InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
West Virginia enacts act to prevent unfair real estate service agreements
Recently, West Virginia passed a new law, HB 5346, titled the Unfair Real Estate Services Agreements Act (the “Act”). This new Act will amend the Code of West Virginia with respect to real estate service agreements. The Act would make the entering into of an “Unfair Real Estate Services Agreement” a deceptive act, including any real estate services agreement between a licensed real estate service provider and a consumer that included terms that would purport to run with the land or be binding to future owners of interest, purport to create a property lien, allow for assignment of the contract without timely notification to the owner of the property, or create a listing agreement for a property that has been listed for over a year past its listing date. Under the law, any unfair real estate service agreement created after the bill’s effective date would be void, and parties may bring a civil action against a real estate service provider. The Act will go into effect on June 6.
CFPB sends letters of support for New York’s pending unfair and abusive conduct prohibition
On March 19, the CFPB published a blog post providing input on New York State’s proposed prohibition on unfair and abusive acts, urging passage of A 7138 and S 795, companion bills that are titled the “Consumer and Small business Protection Act” (the “Acts”). The blog post followed the CFPB’s delivery of letters in support of the Act to Governor Hochul, state senators, and state assembly members.
The Acts would expand Section 349 of New York’s general business law to prohibit unfair or abusive acts or practices, in addition to the existing prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Acts would also give the New York attorney general authority to bring an action for unfair, unlawful, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, “regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is directed at individuals or businesses, is consumer-oriented, or involves the offering of goods, services, or property for personal, family or household purposes,” and would give “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” authority to bring “an action to recover one thousand dollars and his or her actual damages, if any, or both such actions, … regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is consumer-oriented, has a public impact or involves the offering of goods, services or property for personal, family or household purposes.”
The Acts defined an act or practice as unfair “when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.” They provided that an “act or practice is deceptive when the act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead a person and the person’s interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances,” and that an act or practice is abusive when “it materially interferes with the ability of a person to understand a term or condition of a product or service,” or “takes unreasonable advantage of: (A) a person’s lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service; (B) a person’s inability to protect his or her interests in selecting or using a product or service; or (C) a person’s reasonable reliance on a person covered by this section to act in his or her interests.” The Bureau’s letters to the state governor and legislature noted that the “reasonable reliance” component of the Acts is “critical,” and like the federal prohibition that “recognizes that people often reasonably expect that certain businesses will help them make difficult financial decisions, and there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of that trust.” The CFPB also mentioned that it has brought numerous actions based on that particular component.
The Acts provided that “standing to bring an action under this section, including but not limited to organizational standing and third-party standing, shall be liberally construed and shall be available to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law.” Further, “[a]ny individual or non-profit organization entitled to bring an action” under the Acts “may, if the prohibited act or practice has caused damage to others similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of himself or herself and such others to recover actual, statutory and/or punitive damages or obtain other relief as provided for in” the Acts. A nonprofit also may bring an action on behalf of itself, its members, or members of the public that have been injured by a violation of the Acts. Nonprofits may seek the same remedies and damages as individuals.
CFPB warns lead generators, digital comparison-shopping tool operators of potential CFPA violations
On February 29, the CFPB issued a circular to law enforcement agencies and regulators explaining how operators of digital comparison-shopping tools or lead generators can potentially violate the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices by steering consumers towards options that best serve the operator or the lead generator. The circular further discussed “how law enforcement agencies and regulators can evaluate operators of comparison-shopping tools… to manipulate results” to appease consumer preferences.
The Bureau explained that while consumers often use these tools to research, compare, and select financial products, some intermediaries also functioned as lead generators that sold consumer information to lenders. These intermediaries may have received compensation, the CFPB said, often termed as “bounties,” from financial providers for preferential treatment or lead generation. The circular recognized that operators of these tools may have engaged in commercial arrangements with financial providers and may have received compensation based on user actions or bids.
