12 March 2006 We've posted, with permission, an important article: OCC v. Spitzer: An Erroneous Application of Chevron That Should Be Reversed. It's by Professor Arthur Wilmarth of George Washington University School of Law, one of the nation's leading scholars on banking law and the relationship between state and national bank regulation. It was first published in BNA's Banking Report. We have a blog entry analysing some of the issues of Chevron deference discussed in the article here. The Wilmarth article discusses the latest jurisprudence related to the OCC power grab.

July 2005 Two bills, HR 3426 and S 1502, the companion Preservation of Federalism In Banking Acts, would roll back OCC's abusive power grab that prevents states from protecting their citizens from unfair banking practices.

11 Aug 04 OCC and sister agencies file brief supporting bank appeal of district court ruling upholding landmark California financial privacy law, SB1. Not surprisingly, the OCC doesn't think states can protect their citizens from unfair affiliate sharing, but in a disappointing move, the usually pro-privacy, usually pro-state authority Federal trade Commission signed on, too. The district court opinion by U.S. Judge Morrison England is here. It fully agrees with the position long set forth by the state and consumer groups that the Fair Credit Reporting Act exempts affiliate sharing from its regulatory scheme. FCRA preemption means states cannot change that and regulate affiliate sharing under the FCRA. But the Gramm Leach Bliley Financial Modernization Act is a comprehensive, albeit weak, financial privacy law, and it clearly gives states the right to enact stronger laws, such as SB1, championed by State Senator Jackie Speier, to regulate affiliate sharing (as well as third-party sharing, not a subject of the litigation).