Kim Phan, Rachel Kelley, and Alisha Sears discuss the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to address residential mortgage trigger leads with the goal of curbing abusive calls while preserving meaningful competition.
On this episode of FCRA Focus, Kim Phan is joined by Rachel Kelley and Alisha Sears from the Mortgage Bankers Association to discuss the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to address residential mortgage trigger leads with the goal of curbing abusive calls while preserving meaningful competition. This law now requires both a firm offer of credit and documented consumer authorization, with limited exceptions for current originators, servicers, and depository institutions/credit unions holding an account. They discuss how the law places the primary obligations on consumer reporting agencies, what lenders should expect around consent certifications, the Government Accountability Office study on trigger-leads, and the upcoming effective date.
FCRA Focus — Inside the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act: A Conversation With the Mortgage Bankers Association
Host: Kim Phan
Guests: Rachel Kelley and Alisha Sears
Aired: December 9, 2025
Kim Phan (00:05):
Welcome to the Troutman Pepper Locke podcast, FCRA Focus. I'm your host, Kim Phan, and I'm joined today by two special guests, Rachel Kelley, Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association, and Alisha Sears, Director and Regulatory Council in the Residential Policy and Strategic Industry Engagement Department at the Mortgage Bankers Association. Today we'll be discussing the recent enactment of the Home Buyers Privacy Protection Act, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act with regards to trigger leads. However, before we jump into that topic, let me remind you to visit and subscribe to our blogs, troutmanpepperfinancialservices.com and consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com. And while you're at it, head on over to troutman.com and add yourself to our Consumer Financial Services email list. It'll allow you to get invitations to our webinars and receive our alerts and advisories that we send out from time to time.
And if you just cannot get enough FCRA while we do make a lot of free content available to our listeners. I would encourage you to explore our subscription-based tracker service, which provides information on federal and state regulatory and legislative developments, as well as summaries of FCRA case law on a weekly basis, and includes a monthly round table discussion with all of our subscribers. These tracker services can also cover topics including debt collection and privacy and data security. Now jumping right in, Rachel, Alisha, welcome. Why don't you start off by telling our audience a little bit about yourselves as well as what the NBA is and how you are advocating on behalf of your members?
Rachel Kelley (01:42):
Sure, absolutely. Thanks again for having us as NBA's House Republican lobbyist, I'm actually here on Capitol Hill today, so if anyone hears the noise, it's the noise of things still happening even in a government shutdown. What I do every day is work with Capitol Hill elected officials in the House, Republican Caucus Leadership committees of jurisdiction and their senior staff in both personal offices and committees, just advocating on behalf of all the issues that we're working on.
Alisha Sears (02:09):
And my name is Alisha Sears. I am director and regulatory counsel at the Mortgage Bankers Association in a residential policy group, and I largely support our legal issues and regulatory compliance committee, which is comprised of over 1200 lawyers and compliance professionals. A major part of my portfolio is monitoring everything that comes out of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and so that is why this Home Buyer's Privacy Protection Act is near and dear to my heart, been doing years of regulatory support on this.
Kim Phan (02:44):
You've mentioned it's near and dear to your heart, and I will say I'm also a FCRA geek, right? I'm the host of the FCRA podcast, so I was also very interested in this development. It's not that often that the FCRA gets amended. Why don't you us off today by explaining what is the Home Buyer's Privacy Protection Act and what does it do?
Alisha Sears (03:04):
First off, I just wanted to say thank you Troutman Pepper Lock for hosting us to talk about how we got here and what the Home Buyer's Privacy Protection Act does. We are excited to see the enactment of this legislation and certainly have been looking forward to having this discussion with you all today. I think it's important before diving into the specifics of the HPPA to kind of explain what is a trigger lead in this context and why this became a concern for us and ultimately a major priority for MBA. So a trigger lead is a marketing product at a high level, once an individual applies for a loan, the information is sold by the consumer reporting agencies to various lenders who will then contact the individual with competing firm offers of credit. Now, we've always said that these trigger leads can benefit both consumers and lenders.
The lenders are afforded the opportunity to compete for a potential customer and consumers can benefit by potentially receiving a better rate and terms. However, what we've found is that consumers who submit a loan application and we’ve received several firsthand accounts of this, are often bombarded with text messages and phone calls for alternative lender offers. This became a big priority through our Res BOG, several of our RES BOG, residential Board of Governors members had expressed the inundation of offers resulting in a negative consumer experience. This was actually brought to us by our chair at the time, the late Chrissy Ray, who I believe she was going through a refi and had received over 300 calls in a matter of 48 hours. So you can imagine just the frustrating experience that resulted in consumers often call also to complain to the lending party that they filed that application with accusing that lender of selling their data when in fact that was not occurring.
