InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFSA says CFPB funding violates Constitution
On July 3, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed their brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the high court that the CFPB’s independent funding structure is “unprecedented and must be stopped before it spreads without limit.” Respondents asked the Court to affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the appellate court found that the Bureau’s “perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure” violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause (covered by InfoBytes here and a firm article here). The 5th Circuit’s decision also vacated the agency’s Payday Lending Rule on the premise that it was promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving unconstitutional funding.
The Bureau expanded on why it believes the 5th Circuit erred in its holding in its opening brief filed with the Court in May (covered by InfoBytes here), and explained that even if there were some constitutional flaw in the statute creating the agency’s funding mechanism, the 5th Circuit should have looked for some cure to allow the remainder of the funding mechanism to stand independently instead of presuming the funding mechanism created under Section 5497(a)-(c) was entirely invalid. Vacatur of the agency’s past actions was not an appropriate remedy and is inconsistent with historical practice, the Bureau stressed.
In their brief, the respondents challenged the Bureau’s arguments, writing that the “unconstitutionality of the CFPB’s funding scheme is confirmed by both its unprecedented nature and lack of any limiting principle. Whether viewed with an eye toward the past or the future, the threat to separated powers and individual liberty is easy to see.” Disagreeing with the Bureau’s position that the Constitution gives Congress wide discretion to exempt agencies from annual appropriations and that independent funding is not uncommon for a financial regulator, the respondents stated that Congress gave up its appropriations power to the Bureau “without any temporal limit.” The respondents further took the position that the Bureau “can continue to set its own funding ‘forever’” unless both chambers agree and can persuade or override the president. Moreover, because the Federal Reserve Board is required to transfer “the amount determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary to carry out the [CFPB’s] authorities, . . . it ‘foreclose[s] the application of any meaningful judicial standard of review.’”
The respondents also argued that the Bureau’s funding structure is clearly distinguishable from other assessment-funded agencies in that these financial regulators are held to “some level of political accountability” since “they must consider the risk of losing funding if entities exit their regulatory sphere due to imprudent regulation.” Additionally, the respondents claimed that the fundamental flaws in the funding statute cannot be severed, reasoning, among other things, that courts “cannot ‘re-write Congress’s work’” and are not able to replace the Bureau’s self-funding discretion with either a specific sum or assessments from regulated parties.
With respect to the vacatur of the Payday Lending Rule and the potential for unintended consequences, the respondents urged the Court to affirm the 5th Circuit’s rejection of the rule, claiming it was unlawfully promulgated since a valid appropriation was a necessary condition to its rulemaking. “Lacking any viable legal argument, the Bureau resorts to fear-mongering about ‘significant disruption’ if all ‘the CFPB’s past actions’ are vacated,” the respondents wrote, claiming the Bureau “grossly exaggerates the effects and implications of setting aside this Rule.” According to the respondents, the Bureau does not claim that any harm would result from setting aside the rule, especially since no one has “reasonably relied” on the rule as it has been stayed and never went into effect. As to other rules issued by the agency, the respondents countered that Congress could “legislatively ratify” some or all of the agency’s existing rules and that only “‘timely’ claims can lead to relief” in past adjudications. Additionally, the respondents noted that many of the Bureau’s rules were issued outside the six-year limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). This includes a substantial portion of its rules related to mortgage-related disclosure. Even for challenges filed within the time limit, courts can apply equitable defenses such as “laches” to deny retrospective relief and prevent disruption or inequity, the respondents said.
Court delays enforcement of California privacy regulations
The Superior Court for the County of Sacramento adopted a ruling during a hearing held June 30, granting the California Chamber of Commerce’s (Chamber of Commerce) request to enjoin the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) from enforcing its California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) regulations until March 2024. Enforcement of the CPRA regulations was set to begin July 1.
The approved regulations (which were finalized in March and took effect immediately) update existing California Consumer Privacy Act regulations to harmonize them with amendments adopted by voter initiative under the CPRA in November 2020. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In February of this year, the CPPA acknowledged that it had not finalized regulations regarding cybersecurity audits, risk assessments, and automated decision-making technology and posted a preliminary request for comments to inform this rulemaking. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The June 30 ruling referred to a public statement issued by the CPPA, in which the agency explained that enforcement of those three areas would not commence until after the applicable regulations are finalized. However, the CPPA stated it intended to “enforce the law in the other twelve areas as soon as July 1.”
