Latest news with #CFPB
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Attorneys Have Their Hands Full with Consumer Complaint Boom
Lawsuits against businesses based on consumer complaints surged last year and continue to grow in 2025 Class-action settlements alone hit nearly $40 billion in 2024, marking the third consecutive, record-setting year in the category. Private TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) claims have also exploded: Filings in January 2025 soared 268% year over year, with first-half TCPA class actions rising 44% from 2024. Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint database – a proxy for consumer dissatisfaction – registered over 1.29 million complaints in Q1 2025, a 169% increase from Q1 2024. California courtrooms are as busy as anywhere with such cases. And the complaints come from a diverse array of categories, many of which are clearly a sign of the times. This year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta released the 'Top 10 Consumer Complaints' and highlighted ongoing efforts to protect California consumers. The list included the top consumer complaint categories the California Department of Justice (DOJ) has received in the last calendar year. 'California is a pillar of strong state consumer protection laws and an outspoken advocate for robust federal protections,' said Bonta. 'Whether protecting our kids online, stopping egregious bank fees or cracking down on illegal price gouging, as the People's Attorney, I am committed to going to the mat for California consumers.' The Attorney General's Top 10 Consumer Complaint Categories Over the Past Year: California's 2025 surge in consumer lawsuits and complaints is a trend that's being felt most acutely in Los Angeles. Whether it's misleading advertising, hidden fees, data breaches, labor violations or deceptive pricing practices, consumers across the state are increasingly turning to the courts to assert their rights. The result is a new and more litigious landscape for businesses, especially those in consumer-facing industries, like retail, tech, automotive and hospitality. This uptick is not without context. California has long been home to some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, including the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). But in 2025, three forces appear to be fueling this litigation surge. First, there's the continued evolution of consumer rights awareness. Californians are more informed and tech-savvy than ever. The widespread availability of information about their legal rights, combined with high-profile class actions splashed across headlines and social media, has created a climate where consumers are not just willing but eager to challenge perceived corporate misbehavior. Second, new regulations and state-level legislation – including expanded protections under the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – have created a legal framework that both empowers plaintiffs and broadens the definitions of violations. For example, companies that mishandle or sell consumer data without consent are increasingly being held accountable in court, even for relatively minor infractions. Third, the rise of plaintiff-friendly legal technology has lowered the barrier to entry for filing lawsuits. Platforms that streamline class action recruitment, litigation funding firms that take on financial risk and AI-assisted legal tools have all contributed to a system in which consumers feel emboldened and lawyers feel equipped to take on more cases. Indeed, consumer financial litigation is clearly on the rise. In May of 2025, for example, filings jumped across the board – Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) cases were up 10.1% compared to the previous month; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases were up 15.5%; and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaints were up 8.8% – with year-to-date increases of 12.6% for FCRA cases and a near doubling (97.6%) in CFPB complaints compared to the same period in 2024. TCPA (telephone marketing) cases more than doubled year-over-year, with 507 class actions in Q1 2025, up 112% from Q1 2024. January alone was up 260%, according to the National Law Review. Los Angeles, as California's commercial and cultural capital, has become a flashpoint for this activity. In one high-profile 2025 case, a group of L.A. consumers filed a class action suit against a popular meal delivery app, alleging that the company used deceptive pricing, adding hidden fees during checkout that were not disclosed up front. Though the company denied wrongdoing, the suit sparked wider scrutiny of pricing transparency across the industry and led several other platforms to quietly update their fee disclosure practices. In another L.A.