There are also reports that trigger leads are often used by companies that may misrepresent themselves and really attempt to deceive or harm the borrowers. So this all taken together ultimately became a major priority for us that we've been working on for the past, I think two and a half years. So now turning to what the HPPA does, so it amends section 6 0 4 C of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And so what it does is a consumer reporting agency is prohibited from providing a consumer report and connection with a credit transaction involving, and this is key, a residential mortgage loan, unless these certain key conditions are met, and that is the transaction has to consist of a firm offer of credit or insurance, and this is true for all instances and you have consumer authorization or consent, whereas a text states, the user of the consumer report submits documentation certifying the person has consumer authorization to obtain the consumer report.
So that's the baseline. You have your firm offer of credit. And second, the consumer consent. There are some exceptions based on your status, largely based on your relationship with the consumer in which the HPP restriction on trigger leads does not apply if the user of the consumer report is one of the following, and that is if you originated a current residential mortgage loan of the consumer, you're the servicer of the current mortgage loan of the consumer or you're the insured, depository institution or credit union and hold a current account for the consumer to whom the consumer report relates. So as you can see, this new law generally prohibits the sale and use of trigger leads unless these key conditions are met. It does restrict the pool of companies now that can access and use those trigger leads. So think those third party lead aggregators or the non-bank lenders that don't have a direct consumer relationship.
But I do want to make this point that this is not a full ban on the use of trigger leads, as Rachel will probably touch on this. This is very carefully thought out and negotiated to really protect consumer choice, make the home buying experience hopefully more enjoyable, but also to still promote meaningful competition. There's been this misconception that this is really going to limit competition, but if anything, we believe this is really going to promote those meaningful interactions and meaningful competition. I mean, think about it, if you are receiving 300 calls in a matter of 48 hours, I don't know how likely you are to pick up that 77th call and start talking to a lender and working out a deal, but perhaps now with less calls and if you're getting maybe let's say five, you're more likely to, I would say, pick up that third call and have those conversations. So this is really, I think the best of both worlds and really protecting the consumer and consumer choice, but also making sure that it's not a full ban on trigger leads that we're really promoting that meaningful competition.
Kim Phan (08:32):
I love hearing that this was a member-driven initiative, that this really arose from your members' own experiences in the marketplace trying to navigate the use and the response that consumers are having to trigger leads. I think that's great. I was hoping, Rachel, maybe that you could weigh in now on how the HPPA even happened. I think we all know that the legislative process is really challenging.
Rachel Kelley (09:02):
Very much, and actually as Alisha said, this was several years of support, several years of hard work. I like to say that legislation and federal laws are a little bit like an iceberg. You see the beautiful top , but not below the surface, that big behemoth. That is really what it is. So again, this started several years ago, a member driven effort. We got very close in the 118th Congress actually I would say at a five yard line, but we weren't able to get across the line. So starting again this year in the new 119th Congress, we were able to build off that previous Congress support. As Alisha said, it wasn't just the mortgage bankers and some of our other sister trade associations, but we also had the consumer groups and many of them that were with us again to protect consumers, but also to keep that competition.
We were able to get almost 89 house co-sponsors and over 40 Senate co-sponors and I mean if you could get Senator Tommy Tuberville and Senator Elizabeth Warren on the same bill, then it's definitely bipartisan. So it's something we're very proud of that bipartisan effort. But as Alisha said, we had to balance what consumer groups may have wanted, like a blanket ban for allowing that continued competition. So really protecting consumers from unwanted solicitations and many of those that were considered predatory. But y’know elected officials, we actually had quite a few that actually had these trigger leads happen to them. So we were able to get some co-sponsors that way, where we had folks that were refi or buying their own homes. They were really shocked to find out that American's information is sold really without their knowledge. So again, it was finding that balance. And what we did is once we were able to get it introduced earlier this year, there was on my side quite a back and forth between the new House Financial Services chairman and some of his Republican members on the committee.
Again, as I represent MBA's interest, there are also folks that represent the bureau's interest or other folks that might've been against something like this. So we really had to work with several Republicans on the committee to work through those concerns. So what actually came about over several meetings and calls and honestly hours of back and forth was an amended HR 2808, which added a GAO study, which Alisha can talk about, which is a GAO study on the effectiveness of text messages with trigger leads, which I know we could get into, but there was definitely some last minute drama as everything on Capitol Hill. We were able to get it hotlined in the Senate the day before they went into their August recess. So very exciting. Again, it was signed into law September 5th of this year, which means it takes effect March 4th, 2026. So a lot of work, again, just like an iceberg, a lot of things below the surface. But again, we're super excited to have public law 119 36.