In March, the Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a one-year delay of enforcement for the new regulations. The Chamber of Commerce argued that the CPPA had finalized its regulations in March 2023 (rather than the statutorily-mandated completion date of July 1, 2022), and as a result businesses were not provided the required one-year period to come into compliance before the CPPA begins enforcement. The CPPA countered that the text of the statute “is not so straightforward as to confer a mandatory promulgation deadline of July 1, 2022, nor did the voters intend for impacted business to have a 12-month grace period between the [CPPA’s] adoption of all final regulations and their enforcement.”
The court disagreed, finding that the CPPA’s failure “to timely pass final regulations” as required by the CPRA “is sufficient to grant the Petition.” The court stated that because the CPRA required the CPPA to pass final regulations by July 1, 2022, with enforcement beginning one year later, “voters intended there to be a gap between the passing of final regulations and enforcement of those regulations.” The court added that it was “not persuaded” by the CPPA’s argument “that it may ignore one date while enforcing the other.” However, staying enforcement of all the regulations for one year until after the last of the CPRA regulations have been finalized would “thwart the voters’ intent.” In striking a balance, the court stayed the CPPA’s enforcement of the regulations that became final on March 29 and said the agency may begin enforcing those regulations on March 29, 2024. The court also held that any new regulations issued by the CPPA will be stayed for one year after they are implemented. The court declined to mandate any specific date by which the CPPA must finalize the outstanding regulations.
Supreme Court blocks student debt relief program
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the Department of Education’s (DOE) student loan debt relief program (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here) that would have provided between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt cancellation to certain qualifying federal student loan borrowers making under $125,000 a year.
The Biden administration appealed an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibited the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Arguing that the universal injunction was overbroad, the administration contended that the six states lack standing because the debt relief plan “does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way.” Moreover, the secretary was acting within the bounds of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) when he put together the debt relief plan, the administration claimed.
In considering whether the secretary has authority under the HEROES Act “to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers,” the Court majority (opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined) held that at least one state, Missouri, had Article III standing to challenge the program because it would cost the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a nonprofit government corporation created by the state to participate in the student loan market, roughly $44 million a year in fees. “The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” the Court wrote.
The Court also ruled in favor of the respondents on the merits, noting that the text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. While the statute allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to student financial assistance programs under the Education Act in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency, it does not permit the Secretary to rewrite that statute, the Court explained, adding that the “modifications” challenged in this case create a “novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” As such, the Court concluded that “the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the [s]ecretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”
In dissent, three of the justices argued that the majority’s overreach applies to standing as well as to the merits. The states have no personal stake in the loan forgiveness program, the justices argued, calling them “classic ideological plaintiffs.” While the HEROES Act bounds the secretary’s authority, “within that bounded area, Congress gave discretion to the [s]ecretary” by providing that he “could ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision’ applying to federal student-loan programs, including provisions relating to loan repayment and forgiveness. And in so doing, he could replace the old provisions with new ‘terms and conditions,”’ the justices wrote, adding that the secretary could provide whatever relief needed that he deemed most appropriate.
The Court also handed down a decision in Department of Education v. Brown, ruling that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of the case as the respondents lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish that any injury they may have suffered from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the program. Respondents in this case are individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan. The respondents challenged whether the student debt relief program violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures as they were not given the opportunity to provide feedback. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
President Biden expressed his disappointment following the rulings, but announced new actions are forthcoming to provide debt relief to student borrowers. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The first is a rulemaking initiative “aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible, using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act.” The administration also announced an income-driven repayment plan—the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan—which will, among other things, cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half (from 10 to 5 percent of discretionary income) and forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments rather than 20 years for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less.
Court orders credit union to pay $5 million to settle overdraft allegations
On June 27, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement, resulting in a defendant credit union paying approximately $5.2 million to settle allegations concerning illegal overdraft/non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees and inadequate disclosure practices. As described in plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the defendant was sued in 2020 for violating the EFTA (Regulation E) and New York General Business Law (NY GBL) § 349. According to plaintiffs, defendant charged overdraft fees and NSF fees that were not permitted under its contracts with its members or Regulation E. Plaintiffs’ Regulation E and NY GBL liability theories are premised on the argument that defendant’s “opt-in form did not inform members that these fees were charged under the ‘available balance’ metric, rather than the ‘actual’ or ‘ledger’ balance metric”—a violation of Regulation E and NY GBL § 349. The plaintiffs’ liability theory was that defendant’s “contracts did not authorize charging overdraft fees when the ledger or actual balance was positive.”