-based case, a tech startup that marketed a line of 'smart' home security devices was sued for failing to adequately protect user data. Plaintiffs alleged that poor cybersecurity practices led to a breach that exposed thousands of customers' personal information, including home addresses and video footage from interior cameras. The lawsuit not only drew national attention but also triggered an investigation by the California Attorney General's office. Even brick-and-mortar businesses aren't immune. Several Los Angeles-based gyms and wellness centers are now facing lawsuits over misleading membership practices, including unauthorized renewals and hidden cancellation fees, issues that have become more common as consumers re-evaluate subscription services post-pandemic. This growing tide of consumer litigation has caught many businesses off guard. Some are calling for reforms to prevent abuse of the system, particularly in cases where statutory damages can lead to large payouts even when actual consumer harm is minimal. Others argue that the system is working as intended: shining a spotlight on companies that cut corners, violate consumer trust or exploit legal gray areas. Ultimately, the rise in lawsuits may signal a broader cultural shift in California, a rejection of opaque business practices and a demand for greater transparency, fairness and respect for consumer rights. For companies operating in the state, particularly in cities like Los Angeles, this is not a moment to retreat behind legal firewalls. It is a time to assess compliance policies, ensure ethical customer treatment and recognize that accountability is no longer optional – it's expected. As California continues to set the tone for consumer protection nationally, the experiences of businesses in L.A. today may well become the blueprint for how companies across the country adapt to a more empowered and litigious customer base tomorrow.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Tax Breaks: The Scammers And Schemers Are Upping Their Fraud Game Edition
Scams are becoming more sophisticated. getty What could be worse than getting scammed? Getting scammed twice. The FBI is warning about a new scam involving fraudsters posing as lawyers representing fictitious law firms. Using social media or other messaging platforms, scammers offer their services, claiming to have authority to investigate fund recovery cases. To verify the contact, the "lawyers" say they are working with, or have received information on, the scam victim's case from the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or other government agency. In some cases, scam victims have reached out to fraudsters on fake websites, which look legitimate, in hopes of recovering their funds. Then, they ask for payment or additional personally identifiable information that can be used to trick victims a second time. The FBI urges folks to be cautious and remember the common fraud prevention refrain—if in doubt, assume it's a scam. It's true that scams are increasingly becoming more sophisticated and widespread. Nasdaq's Global Financial Crime Report estimates that scams and fraud added up to $485.6 billion per year in projected losses with U.S. victims taking a beating: the U.S. ranks second globally for major fraud losses. So, what's driving the upticks? A recent survey conducted by BioCatch, a global company focused on solving digital identity challenges through examining behavioral biometrics, aimed to offer clarity. One of the reasons may be that while U.S. banks may trust technology, they don't trust each other—there's no meaningful sharing of information. That's a break from behaviors abroad where statistics suggest that when banks in other countries share at scale, their losses are decreasing. (Part of the reluctance to share information may come from consumers. While 32% of those surveyed in the U.S. consider data privacy regulation as one of the main inhibitors to sharing data with other banks, 30% worry about the potential for misuse. These numbers are higher than global averages.) As scammers develop new schemes to steal money and information from consumers, the commitment to fraud prevention must evolve even faster. Understanding what kinds of scams are spreading and how they operate, as well as the roles that consumers, law enforcement, and financial institutions can play in mitigation and prevention, are all key. That means that education will continue to be a big part in stopping scammers. In another scam, the fraudster (aware of U.S. retirement accounts and rollover rules) nudges the individual to withdraw retirement funds for purposes of making an investment. The selling point from the scammer is that the investor can transfer the funds back to a retirement account tax-free within the applicable 60-day window for retirement account rollovers. Unfortunately, in many instances, the criminal takes the funds and disappears, leaving the victim with a huge loss and even more massive tax headache. The IRS has granted extensions of the 60-day rollover period where taxpayers were the victims of fraudulent schemes. However, taxpayers interested in requesting relief through a private letter ruling (PLR) should recognize the request is not an easy one, requiring the taxpayer to submit a litany of information to the agency to review whether the taxpayer satisfies the 'equity and good conscience' exception. Taxpayers who have withdrawn funds from retirement accounts due to fraud sometimes have options under the federal income tax laws–if you find yourself in that unfortunate situation, talk to a tax professional. Retirement account laws can be notoriously difficult to navigate at the best of times, but for the millions of former U.S. persons living abroad, understanding the tax implications of U.S. retirement accounts is critical. That's because IRAs, Roths, and SEPs remain tethered to U.S. tax rules long after you give up U.S. status. Withholding taxes, U.S. estate tax exposure and the harsh 'covered expatriate' tax regime are often overlooked until the time for planning has passed. U.S. citizens and green