
WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDER?
Reviewing three earlier claims - two against South African lender FirstRand and one against Britain's Close Brothers - the Supreme Court will decide the extent of car dealers' legal responsibility to provide appropriate information to consumers when also acting as credit brokers.
Assuming a duty of care is owed, the court is also expected to rule whether commissions paid by lenders to car dealers were "secret" or insufficiently disclosed, and whether lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers' breach of duty.
If lenders are considered liable, and the relationship between lender and consumer is considered "unfair" under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the court will decide what kind of remedy errant lenders have to make.
The Supreme Court's judgment is expected in the summer.
WHO MIGHT BE IMPACTED?
The Financial Conduct Authority banned the payment of discretionary motor finance commissions in 2021, eliminating incentives for brokers to hike the interest rate customers pay on their motor finance loans.
But some customers say they were treated unfairly before the ban came into effect, prompting the FCA to launch a probe in January 2024 into historic potential misconduct.
If the Supreme Court rules lenders and brokers should have been more transparent about commissions, the regulator has said it will consult on the structure of a compensation scheme within six weeks.
More than 2 million people a year rely on the motor finance market to buy a car, FCA data shows.
HOW MUCH COULD BANKS HAVE TO PAY?
Only a handful of UK lenders have motor finance businesses large enough to be materially concerned about the ruling.
These include Lloyds, Close Brothers and Santander UK, which have already made provisions of 1.15 billion pounds, 295 million pounds and 165 million pounds respectively.
But analysts say other types of commissions paid by banks to credit brokers could face scrutiny if the court decides customers must consent to such payments.
Total 'worst case' industry costs could reach 30 billion pounds, ratings agency Moody's said in November.
RBC Capital has estimated a 'base case' impact on banks and non-banks of almost 18 billion pounds.
WHAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION?
The outcome of another legal dispute, Expert Tooling vs. Engie Power on March 21, could have a bearing on the motor finance ruling.
That case involved Engie supplying electricity to Expert Tooling via an energy broker. The Court of Appeal found that the commission paid to the broker should have been disclosed. However, it did not find Engie an accessory to the broker's breach of duty due to the lack of evidence of dishonesty.
Some lawyers say lenders will likely escape significant financial liabilities unless claimants can prove commission payments were concealed or hidden dishonestly.
Others are not so sure, citing key differences between the cases, including that the claimant in Expert Tooling vs Engie was a business, not a consumer.
WHAT NEXT FOR THE BANKING INDUSTRY?
Several major British banks have signalled an interest in recent months in mergers and acquisitions, but worries about a damaging consumer finance scandal have cast a pall over dealmaking.
Clarity over the ruling and any compensation scheme could unlock cash set aside to cover legal expenses and revive M&A activity, analysts and bankers say.
($1 = 0.7738 pounds)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
DEA Judge Mulrooney's MMJ Marijuana Ruling May Be DEA's Last Stand Before the Constitution Strikes Back
Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ BioPharma Cultivation a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations and DEA violations is now preserved - the 'Axon-Jarkesy defense' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 22, 2025 / In a move that now appears both unconstitutional and strategically reckless, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II has ruled against MMJ BioPharma Cultivation - not by adjudicating evidence, but by canceling the hearing altogether, shutting the courtroom door before any facts could be presented. This denial of due process is not just procedural misconduct. It stands in direct violation of recent Supreme Court precedent - namely, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024) - which fundamentally altered the authority of federal agencies to conduct internal administrative hearings shielded from constitutional scrutiny. Why DEA's ALJ System is Constitutionally Cracked In Axon v. FTC, the Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to federal administrative adjudication systems need not wait until after the agency's internal process is complete. The ruling opened the door for early judicial review - precisely to prevent agencies like the DEA from causing irreparable harm to regulated parties before a federal court can weigh in. Justice Gorsuch put it plainly: 'A proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.' But that is exactly what happened to MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. Despite spending seven years pursuing a legally sound registration to grow marijuana for FDA-sanctioned clinical trials, MMJ was denied the chance to be heard. Judge Mulrooney ruled - without trial - that the case could be decided on the papers, ignoring contested facts, ignoring ex parte communications concerns, and ignoring the constitutional structure of justice itself. Jarkesy and the Death Knell for DEA's Shadow Court The Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC went even further. The Court ruled that administrative adjudications violate the Constitution on multiple fronts: The DEA's administrative system which allowed Judge Mulrooney to operate unchecked, issue rulings without testimony, and sabotage a life sciences company without judicial oversight - now sits squarely in the crosshairs of both Axon and Jarkesy. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation: The Victim of an Unconstitutional Machine MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is not a fringe operation. It is the only DEA applicant actively pursuing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, including a manufactured softgel formulation for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite this, Judge Mulrooney's June 2025 ruling canceled a long-scheduled hearing without any opportunity for MMJ to introduce its DEA-compliant facility documentation, binding supply agreements, or evidence of DEA ex parte interference. Even worse, the company was never formally noticed of the pretrial decision - a basic requirement of any fair proceeding. Instead of adjudicating facts, Mulrooney rubber-stamped DEA's bureaucratic inertia. What's Next? The Courts Must Clean Up the DEA's Mess The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: agencies like the DEA do not have unreviewable authority over people's rights, livelihoods, or innovations. Congress did not create 'mini-courts' within executive agencies to bypass the Constitution. Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations is now preserved - the 'Axon Side-Step' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. If MMJ's case advances to the D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court, it may well be the case that dismantles the DEA's internal adjudication regime once and for all. In the end, the question is no longer whether MMJ BioPharma has been mistreated. The question is whether the DEA's system can survive the Constitution. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump says "maybe" he'll try to fire Fed chief Jerome Powell
President Trump suggested Friday he may try to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling the central bank leader a "Total and Complete Moron" for leaving interest rates steady. The president has been lashing out against Powell for months, criticizing the central banker — whom Mr. Trump appointed in his first term — for not lowering interest rates at a faster pace. It's unclear whether the president is legally allowed to fire Powell before his term ends in May 2026, and Mr. Trump said in April he has "no intention" of doing so. But in a post criticizing Powell on Friday, Mr. Trump floated the idea, writing: "Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him?" "But regardless, his Term ends shortly!" the president added. Any attempt to fire Powell would be legally contentious. Federal law and prior court precedent says members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, including the chair, can only be fired "for cause." The Supreme Court ruled last month that the Trump administration can fire members of other independent federal agencies — but specifically exempted the Fed, calling the central bank a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity." Powell said last year he will not resign if Mr. Trump asks him to step down. The two met at the White House last month. Mr. Trump also called Powell a "dumb guy" in his Friday evening post. "I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates, but I've tried it all different ways," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work! He's a dumb guy, and an obvious Trump Hater, who should have never been there." The Fed declined to comment to CBS News. Why has Trump criticized Powell? Mr. Trump's issues with Powell hinge on the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies. The central bank's interest rate-setting committee, which is chaired by Powell, has kept its benchmark rate steady so far this year, after lowering it slightly from a two-decade high last year — following a series of rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 to quell inflation. Most recently, the committee opted against lowering rates earlier this week, drawing backlash from Mr. Trump. The decision comes with tradeoffs. High interest rates can slow down economic growth and make it more expensive for Americans to borrow money, which is why Mr. Trump wants cuts. But lowering interest rates too quickly could overheat the economy and cause inflation to spike yet again. While inflation has cooled off in recent years, it's still higher than the Fed's 2% annual target, and the Fed warns Mr. Trump's tariffs could push prices up. "Because the economy is still solid, we can take the time to actually see what's going to happen," Powell said earlier this week. Mr. Trump disagrees, nicknaming Powell "Mr. Too Late" and arguing that inflation is already low. On Friday, the president amped up his criticism, calling Powell a "numbskull" and suggesting the other members of the rate-setting Federal Open Monetary Committee "override" him. Mr. Trump also said Powell should lower interest rates immediately and just hike them again if inflation spikes — an idea that's at odds with the Fed's cautious strategy. "Don't say that you think there will be Inflation sometime in the future, because there isn't now but, if there is, raise the Rates!" wrote Mr. Trump. The attacks are a redux of Mr. Trump's first-term criticism. The president pushed back against Powell after the Fed hiked interest rates in 2018, but called Powell his "most improved player" for slashing rates during the 2020 pandemic. SpaceX Starship upper stage blows up Hurricane Erick approaches Mexico with destructive winds, major storm surge "Jaws" premiered 50 years ago, but it's a wonder it got made at all


Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
A Vaping Victory for Big Tobacco Masks the Real Issue
On Friday, the US Supreme Court waded into the confusing, on-again, off-again effort by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate e-cigarettes ... and didn't get too far. In voting 7-2 to allow a suit by RJ Reynolds Vapor Company against the agency to continue, the justices ruled on a tricky procedural issue and, I think, got the answer right. The litigation is far from over, but recent scholarly work suggests that the ban itself might be a mistake. To understand the case, it's useful to review a bit of history. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down the FDA's efforts to regulate most tobacco products. Nevertheless, in 2008, the agency began seizing e-cigarettes imported into the US. The following year, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which, among other things, required FDA approval before the marketing of any 'new' tobacco product. The courts swiftly held that the authority covered vaping devices. But rather than disrupt what had by then become a substantial market, the agency allowed companies to continue selling their e-cigarette products while it processed their applications.