Under the terms of the settlement, defendant is required to pay $2 million, for which 25 percent of the settlement fund will be allocated to class members’ Regulation E overdraft fees, 62.5 percent will go to class members’ GBL overdraft fees, and 12.5 percent will be allocated to class members’ breach of contract overdraft fees. Defendant is also required to pay $948,812 in attorney’s fees, plus costs, and $10,000 service awards to the two named plaintiffs. Additionally, the defendant has agreed to change its disclosures and will “forgive and release any claims it may have to collect any at-issue fees which were assessed by [defendant] but not collected and subsequently charged-off, totaling approximately $2,300,000.”
4th Circuit upholds sanctions against debt relief operation
On June 23, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a default judgment entered against a debt relief operation and related individuals accused of violating the TCPA and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). Plaintiff-appellee alleged she received multiple telemarketing phone calls regarding debt relief offered through lower interest rates on credit cards from the defendants (including the appellants). During discovery, defendants allegedly engaged in “evasive discovery tactics” and “relentless sandbagging,” which resulted in a magistrate judge entering multiple orders to compel. Defendants allegedly continued to call the plaintiff-appellee for more than a year after she filed her initial complaint. Additional defendants (including some of the appellants) were added via amended complaints as she discovered defendants had allegedly “formed a vast and complex web of corporate entities.”
The district court eventually sanctioned the appellants and struck their defenses for, among other things, engaging in a “pattern of concealing discoverable material” and failing to obey court orders. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the sanctions were too harsh and came as a surprise, the discovery abuses were “inadvertent,” and the plaintiff-appellee had not been prejudiced. Plaintiff-appellee then filed a renewed motion for sanctions outlining continued violations by appellants. Eventually, the district court entered a default judgment against the appellants for failing “to respond fulsomely and accurately to discovery requests and to comply with court orders pertaining to those requests.” The sanctions imposed an $828,801.36 judgment plus costs.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellants acted in bad faith and entered default judgment against them. The appellate court explained that there are certain circumstances, including this action, “where the entry of default judgment against a defendant for systemic discovery violations is the natural next step in the litigation, even without an explicit prior warning from the district court.” The appellate court further concluded the record contradicted each of the appellants’ arguments and held appellants “had fair ‘indication that sanctions might be imposed against [them]’ for their continued discovery and scheduling order violations.” With respect to appellants’ arguments that the district court awarded damages for the same purported calls pursuant to both the TCPA and the WVCCPA, the 4th Circuit found that penalties under these statutes are not exclusive and that they separately penalize different violative conduct. “[D]amages under the WVCCPA may be awarded in addition to those under the TCPA for a single communication that violates both statutes,” the appellate court wrote, adding that a plaintiff can also “recover separate penalties under separate sections of the TCPA even if the violations occurred in the same telephone call.”
Split 9th Circuit: Nevada’s medical debt collection law is not preempted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a split decision upholding a Nevada medical debt collection law after concluding the statute was neither preempted by the FDCPA or the FCRA, nor a violation of the First Amendment. SB 248 took effect July 1, 2021, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requires debt collection agencies to provide written notification to consumers 60 days “before taking any action to collect a medical debt.” Debt collection agencies are also barred from taking any action to collect a medical debt during the 60-day period, including reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency.
Plaintiffs, a group of debt collectors, sued the Commissioner of the Financial Institutions Division of Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry after the bill was enacted, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. In addition to claiming alleged preemption by the FDCPA and the FCRA, plaintiffs maintained that SB 248 is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, ruling that none of the arguments were likely to succeed on the merits.
In agreeing with the district court’s decision, the majority concluded that SB 248 is not unconstitutionally vague with respect to the term “before taking any action to collect a medical debt” and that any questions about what constitute actions to collect a medical debt were addressed by the statute’s implementing regulations. With respect to whether SB 248 violates the First Amendment, the majority held that debt collection communications are commercial speech and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. As to questions of preemption, the majority determined that SB 248 is not preempted by either the FDCPA or the FCRA. The majority explained that furnishers’ reporting obligations under the FCRA do not include a deadline for when furnishers must report a debt to a CRA and that the 60-day notice is not an attempt to collect a debt and therefore does not trigger the “mini-Miranda warning” required in a debt collector’s initial communication stating that “the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt.”
