InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
5th Circuit reverses District Court’s decision to transfer credit card late fee case
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to transfer a case challenging a CFPB rulemaking to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 5th Circuit’s decision did not examine whether the transfer order was proper, but rather whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the CFPB a change of venue on March 28 because only one of the six plaintiffs resided in Fort Worth. The 5th Circuit found that the lower court erred by granting the CFPB’s motion to change venues instead of ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus and argued the lower court “abused its discretion” by transferring the case while the plaintiffs’ appeal was outstanding, and that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to order the transfer. The 5th Circuit agreed and ruled that once a party appeals a district court’s decision, the district court “has zero jurisdiction to do anything” to change the case. The 5th Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ petition of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order, and ordered the district court to reopen the case.
This case has been brought by multiple trade organizations to challenge the CFPB’s attempt to alter the structure and amount of credit card late fees through its alleged authority under the CARD Act, as covered by InfoBytes here.
CFPB submits brief alleging “forum shopping,” banking groups defend their choice of venue
On March 12, the CFPB submitted a brief to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction filed by a group of industry associations, urging the court to block the implementation of a new rule that would limit the ability of large credit card issuers to charge late fees (covered by InfoBytes here).
The CFPB defended the rule by stating that it has considered all relevant factors and that the rule aimed to prevent credit card issuers from charging excessive late fees. The CFPB also argued that the case is not properly situated, as the plaintiffs lack a significant connection to the district in which they filed the lawsuit and do not have the standing to sue on behalf of others, stating “it seems not one large card issuer wants its name on the marquee… [t]he rule applies to only the largest card issuers—approximately 30–35 total entities nationwide. Plaintiffs have not identified a single one that is based in this District.” The CFPB suggested that plaintiffs have engaged in “forum shopping”—i.e., choosing this court because they believe it will be more favorable to their case, despite a lack of substantial connection to the district. The brief stated that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act because they failed to establish proper venue and associational standing. Additionally, the CFPB argued that an injunction was not warranted because the rule was designed to protect consumers and that preventing its implementation would be against the public interest.
On March 13, plaintiffs submitted a brief defending its motion for preliminary injunction and their choice of venue in Texas as part of an ongoing suit against the CFPB. The brief stated that according to law, the venue was appropriate if one plaintiff resided in the district, which applied to one of the Texas-based chamber plaintiffs, and if a significant portion of the related events occurred in the district, which is true as the rule impacted the local area. That plaintiff argued they have standing to sue because the issues are relevant to its “mission of cultivating a ‘thriving business climate in the Fort Worth region’” and its trade members included credit card issuers affected by the rule. Despite the CFPB’s counterarguments that the plaintiff lacked standing and that a transactional venue was not applicable, the plaintiff asserted it represented members that would be directly impacted by the rule, fulfilling the requirements for standing. Additionally, plaintiff contended that the rule's effects within the district justify the court's jurisdiction over the case.
Business groups sue the CFPB over credit card late fee rule
On March 7, several business groups (plaintiffs) sued the CFPB rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas over its announced credit card late fee rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau’s new final rule limited most credit card late fees to $8, among other actions, and was met immediately with criticism from banks and legislators.
The plaintiffs’ complaint claimed the CFPB completed the rule hastily to implement a pledge made by President Biden around his State of the Union Address to reduce credit card late fees by 75 percent. The complaint further asserted the CFPB skipped necessary steps, made economic miscalculations, and otherwise breached the Administrative Procedure Act. As alleged, the Bureau likely understated “the volatility of card issuers’ cost-to-fee ratios pertaining to late fees” and improperly relied on data which does not allow for the recovery of a “reasonable and proportional” penalty fee. On the Bureau’s use of the Y-14M data, the complaint alleged the new rule ignored peer-reviewed studies and instead opted to base the rule on an internal study using confidential data that was not available for examination during the period allocated for public comment. The plaintiffs argued the final rule would incur “substantial compliance costs” by amending printed disclosures, using the cost-analysis provisions, and notifying consumers of changes in interest rates to recoup costs, among other problems. The complaint also cited TILA’s effective-date provisions and the Bureau’s embattled funding structure to support the argument that the final rule would cause irreparable harm.
CFPB blog post tackles mortgage closing costs, seeks consumer feedback
On March 8, the CFPB published a blog post seeking consumer input on experiences with the closing process of consumer mortgages, and in particular, closing costs. The blog post posited that closing costs significantly impact a borrower’s financial commitment and, potentially, monthly payments and identified a “noticeable increase” in closing costs, with median total loan expenses on home purchase loans increasing by 21.8 percent between 2021 and 2022. In particular, the Bureau singled out title insurance fees and credit reporting fees. It labeled title insurance as a fee that borrowers are charged and for which they have no control over the cost, alleging that “the amount that borrowers pay for lender’s title insurance is often much greater than the risk.” With respect to credit reports, the Bureau remarked that the highly concentrated industry dictates the price of credit reports, citing anecdotal evidence of cost increases of 25 to 400 percent.