card holders who are contemplating giving up U.S. status need to be proactive in their tax planning to preserve hard-earned wealth–understanding the tax treatment of retirement accounts can help avoid unintended tax consequences. And that's a wrap on tax news for this week–but keep reading for more good stuff, including our fraud-focused tax trivia question. Enjoy your weekend, Kelly Phillips Erb (Senior Writer, Tax) Questions Does it cost money to e-file? getty This week, a reader asks: My tax preparer told me that the IRS charges a fee for e-filing. Is that true? No, that's not true. The IRS doesn't charge a fee for e-filing your federal income tax return. That doesn't mean that it won't cost you extra. Many online tax preparation software programs like TurboTax or TaxAct may charge you a fee to e-file, depending on the type of software you use and the complexity of your tax returns (simple returns may be filed for free). Your tax preparer may be charged a fee by a processor, which they may opt to pass along to you either as a stand-alone cost or as part of the overall cost of your tax return. However, the IRS does not charge your tax preparer a fee for e-filing. If you're looking for fully free e-filing options, you can use IRS Free File or Direct File. Free File is an existing program offered as part of a public-private partnership between the IRS and Free File Inc., formerly the Free File Alliance. Through this partnership, tax preparation and filing software providers make their online products available to eligible taxpayers. That means that you can prepare and e-file your federal taxes for free. Direct File also allows eligible taxpayers to file taxes directly with the IRS online for free. With Direct File, some of your information, like your employment and wage information from your Form W-2 (if it's available), can be transferred directly to your tax return. You can also get access live support from IRS staff, Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. But that option won't be around for long—the controversial program is expected to be eliminated after this year. Do you have a tax question that you think we should cover in the next newsletter? We'd love to help if we can. Check out our guidelines and submit a question here. Statistics, Charts, and Graphs Over the past few years, the IRS has worked to improve access and availability of taxpayer services. As part of these efforts, the agency installed stand-alone booths—called kiosks—in Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TACs) beginning in 2011. The services available from the kiosks, which are supposed to be connected to a computer, are the same as those that you'd normally see on the IRS website. These kinds of services may not normally be easily available to taxpayers in rural and underserved communities since taxpayers in these communities may not have access to a computer, printer, or the internet at home. The kiosks would be a great idea—if they worked. In April 2024, TIGTA found that the IRS had 100 kiosks located at 37 TACs. Of those, only 55 kiosks were operational. Of the remaining kiosks, 40 were inoperable, and the status of five was unknown. Additionally, TAC managers at 11 locations reported that the kiosks were not connected to a working printer, which prevented taxpayers from printing tax forms or other documents. When a kiosk becomes inoperable or encounters issues that cannot be resolved with basic troubleshooting, the TAC manager submits a service ticket to the third-party contractor. And then… they wait. TIGTA found that the time needed to close service tickets ranged from 30 days or less to 463 days (most took between 151-365 days to resolve), while 24 tickets were open (meaning the contractor did not perform work on these tickets). How long do third-party service tickets stay open at IRS? Kelly Phillips Erb After those findings were revealed last year, the IRS indicated the plan was to work with the existing contractor to make the kiosks operational by December 31, 2024. However, in January 2025, TIGTA visited eight TACs with inoperable kiosks and found the machines were still not working. When TIGTA brought those concerns to the agency, the IRS said it was discontinuing the kiosk program. According to TIGTA, 'While we support the IRS's decision to discontinue the current kiosk program, we believe that offering taxpayers a self-service option could be beneficial as the IRS reduces and restructures its workforce.' (The IRS workforce dropped from 103,000 employees in January 2025 to approximately 77,000 in May 2025, a 25% reduction.) In response, TIGTA recommended that the IRS perform a study to determine whether a new kiosk program that uses updated technology or deploys laptops to TACs would provide effective and efficient self-service options to taxpayers. IRS management agreed with the recommendation and indicated that it will assess the potential benefits and challenges of introducing a new program designed to offer modern self-assistive solutions for taxpayers. A Deeper Dive State and local taxes (SALT) are hot right now. getty State and local taxes (SALT) are hot right now–it's no wonder that tax controversy firm Kostelanetz recently included it in a list of tax practice areas keeping them busy. State and local governments are feeling stretched in the current economic climate, and rather than ride the coattails of federal audits, they are increasingly digging in on their own