The third judge disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the majority’s “position requires setting aside common sense” in believing that the FDCPA does not preempt SB 248 because the 60-day notice is not an action in connection with the collection of a debt. “The only reason that a debt collector sends a Section 7 Notice is so that he can later start collecting a debt,” the dissenting judge wrote. “It is impossible to imagine a situation where a debt collector would send such a notice except in pursuit of his goal of ultimately obtaining payment for (i.e., collecting) the debt.” The dissenting judge further argued that by delaying the reporting of unpaid debts, SB 248 conflicts with the FCRA’s intention of ensuring credit information is accurately reported.
DOJ and FTC find UDAPs in handling of women’s health data
On June 23, the DOJ and FTC announced the government has obtained substantial injunctive relief, and that the department will collect $100,000 in civil penalties, from an Illinois-based healthcare corporation pursuant to a stipulated federal court order. In the complaint, the United States claimed that the corporation violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, in which the defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in connection with its period and ovulation tracking mobile app. The government alleged that the corporation shared consumers’ persistent identifiers and sensitive personal information to third-party companies without user notice or consent. Additionally, the corporation allegedly failed to disclose how those third-party companies would use consumers’ personal information. The complaint also alleges the corporation failed to take “reasonable measures” surrounding data and privacy risk when they integrated third-party software into the mobile application, and that they violated the HBNR.
The order entered by the court requires that the corporation: (i) “implement a comprehensive privacy and data security program with safeguards to protect consumer data”; (ii) “hire an independent third-party to regularly assess its compliance with the privacy program for a period of 20 years”; (iii) “[is] enjoined from sharing health information with third-parties for advertising purposes, from sharing health information with third-parties for other purposes without obtaining users’ affirmative express consent, and from making misrepresentations about [the corporation’s] privacy practices”; and (iv) comply with the HBNR’s notification provisions in any future breach of Security.
EU court says banks must meet GDPR obligation on data processing
On June 22, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a judgment concluding that banks are not exempt from providing information upon request about when and why an individual’s data was accessed. However, banks are not necessarily required to name the people who accessed the data, the CJEU said. The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland issued a request for a preliminary ruling in an action seeking clarification on individuals’ rights when requesting information on data processing. The press release explained that a bank employee (who was also a customer of the bank) discovered that other bank employees consulted his personal data on several occasions. Doubting the lawfulness of these consultations, the now-former employee asked the bank for information on who accessed his data, the exact dates of the consultations, and the reasons why his data had been processed. The bank explained that it had consulted his data to check for a possible conflict of interest, but refused to disclose the employees’ identities, reasoning that this information “constituted the personal data of those employees.” A request made by the former employee to Finland’s Data Protection Supervisor’s Office to order the bank to provide him with the requested information was rejected, so the former employee brought an action before the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland, asking the Court of Justice to interpret Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The CJEU clarified, among other things, that while the GDPR gives individuals the right to access information about why and when their data was accessed (including information relating to consultation operations carried out on the former employee’s personal data), it does not grant a right to know who accessed the information when following a controller’s instructions “unless that information is essential in order to enable the data subject effectively to exercise the rights conferred on him[.]” The CJEU acknowledged, however, that a “balance will have to be struck between the rights and freedoms in question” and that “[w]herever possible, means of communicating personal data that do not infringe the rights or freedoms of others should be chosen.” Furthermore, the CJEU determined that the fact that the controller is a bank, and that the former employee was both an employee of the bank and a customer, “has, in principle, no effect on the scope of the right conferred on that data subject.”
CFPB, FTC, and consumer advocates ask 7th Circuit to review redlining dismissal
The CFPB recently filed its opening brief in the agency’s appeal of a district court’s decision to dismiss the Bureau’s claims that a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company and its owner violated ECOA by engaging in discriminatory marketing and consumer outreach practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau sued the defendants in 2020 alleging fair lending violations predicated, in part, on statements made by the company’s owner and other employees during radio shows and podcasts. The agency claimed that the defendants discouraged African Americans from applying for mortgage loans and redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area. The defendants countered that the Bureau improperly attempted to expand ECOA’s reach and argued that ECOA “does not regulate any behavior relating to prospective applicants who have not yet applied for credit.”
In dismissing the action with prejudice, the district court applied step one of the Chevron framework (which is to determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue”) when reviewing whether the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA in Regulation B is permissible. The court concluded, among other things, that Congress’s directive does not apply to prospective applicants.