The CFPB stated that both digital comparison-shopping tool operators and lead generators can qualify as “covered persons” under CFPA section 1031(d)(2)(C) which prohibits them from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, particularly those that “take unreasonable advantage” of consumers so they may act in the “covered person’s” best interests. The circular outlined elements of CFPA Section 1031(d)(2)(C) and applied the elements including reasonable reliance by consumers on covered entities to act in their interests, to an evaluation of the operator or lead generator activities. Notably, the circular warned that reasonable consumer reliance could be created based on the representations of the tool operator or lead generator, as well as implicit or explicit communications. Further, the Bureau added that steering consumers towards certain products or providers for the financial benefit of the operator or lead generator, rather than consumer interest, constituted unreasonable advantage-taking.
Finally, the circular included a non-exhaustive list of examples of preferencing or steering arrangements and advised law enforcement agencies and regulators to scrutinize bounty or bidding schemes and decision-making processes to identify abusive conduct.
California Attorney General warns small banks and credit unions on fees
On February 22, California State Attorney General, Rob Bonta, issued a letter to small banks and credit unions cautioning that overdraft and returned deposited item fees may infringe upon California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the CFPA. The letter, directed at institutions in California with assets under $10 billion, highlighted concerns that such fees disproportionately burden low-income and minority consumers. Bonta emphasized that these fees often catch consumers off guard, leading to significant financial strain, and urged the financial institutions in California to comply with state and federal laws by eliminating such practices.
The letter underscores how overdraft and returned deposited item fees can harm consumers, and potentially constitute unfair acts against them. Bonta also pointed out how overdraft fees cannot be reasonably anticipated due to the complexities of transaction processing, making it challenging for consumers to make informed financial decisions. Furthermore, the letter warned that imposition of returned deposited item fees, which are charges by financial institutions when a consumer deposits a check that bounces (due to an issue with the check originator such as insufficient funds or a stop payment order), is likely an unfair business practice in violation of the UCL and CFPA because consumers are usually unable to reasonably avoid the fee.
This action by the California Attorney General is notable for its focus on smaller financial institutions that were expressly excluded from the CFPB’s proposed rule last month on overdraft fees (previously covered by InfoBytes here); however, the action is broadly consistent with the CFPB’s guidance on returned deposited item fees (also covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC takes action against tax prep company for alleged unfair and deceptive practices
On February 23, the FTC announced an action against a tax preparation company for alleged unfair and deceptive acts and practices related to the sale of tax preparation products and services. The FTC alleged in its redacted administrative complaint that the defendant unfairly pushed consumers into paying for more expensive tax preparation products. The FTC further alleged the company made it unnecessarily difficult to downgrade the consumer’s tax preparation plan, both by requiring the consumer to first speak with a representative and by requiring the consumer to re-input the data if the consumer chooses to downgrade to the lower-priced product. The FTC also stated that the company’s upgrade policy, in contrast, is notably simple compared to its downgrade policy, and consumers’ “data seamlessly moves to the more expensive product instantly.” The FTC also claimed that the company’s “file for free” advertisements are deceptive because not all consumers’ tax situations are eligible for the free service.
This action follows the FTC’s action against another tax preparation software provider last month (covered by InfoBytes here).
Washington Appeals Court disagrees with appellant in a class action data breach; affirms lower court’s decision
On January 8, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed superior court rulings granting final approval to a class action settlement, denying a motion to consolidate six class action lawsuits, and approving a class notice plan. According to the opinion, in 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services notified the respondent company, a nonprofit organization serving low-income individuals, of a data breach that exposed the social security numbers of 163,499 individuals. In 2022, appellant filed a class action lawsuit against the respondent company, one of six such separate class action lawsuits. The appellant filed a motion to consolidate the six pending class action lawsuits, which was denied. Subsequently, plaintiffs in one of the class action lawsuits signed a settlement agreement and release that would release, discharge, and bar all claims asserted in the other class action lawsuits and provide compensation anywhere from $100 to $25,000 to impacted individuals. The appellant plaintiff then filed the instant appeal alleging that the lower court abused its discretion by denying her motion to consolidate the six actions, that the class action plan failed to provide reasonable notice, and that the settlement was not fair, reasonable, or adequate because “the settlement is the product of collusion between the settling parties.” The appellate court disagreed and ultimately upheld the lower court’s rulings.