The blog post also indicated that borrowers with smaller mortgages, including those with lower incomes, first-time homebuyers, and individuals residing in Black and Hispanic communities, are often disproportionately affected by closing costs, because they are typically fixed costs and do not change based on the size of the loan. The Bureau requested that consumers provide input on their experience with mortgage or closing costs, signaling that it will continue to analyze and if necessary “issue rules and guidance to improve competition, choice, and affordability.”
Agencies adjust civil money penalties for 2024
Recently, the CFPB, NCUA, FDIC, FTC, and OCC provided notice in the Federal Register of adjustments to the maximum civil money penalties due to inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Each notice or final rule (see CFPB here, FDIC here, OCC here, FTC here, and NCUA here) adjusts the maximum civil money penalties available and documents the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts associated with the penalty tiers for each type of violation within a regulator’s jurisdiction. For violations occurring on or after November 2, 2015, the OCC’s adjusted maximum penalties go into effect as of January 8; the CFPB and FDIC’s adjustments go into effect January 15; and the FTC and NCUA’s adjustments go into effect January 10.
Large bank agrees to proposed settlement agreement; to be decided in February
On November 27, 2023, a large Canadian bank agreed to pay $15.9 million to accountholders in a proposed settlement agreement stemming from a class action suit in which the bank allegedly charged improper non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees. NSF fees are charges by a financial institution when they decline to make a payment from an accountholder’s account after determining the account lacks sufficient funds. Plaintiffs alleged that from February 2, 2019, to November 27, 2023, the bank charged accountholders multiple NSF fees on a single attempted transaction. In the agreement, the bank continues to deny liability. While an agreement has been reached between the two parties, the agreement has yet to be approved by the courts. A hearing has been scheduled for February 13, 2024, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to approve the settlement and award the payouts. Accountholders will receive their payouts, “estimated to be in the range of approximately $88 CAD,” deposited directly to their account with the bank. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the representative plaintiff will receive an honorarium of $10,000. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC warned that supervised financial institutions that charge multiple NSF fees on re-presented unpaid transactions may face increased regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk.
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
NY state court granted decision to continue its new check cashing fee methodology
On December 7, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion to dismiss a challenge made to NYDFS’s check cashing regulation and ruled in favor of NYDFS. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the January regulation’s methodology capped the maximum percentage check cashing fee for most check types (social security, unemployment, emergency relief, veterans’ benefits) at 2.2 percent or $1, whichever is greater, and eliminated automatic fee increases based on CPI every year that had been in place since 2005.
Shortly after the rule took effect in June, several plaintiffs sued NYDFS alleging that the amended regulation was arbitrary and capricious, violated the purpose of the banking law, and was an unconstitutional property deprivation. The NY Supreme Court found that the amended regulation had a rational basis and was supported by the administrative record. Because NYDFS neither violated the NY state banking law nor the Administrative Procedures Act, the court further declared that the “amended regulation did not constitute a deprivation of property in the absence of either procedural or substantive due process.” Because the court dismissed the petition entirely in NYDFS’s favor, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as merely “academic.”
Fed seeks comment on lowering the interchange fee for debit card issuers
On October 25, the Fed announced a proposed rule that would lower the maximum interchange fee that a debit card issuer with at least $10 billion in total consolidated assets can receive for a debit card transaction and would also establish a regular process for updating the maximum fee amount every other year going forward. Moreover, the Board approved the release of its latest biennial report which sets forth data collected from larger debit card issuers on interchange fees, issuer costs, and fraud related to debit card transactions.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Fed is required to establish standards for assessing whether the amount of any interchange fee received by a debit card issuer is reasonable and proportional to the costs incurred by the issuer for the applicable transaction, which results in the Fed setting an interchange fee cap. The FRB developed the fee cap in 2011 using data provided by large debit card issuers with $10 billion or more in assets. But since that time, the Fed has found that certain costs incurred by such debit card issuers have declined dramatically, yet the interchange fee cap has remained the same. As such, the Fed (i) proposes to update the interchange fee cap based on the latest data reported to the Board by large debit card issuers, and (ii) proposes to update the fee cap every other year by linking the fee cap to data from the Fed’s biennial report of large debit card issuers.
The comment period will close 90 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.