In this case, the Ninth Circuit considered whether liability under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) for deceptive practices can be predicated on a violation of state law. The defendant had tried to collect on loans that were invalid under state law.
To answer the question, the court employed textualism to parse the CFPA. Specifically, the panel looked to the ordinary meaning of the terms “unfair,” “deceptive,” and “abusive,” and it found that none of those terms offer any reason to exclude state-law issues from their scope. Examining statutory structure and rejecting the defendant’s other arguments, the court thus concluded that the defendant’s conduct fit within the statute.