Kim Phan (11:55):
Well, it's obviously a huge achievement for MBA and all the other supporters, and I understand that it passed unanimously in the House Financial Services Committee. It passed by voice vote in both the House and the Senate. Congratulations. That's practically a miracle these days to get that level of support, but there's always a But because we're lawyers, right? No bill's perfect. There are always going to be areas of ambiguity, challenges, other things that need to be resolved before this is all running smoothly. What should the industry be expecting to happen next? Are there things that still need to get worked out? For example, I know there is going to be some sort of certification process. Alisha, you mentioned this earlier, that lenders will have to submit to the consumer reporting agencies to be able to use these trigger leads. What can we be expecting to happen over the next couple months between now and March, as Rachel noted is the effective date?
Alisha Sears (13:01):
Yes, no bill is ever perfect, although I'd like to think this one's pretty darn close given all the hard work that Rachel and her team have done, but you're absolutely right. The next big question is how is this all going to work? What are the changes? What are the challenges to implementation? And I think the most important thing, which was actually very important to MBA, is that this law is self-executing. And so the liability and obligations really lies with the consumer reporting agency. So they have very strong incentives to be cautious and follow the rules with regard to who they are ultimately providing these trigger leads to. I'm kind of building on that last point. One thing that is really important in this bill and we think makes ultimately compliance maybe more streamlined is that the bill governs the sale of trigger leads in providing them to the lenders, not so much the usage of the leads.
So it's a lot easier to regulate at that source than at the user level. That being said, as you mentioned, Kim, it is a little bit unclear at this stage how things are playing out. Presumably, the CRAs are creating some sort of system or mechanism for collecting these attestations or consents based on the various statuses of these parties. So some sort of hopefully robust tracking system, but it is a little bit unclear what exactly that documentation looks like, but that's something we are going to be closely monitoring as implementation that data and March occurs. I also wanted to mention it's also important on the user side to make sure you're tracking consent and having all your systems in place, all the evidentiary requirements that the CRAs are going to require in place. But also I think this is a really good opportunity if you are a user that has traditionally relied on trigger leads as a huge marketing tool to kind of take a step back and reevaluate, right?
So while this will narrow the usage of trigger leads, it's not going to restrict, I guess your other methods of targeted marketing. So taking a step back now and taking a look at other marketing tools that are available, predictive analytics that all fall outside of the scope of the FCRA, that's an important thing to do now as well. And the last point I wanted to make, and we've talked about this a little bit before in some of our calls on this issue, is that there are some ambiguities around some of the terms. For example, from time to time, we'll get a question on how is the term originator defined? And so there are multiple interpretations because the FCRA doesn't have a definition of originator, and the law talks about a person who can request the consumer report, and correct me if I'm wrong, Kim, but person is defined I think very broadly in the FCRA to include natural person. So you have the LL or the company, so the company the LL works for. So there is a little bit of that ambiguity, and I think not that this will happen at any time soon given the resources that we're dealing with at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but down the line, if there are areas for maybe specific interpretations or more guidance, we could see the CFPB stepping in and providing that information.
Kim Phan (16:37):
Alisha, this is an incredible achievement, but as we know, the MBA exists to do the great work of advocating on behalf of your membership. What's next for the MBA? Any other issues that you plan on taking up either through the legislative or regulatory process that we should be keeping an eye on?
Alisha Sears (16:55):
Nothing specific now to the FCRA, but I did want to mention whether on their important part of this is, is the GAO study that we've been referencing. And so the GAO study should be taking place, and this is something we'll be closely again, monitoring and assisting where needed. But essentially what's required is that the Comptroller General of the United States has to carry out the study on the value of trigger leads that are received by text messages. That includes input from really a variety of stakeholders. So we're talking your state regulatory agencies, mortgage lenders, depository institutions, the consumer reporting agencies, and most importantly, the consumers. So we're going to be closely monitoring that, again, assisting where needed, and then not later than the end of the 12 month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act, the comptroller General has to submit a report to Congress, a report containing the findings and any determinations that come out of this study. So that's something in the near long-term that we're going to be actively involved in.
Kim Phan (18:06):
Well, Alisha, Rachel, thank you so much for coming onto the podcast today and sharing your insights about the HPPA. And thank you to our audience for tuning in today's episode. If you enjoyed today's podcast, please let us know by leaving a review on your podcast platform of choice. And of course, stay tuned for our next episode of the FCRA Focus podcast. Thank you all for listening.
Copyright, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP. These recorded materials are designed for educational purposes only. This podcast is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the individual participants. Troutman does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the contents of this podcast. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result. Users of this podcast may save and use the podcast only for personal or other non-commercial, educational purposes. No other use, including, without limitation, reproduction, retransmission or editing of this podcast may be made without the prior written permission of Troutman Pepper Locke. If you have any questions, please contact us at troutman.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This transcript was generated using artificial intelligence technology and may contain inaccuracies or errors. The transcript is provided “as is,” with no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability. Please listen to the podcast for complete and accurate content. You may contact us to ask questions or to provide feedback if you believe that something is inaccurately transcribed.