In its appellate brief, the Bureau argued that the long history of Regulation B supports the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA, and specifically provides “that ‘[a] creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.” While Congress has reviewed ECOA on numerous occasions, the Bureau noted that it has never challenged the understanding that this type of conduct is unlawful, and Congress instead “created a mandatory referral obligation [to the DOJ] for cases in which a creditor has unlawfully ‘engaged in a pattern or practice of discouraging or denying applications for credit.’”
Regardless, “even if ECOA’s text does not unambiguously authorize Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants, it certainly does not foreclose it,” the Bureau wrote, pointing to two perceived flaws in the district court’s ruling: (i) that the district court failed to recognize that Congress’s referral provision makes clear that “discouraging . . . applications for credit” violates ECOA; and (ii) that the district court incorrectly concluded that ECOA’s reference to applicants “demonstrated that Congress foreclosed prohibiting discouragement as to prospective applicants.” The Bureau emphasized that several courts have recognized that the term “applicant” can include individuals who have not yet submitted an application for credit and stressed that its interpretation of ECOA, as reflected in Regulation B’s discouragement prohibition, is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” The Bureau argued that under Chevron step two (which the district court did not address), Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants from applying in the first place is reasonable because it furthers Congress’ efforts to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal access to credit.
Additionally, the FTC filed a separate amicus brief in support of the Bureau. In its brief, the FTC argued that Regulation B prohibits creditors from discouraging applicants on a prohibited basis, and that by outlawing this type of behavior, it furthers ECOA’s purpose and prevents its evasion. In disagreeing with the district court’s position that ECOA only applies to “applicants” and that the Bureau cannot proscribe any misconduct occurring before an application is filed, the FTC argued that the ruling violates “the most basic principles of statutory construction.” If affirmed, the FTC warned, the ruling would enable creditor misconduct and “greenlight egregious forms of discrimination so long as they occurred ‘prior to the filing of an application.’”
Several consumer advocacy groups, including the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, also filed an amicus brief in support of the Bureau. The consumer advocates warned that “[i]nvalidating ECOA’s longstanding prohibitions against pre-application discouragement would severely limit the Act’s effectiveness, with significant consequences for communities affected by redlining and other forms of credit discrimination that have fueled a racial wealth gap and disproportionately low rates of homeownership among Black and Latino households.” The district court’s position would also affect non-housing credit markets, such as small business, auto, and personal loans, as well as credit cards, the consumer advocates said, arguing that such limitations “come at a moment when targeted digital marketing technologies increasingly allow lenders to screen and discourage consumers on the basis of their protected characteristics, before they can apply.”
CFPB opposes Texas bankers’ request to delay small biz lending rule
The CFPB recently asked a district court in the 5th Circuit to deny a proposed injunction which would delay the implementation of its small-business lending data collection rule, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to establish standing or meet the requirements for preliminary relief. As previously covered by InfoBytes, plaintiffs (including a Texas banking association and a Texas bank) sued the Bureau, challenging the agency’s final rule on the collection of small business lending data. The small business lending rule, which implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires financial institutions to collect and provide to the Bureau data on lending to small businesses with gross revenue under $5 million in their previous fiscal year.
Plaintiffs explained in their complaint that the goal of invalidating the final rule is premised on the argument that it will drive from the market smaller lenders who are not able to effectively comply with the final rule’s “burdensome and overreaching reporting requirements” and decrease the availability of products to customers, including minority and women-owned small businesses. Plaintiffs also argued that the final rule is invalid because the Bureau’s funding structure is unconstitutional and that certain aspects of the final rule allegedly violate various requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Last month, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion asking the court to enjoin the final rule and stay the compliance deadlines.
Claiming plaintiffs failed to establish standing for preliminary relief, the Bureau argued that the Texas bank has not demonstrated that it would even have to comply with the final rule. The Bureau further maintained plaintiffs have also not satisfied all four factors required for preliminary relief, including that plaintiffs “have not shown that irreparable harm is imminent or that the balance of equities favors the requested relief,” which would lead to the postponement of reporting requirements mandated by Congress more than ten years ago. With respect to the funding structure constitutionality concerns raised by plaintiffs, the Bureau argued that “even assuming that [p]laintiffs have shown a likelihood of ultimately succeeding on the merits … that factor standing alone would not be enough to warrant preliminary relief.” The Bureau asked the court to, at a minimum, tailor any relief to apply only to plaintiffs and members who would face imminent harm absent such relief.