investigations to raise revenues. According to Kostelanetz partner Caroline Ciraolo, that may be made easier by an infusion of talent—as the federal government workforce and some private sector jobs shrink, state and local governments are seizing the opportunity to pick up those employees. The growth in SALT tax law may be helped along by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The SALT cap featured prominently in discussions before the law was passed. The House SALT Caucus originally pushed for the cap to be increased from $10,000 to $40,000, but Senate Republicans were concerned with the overall cost of the bill, and advocated for keeping the cap at $10,000 and using it as a pay-for to offset other tax cuts. The result is that the SALT cap was raised to $40,000 for single and joint filers. The deduction phases out for filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above $500,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing separately), and reverts to $10,000 for incomes of $600,000 and above. The deduction and the phase-out levels will increase by 1% a year until 2029, when the cap reverts back to the original $10,000. And, under OBBBA, passthrough entities (PTE) that were taking advantage of the states' workaround are still able to do that–those workarounds allow PTE owners to sidestep the cap. However, in a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected arguments by several states who challenged updated regulations that would prohibit many of the SALT workarounds passed in the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The quintessential example of these workarounds was the creation of a state charitable fund (or a local version of the same), which could accept payments from residents, who would then receive a state or local tax credit. In 2018, the IRS issued proposed rulemaking to disallow the charitable-deduction workaround. In essence, the proposed rule required that taxpayers would have to reduce their federal charitable deduction for the amount of any state or local tax credit received 'in consideration for the taxpayer's payment or transfer.' The final rule made some tweaks, and the states launched a legal challenge. On appeal, the Second Circuit had to address several issues in addition to the substantive tax merits, including an allegation that the Final Rule was contrary to §170 of the tax code. The crux of §170 as it applies to charitable contributions is that the taxpayer cannot receive a quid pro quo—because, if so, then the payment does not really represent a contribution or a gift. In other words, to the extent a taxpayer receives a benefit that is commensurate with the payment, it really isn't a gift. The Second Circuit reasoned, among other things, that the argument from the states misstates the quid pro quo principle (meaning that it was not the taxpayer's desire to claim the § 170 deduction that was disqualifying, but rather it was the receipt of the state tax credit). The result? The Second Circuit sided with the federal government, finding that the Final Rule was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Tax Filings And Deadlines 📅 September 15, 2025. Third quarter estimated payments due for individual taxpayers. 📅 September 30, 2025. Due date for individuals and businesses impacted by recent terrorist attacks in Israel. 📅 October 15, 2025. Due date for individuals and businesses affected by wildfires and straight-line winds in southern California that began on January 7, 2025. 📅 November 3, 2025. Due date for individuals and businesses affected by storms in Arkansas and Tennessee that began on April 2, 2025. Tax Conferences And Events 📅 August 26-September 16 (various dates), 2025. IRS Nationwide Tax Forum in New Orleans, Orlando, Baltimore and San Diego. Registration required (discounts available for some partner groups). 📅 September 17-18, 2025. National Association of Tax Professionals Las Vegas Tax Forum. Paris Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada. Registration required. 📅 Sept. 26-27, 2025. National Association of Tax Professionals Philadelphia Tax Forum. Sheraton Philadelphia Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Registration required. Trivia NEW YORK - JANUARY 5: Bernard Madoff (C) walks out from Federal Court after a bail hearing in Manhattan January 5, 2009 in New York City. (Photo by) Getty Images The Bernie Madoff scandal is considered the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. After he pleaded guilty to fraud charges, how long was his prison sentence? (A) 25 years (B) 50 years (C) 100 years (D) 150 years Find the answer at the bottom of this newsletter. Positions And Guidance The IRS Identity Protection PINs, also referred to as IP PINs, are a critical defense tool against identity thieves. As part of its Security Summit, the IRS encourages taxpayers to enroll in the IP PIN program. There are no new stimulus checks from the IRS. Several news outlets have picked up an outdated story about stimulus checks to suggest that "new" checks are coming from the IRS. Those news stories are confusing the timeline for the older stimulus checks. Earlier this year, the IRS mailed checks to those who missed the RRC in 2021 (returns filed in 2022, for stimulus checks related to COVID). It wasn't new—it was intended to help folks who failed to get their stimulus check in 2021 or 2022. If you didn't get one then, and the IRS didn't catch it, you could have filed to