New York Governor highlights NYDFS in 2024 State of the State proposal
On January 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul revealed a proposed plan focused on consumer protection and affordability as the initial part of the Governor’s 2024 State of the State address. The plan includes changes to New York’s consumer protection laws, regulations for buy now pay later products, increased paid medical and disability leave benefits, measures to eliminate co-pays for insulin in specific insurance plans, and legislation addressing medical debt.
Changes to consumer protection laws would give the Attorney General more power to enforce the laws and help the state to address unfair and abusive business practices. Additionally, proposed legislation would require buy now pay later providers to obtain licenses and introduce regulations focusing on disclosure, dispute resolution, credit standards, fee limits, data privacy, and preventing excessive debt.
NYDFS also detailed Governor Hochul’s plan to update and broaden New York’s hospital financial assistance law to provide increased protection against medical debt. The proposed legislation aims to limit hospitals’ ability to sue low-income patients (earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) for medical debt and expand financial assistance programs. It also seeks to cap monthly payments and interest rates on medical debt while enhancing access to financial aid. This consumer protection and affordability plan builds on Governor Hochul and her administration’s efforts to make New York more affordable and livable.
FTC report details key takeaways from AI and creative fields panel discussion
On December 18, the FTC released a report highlighting key takeaways from its October panel discussion on generative artificial intelligence (AI) and “creative industries.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC hosted a virtual roundtable to hear directly from creators on how generative AI is affecting their work and livelihood given the FTC’s interest in understanding how AI tools impact competition and business practices. The report presents a summary of insights gathered during the roundtable and explains the FTC’s particular jurisdictional interest in regulating AI. The report explains that the FTC has brought several recent enforcement actions relating to AI and how the use of AI can potentially violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which “prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition.” Additionally, the report mentioned how President Biden’s recent Executive Order on the Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI (covered by InfoBytes here), encourages the FTC to leverage its existing faculties to protect consumers from harms caused by AI and to ensure competition in the marketplace. The FTC’s report explains that it is appropriately taking such actions, both through enforcement actions and by gathering information. The Commission additionally stipulated that training generative AI on “protected expression” made by a creator without the creator’s consent or the sale of that generated output could constitute an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive practice. The FTC added that this may be amplified by actions that involve deceiving consumers, improperly using a creator’s reputation, reducing the value of a creator’s work, exposing private information, or otherwise causing substantial injury to consumers. The Commission further warned that “conduct that may be consistent with other bodies of law nevertheless may violate Section 5.”
FTC, Florida AG settle with “chargeback mitigation” company
On November 7, the FTC and the State of Florida settled with a chargeback company to prevent it from deceiving any consumers who seek to dispute credit card charges. Back in April 2023, the FTC and the State of Florida sued the chargeback company under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Chapter 501, Part II, as previously covered by InfoBytes here. A chargeback is a system for consumers to get their money returned when they have a problem with a purchase. The proposed court order was agreed to by the defendants but, before it can go into effect, the order first must be approved by a federal judge. The final judgment totals $150,000 and prevents the defendants from working with several high-risk clients.
CFPB announces civil money penalty against nonbank, alleges EFTA and CFPA violations
On October 17, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against a nonbank international money transfer provider for alleged deceptive practices and illegal consumer waivers. According to the consent order, the company facilitated remittance transfers through its app that required consumers to sign a “remittance services agreement,” which included a clause protecting the company from liability for negligence over $1,000. The Bureau alleged that such waiver violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing Regulation E, including Subpart B, known as the Remittance Transfer Rule, by (i) requiring consumers sign an improper limited liability clause to waive their rights; (ii) failing to provide contact and cancellation information in disclosures, and other required terms; (iii) failing to provide a timely receipt when payment is made for a transfer; (iv) failing to develop and maintain required policies and procedures for error resolution; (v) failing to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, possibly preventing consumers from receiving refunds or other remedies they were entitled to; and (vi) failing to accurately disclose exchange rates and the date of fund availability. The CFPB further alleged that the company’s representations regarding the speed (“instantly” or “within seconds”) and cost (“with no fees”) of its remittance transfers to consumers were inaccurate and constituted violations of CFPA. The order requires the company to pay a $1.5 million civil money penalty and provide an additional $1.5 in consumer redress. The company must also take measures to ensure future compliance.