Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Hawaii Enacts Law to Prohibit Release of Credit Information of Children, Others

    State Issues

    On July 5, Hawaii Governor David Y. Igge signed into law H.B. 651, which was devised to protect children and certain other individuals from identity theft and credit fraud. The law applies to “protected consumers,” defined as minors under the age of 16 years, incapacitated persons, and individuals with appointed guardians or conservators.

    Based on research suggesting that minors may be targeted for identity theft due to their clean credit reports, the legislation permits representatives of protected consumers to place and remove security freezes on protected consumers’ credit files. Because one impediment to requesting such a freeze is the lack of an existing credit file, the legislation also requires consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs) to create records for the protected consumers. A CRA may not release the protected person’s file when it is in a security freeze until the representative requests a removal of the freeze. In order to request a security freeze or a freeze removal, a protected person’s representative must provide proper identification and evidence of authority to the CRA. Additionally, with a few exceptions, the CRA may charge a fee not to exceed five dollars for each freeze or removal of a freeze to a protected person’s credit file.

    The law will go into effect on January 1, 2018.

    State Issues Credit Rating Agencies Debt Collection Fraud Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security State Legislation Consumer Reporting Agency

    Share page with AddThis
  • Cordray Discusses Consumer Credit Reporting at Operation HOPE Global Forums Annual Meeting

    Consumer Finance

    On April 11, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered prepared remarks at the Operation HOPE Global Forums Annual Meeting in Atlanta addressing, among other things, financial challenges facing the “economically vulnerable”—most notably with respect to credit reporting and the handling of consumer disputes. As previously covered in InfoBytes, credit reporting was one of the top three consumer complaint categories for 2016. In his speech, Cordray cited a FTC study that found that “millions of people had an error on at least one of their credit reports that was serious enough to materially affect their credit score” and outlined the Bureau’s position for addressing these concerns such as (i) requiring credit reporting companies to improve quality control systems; (ii) creating easier access for consumer to dispute errors; and (iii) cleaning up information initially provided to the credit reporting companies by examining the ways in which banks and financial companies furnish the information.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Cordray Consumer Complaints Credit Scores Consumer Reporting Agency

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Fines National Credit Reporting Company $3 Million for Alleged Deceptive Practices

    Consumer Finance

    On March 23, the CFPB ordered a nationwide credit reporting company and its subsidiaries to pay $3 million for allegedly deceiving consumers about how credit scores they marketed and sold were used by lenders. The consent order claims the company developed its own proprietary credit scoring model (PLUS Score), which was used to generate credit scores from information in a consumer’s credit file. The company then allegedly deceptively marketed and sold the “educational” credit score as the same type of score lenders use to make credit decisions, when in fact lenders did not use the scores. Moreover, there were instances of significant discrepancies between the “educational” credit scores that the company sold to consumers and the actual credit scores used by the lenders. The Bureau also alleges the company—up until March 2014—violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by requiring consumers to view advertisements before they could access their credit reports. Pursuant to the consent order, the company must pay a $3 million civil money penalty, truthfully inform consumers about the nature of the credit scores it sells, and develop and implement an effective compliance management system to ensure its advertising practices comply with federal consumer laws. As previously reported in InfoBytes, earlier this year the CFPB issued consent orders against two different nationwide credit reporting companies for similar allegations.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Consumer Reporting Agency Enforcement

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Denies Data Provider’s Petition to Set Aside CID

    Consumer Finance

    In a Decision and Order released last month, the CFPB denied a Petition to set aside or modify a civil investigative demand (CID) directed to a data provider (“Petitioner”). The order also directed Petitioner to produce responsive information within 10 calendar days. 

    The CFPB originally issued the CID on January 5 in connection with its efforts to gather information about Petitioner’s business, products, services, and operations. According to Petitioner, the stated purpose of the CID “purport[ed] to exercise jurisdiction over [Petitioner] under the Fair Credit and Reporting Act (‘FCRA’) or under ‘any other federal consumer financial law.’” On January 25, Petitioner moved to set aside or modify the CID arguing, among other things, that: (i) the Bureau lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner because Petitioner is neither a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”), nor a “covered person” or “service provider” under a “federal consumer financial law”; (ii) the CID’s Notification of Purpose is impermissibly vague in that it fails to adequately state the “nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation” and/or “the provision of law applicable to such violation”; and (iii) the CID is “impermissibly overbroad and seeks information which cannot possibly be related to or reasonably relevant to the inquiry at hand (which itself remains unclear and undefined).”

    Ultimately, the CFPB determined that none of three objections raised by Petitioner “warrant[ed] setting aside or modifying the CID.” In response to the argument that the CFPB lacks jurisdiction, the Bureau interpreted its authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act to include investigative authority to issue CIDs to “any person” who may have information “relevant to a violation” of any federal consumer financial law, regardless of whether that person or entity is subject to CFPB authority. In response to Petitioner’s argument regarding the vagueness of the CID’s Notification of Purpose, the Bureau stated that the argument fails because “it is well settled that the boundaries of an agency investigation may be drawn ‘quite generally.’” Finally, as to Petitioner’s objection that the CID was overbroad and/or sought irrelevant information, the Bureau concluded that this was merely a restatement of the jurisdictional argument and fails for the same reasons.  The CFPB explained that the question of whether Petitioner is properly subject to CFPB authority need not be answered at the outset of an investigation, because it is the type of question “the investigation is designed and authorized to illuminate.”

    Consumer Finance CFPB CIDs FCRA Consumer Reporting Agency

    Share page with AddThis
  • PA Department of Banking & Securities Releases Consumer Pamphlet on Credit Reporting

    State Issues

    On March 7, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities announced it has published a new brochure to help consumers better understand what information should be included in their credit report and what steps to take if there is an issue.

    State Issues Credit Scores PA Department of Banking and Securities Consumer Education Consumer Reporting Agency

    Share page with AddThis