claim it, but that window closed months ago, in April. (FWIW, the IRS confirmed that most taxpayers received their check). Noteworthy Atlanta-based law firm Wiggam Law has added Mark Mesler as senior counsel. Mesler brings experience in tax controversy, IRS practice and procedure and high-stakes tax resolution for corporations and high-net-worth individuals. Loeb & Loeb has announced the arrival of Natan Leyva to the firm's Washington, DC office. Leyva advises on domestic and international matters, including M&A, financing and capital markets transactions, with deep experience in U.S. federal tax rules governing international and cross-border deals. KPMG LLP announced its next national line of business and sector leaders. The newly named line of business leaders include Manish Madhavani (Financial Services), Chris Marston (Government & Healthcare), Dave Neuenhaus (Asset Management & Private Equity, Heather Rice, (Products) and Chad Seiler (Technology, Media and Telecom). The national sector leaders are Frank Albarella (Media & Telecommunications), Drew Corrigan (Healthcare), Todd Fowler (Energy, Natural Resources and Chemicals), Andy Gottschalk (State, Local and Education), Brian Higgins (Industrial Manufacturing), Cecil Mak (Technology), Kristin Ciriello Pothier (Life Sciences), Duleep Rodrigo (Consumer & Retail), Yesenia Scheker-Izquierdo (Asset Management), Peter Torrente (Banking & Capital Markets), Sean Vicente (Insurance) and Don Zambarano (Private Equity). Detroit City FC's new stadium will pay property taxes, according to the club's CEO, Sean Mann. AlumniFi Field will be located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and 20th Street before the 2027 season begins. The $150 million stadium will seat 15,000 spectators. 'It's a true civic endeavor that puts our values into action in the most sizable way to date so far,' said Mann. 'And with that, I'm proud to say, this will also be the only privately owned, privately financed stadium in Detroit, meaning it's the only pro stadium that pays property taxes.' Detroit's other major sports stadiums, including Ford Field, are owned by local government agencies and are not required to pay property taxes. — If you have tax and accounting career or industry news, submit it for consideration here or email me directly. In Case You Missed It Here's what readers clicked through most often in the newsletter last week: You can find the entire newsletter here. Trivia Answer The answer is (D) 150 years. According to the FBI, Madoff started out as a legitimate market maker, matching potential buyers with stocks. When Madoff lost money, he created fake trades and profits to keep up the appearance that he was making money for his clients. The feds reported that at the height of the fraud, Madoff owned four homes, including a Manhattan penthouse and a home in the French Riviera. He also owned three yachts. When the markets fell, investors tried to withdraw $1.5 billion, but there was only $300 million in the bank. Eventually, the scheme unraveled and Madoff was arrested. He pleaded guilty and was convicted on March 12, 2009. On June 29, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison. He died in April 2021, just 12 years into the lengthy sentence, at the age of 82. Feedback How did we do? We'd love your feedback. If you have a suggestion for making the newsletter better, submit it here or email me directly
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Court lifts block on Trump's mass firings at top US consumer watchdog
A federal appeals court set the stage for the Trump administration to resume firings at the top US consumer watchdog, ruling in a split decision that a lower court lacked jurisdiction in temporarily blocking the mass layoffs. The ruling will not take immediate effect, the court said on Friday, to allow lawyers representing workers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and consumer groups to file for a review of the case by the full circuit court of appeals for the District of Columbia. The ruling is the latest twist in the legal battle over the fate of the CFPB, as the Trump administration has tried to fire 1,500 of the agency's 1,700 employees. The agency has returned more than $21bn to US consumers since its founding. Russell Vought, director of the office of management and budget and the architect of Project 2025, the rightwing blueprint drawn up ahead of Trump's re-election, was appointed acting director of the CFPB in February. The Trump administration has yet to nominate a permanent candidate for the director role since withdrawing its previous nominee in May. US circuit judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, ruled in favor of the administration on Friday. The district court behind the initial decision 'lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment', the majority wrote. In a dissent, circuit judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by Barack Obama, said the lower court had acted properly in blocking the Trump administration from eradicating the CFPB entirely as the lawsuit played out. Pillard wrote: 'It is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all.' Senator Elizabeth Warren, ranking member of the Senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee who played a significant role in the creation of the CFPB, said: 'Today's divided panel decision willfully ignores the Trump administration's unprecedented and lawless attempt to destroy an agency created by Congress that has helped millions of families across the country.' The ruling was described as a 'disgrace' by Cat Farman, president of the CFPB union. 'It empowers Donald Trump to unilaterally eliminate vital public services established by Congress. Without a functioning CFPB, there is less oversight of the biggest banks, which means more fraud and less help for veterans and the elderly who are major targets for financial scams.' Farman added: '[CFPB workers] aren't giving up our fight to defend the rule of law from executive overreach and protect the hard-earned paychecks of working people from Wall Street greed.' Reuters contributed reporting
Epoch Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
Federal Appeals Court Sides With Trump Admin in Mass Firing of CFPB Staff
The Trump administration scored a major legal win on Friday as a federal appeals court lifted an order that had kept the government from cutting staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), clearing the way for sweeping changes at the financial watchdog. In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 15 vacated the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who in April found the administration was 'engaged in an unlawful effort to dismantle and eliminate' the CFPB. The majority held that the employment claims brought by the plaintiffs—the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that represents CFPB staff—must be handled through federal labor channels and that the remaining allegations did not involve final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
In split decision, court clears Trump to restart CFPB mass firings
A divided federal appeals court on Friday cleared US President Donald Trump to resume mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that a lower court had lacked jurisdiction in temporarily blocking this. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said on Friday that its decision would not take immediate effect, allowing lawyers representing CFPB workers and pro-consumer organizations to seek reconsideration by the full court of appeals, meaning dismissal notices were likely to have to wait for now. The decision nevertheless imperiled the employment of perhaps 1,500 workers at the CFPB whose mass dismissals were blocked in April by a trial court, which found the attempted purge violated a March injunction temporarily halting the administration's efforts to shut the CFPB down. Representatives for the CFPB did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, Jennifer Bennett, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the decision threatened to leave the public unprotected from the misdeeds of bad actors in the market for consumer finance. “Without the full force of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - an agency Congress created specifically to protect consumers - millions will lose critical safeguards against predatory financial practices. If this decision is allowed to stand, it will shift the balance of power toward corporations at the expense of American families’ financial security," Bennett said in a statement without addressing plans for further appeal. In their ruling, US Circuit Court Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao found that, despite factual findings that the Trump administration intended to destroy the CFPB, the lower court had acted outside its authority. "We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment, which must proceed through the specialized-review scheme" under laws governing the civil service, the majority wrote. Other objections raised by the plaintiffs did not concern final decisions made by the agency and so could not be reviewed in court, wrote Katsas and Rao, both Trump appointees. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard said the lower court had acted properly in blocking the Trump administration from eradicating the CFPB entirely as the lawsuit played out. "But it is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all," wrote Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Two watchdog organizations, the Federal Reserve's inspector general and Congress's Government Accountability Office, launched investigations earlier this year into the Trump administration's actions at the CFPB. Congress created the CFPB in the wake of the 2008 financial crash to police consumer finance industries whose activities generated the toxic assets underlying that crisis. Conservatives and industrial lobbies have long reviled the agency, accusing it of weighing on free enterprise and acting outside the bounds of the law to pursue politicized enforcement. Trump officials have appeared to vacillate this year concerning their plans for the CFPB, with Trump and erstwhile adviser Elon Musk saying it should be eradicated outright, even though senior officials have said in court they plan to shrink the agency but let it live in some form as required by law. Lawyers representing workers and consumer groups, however, rejected this, saying witness testimony showed top officials did not intend to maintain a functioning CFPB. In court, they produced evidence and testimony showing the attempted mass dismissals of March and April were so widespread they completely vacated entire offices or left them so understaffed as to be incapable of performing functions required by law, lawyers for CFPB workers and consumer advocates said in court.
