InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC releases report on bank's past discriminatory lending practices
On April 3, the FDIC made public for the first time its Community Reinvestment Act Performance Evaluation for a bank from September 2022. The bank focused on residential and commercial lending and had $1.15 billion in assets at the time of the review. During its supervision window from 2019 to 2022, the FDIC rated the bank’s CRA rating as “Needs to Improve,” which was a downgrade from its previous rating of “Satisfactory.” Although the FDIC found that the bank “demonstrated satisfactory performance” under the Lending and Community Development Tests, it was found to have violated ECOA and FHFA. Specifically, the FDIC found that the bank engaged in discriminatory lending through alleged redlining practices, the FDIC deemed. The FDIC noted that these violations occurred due to a lack of sufficient oversight and appropriate policies and procedures.
FFIEC releases statement on examination principles related to discrimination and bias in residential lending
On February 12, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) released a statement on “Examination Principles Related to Valuation Discrimination and Bias in Residential Lending.” The statement outlined principles that examiners should use to evaluate an institution’s residential property appraisal and valuation practices to mitigate risks that stem from (i) discrimination “based on protected characteristics in the residential property valuation process, and (ii) bias, defined as “a preference or inclination that precludes an appraiser or other preparer of the valuation from reporting with impartiality, independence, or objectivity” as required by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Failure to have these internal controls to identify and address discrimination or bias can result in poor credit decisions, consumer harm, increased safety and soundness risk. The principles outlined by the statement are categorized into consumer compliance examination principles and safety and soundness principles. For consumer compliance, examiners should consider an institution’s (i) board and senior management oversight to determine if it is commensurate with the institution’s risk profile; and (ii) consumer compliance policies and procedures to identify and resolve potential discrimination. The principles during a safety and soundness examination should include reviewing the consumer protection issues, governance, collateral valuation program, third-party risk management, valuation review, credit risk review, and training programs.
NYDFS offers guidance to insurers on AI models
On January 17, NYDFS issued a guidance letter on artificial intelligence (AI) intended to help licensed insurers understand NYDFS’s expectations for combating discrimination and bias when using AI in connection with underwriting. The guidance is aimed at all insurers authorized to write insurance in New York State and is intended to help insurers develop AI systems, data information systems, and predictive models while “mitigat[ing] potential harm to consumers.”
The guidance letter states that while the use of AI can potentially result in more accurate underwriting and pricing of insurance, AI technology can also “reinforce and exacerbate” systemic biases and inequality. As part of the letter’s fairness principles, NYDFS states that an insurer should not use underwriting or pricing technologies “unless the insurer can establish that the data source or model… is not biased in any way” with respect to any class protected pursuant to New York insurance law. Further, insurers are expected to demonstrate that technology-driven underwriting and pricing decisions are supported by generally accepted actuarial standards of practice and based on actual or reasonably anticipated experience. It was last noted that these rules build on New York Governor Hochul’s statewide policies governing AI.
Bank to pay $1.9 million to resolve redlining suit
On January 17, the DOJ announced a $1.9 million settlement with a national bank resolving allegations that the bank engaged in unlawful redlining in Memphis, Tennessee by intentionally not providing home loans and mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act, ECOA, and Regulation B. In the complaint, the DOJ alleged that from 2015 through at least 2020, the bank (i) concentrated marketing and maintained nearly all its branches in majority-white neighborhoods; (ii) was aware of its redlining risk and failed to address said risk; (iii) generated disproportionately low numbers of loan applications and home loans during the relevant period from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis, compared to similarly-situated lenders; (iv) maintained practices that denied equal access to home loans for those in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and otherwise “discouraged” those individuals from applying; and others.
Under the consent order, which is subject to court approval, the bank will, among other things, invest $1.3 million in a loan subsidy fund to enhance home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinancing access in the specified neighborhoods. The bank will also allocate $375,000 in advertising, outreach, and financial counseling to specified neighborhoods, and allocate $225,000 to community partnerships for services boosting residential mortgage credit access in the specified areas. Additionally, the bank will assign at least two mortgage loan officers to serve majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the bank’s service area and appoint a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color.
CFPB orders large bank to pay $25.9 million
On November 8, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against a large bank for allegedly discriminating against credit card applicants of Armenian descent. According to the consent order, from at least 2015-2021, respondent allegedly engaged in discriminatory practices that involved denying credit applications and providing false reasons for denials to credit applicants based on their national origin. Respondent’s supervisors also allegedly instructed employees not to discuss these practices in writing or on recorded phone lines. Respondent will pay $1.4 million to affected consumers and a $24.5 million civil money penalty. The CFPB found that respondent violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing Regulation B by unlawfully denying credit based on national origin stereotypes, as well as the CFPA.
FTC and Wisconsin sue auto dealer group for alleged discrimination and illegal fees
The FTC and the State of Wisconsin announced that they filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against an auto dealer group, and its current and former owners, and general manager, alleging that the defendants deceived consumers by tacking hundreds or even thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and discriminated against American Indian customers by charging them higher financing costs and fees relative to similarly situated non-Latino whites.
The complaint also notes the disparity only increased since a change of ownership in 2019. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants regularly charged many of their customers junk fees for “add-on” products or services without their consent, which resulted in additional fees and interest on the customers’ loans. Further, the defendants allegedly discriminated against American Indian customers in the cost of financing by adding more “markup” to their interest rates. This additional markup cost American Indian customers, on average, $401 more compared to non-Latino white customers.
The complaint resulted in two proposed settlements. The proposed settlement with the auto dealer, its current owners, and the general manager requires the company to stop deceiving consumers about whether add-ons are required for a purchase and obtain consumers’ express informed consent before charging them for add-ons. The settlement will also the require the defendants to establish a comprehensive fair lending program that, among other components, will allow consumers to seek outside financing for a purchase and cap the additional interest markup the auto dealer can charge consumers. The current owners and general manager will also be required to pay $1 million to be used to refund affected consumers.
Separately, the former owners agreed to pay $100,000 to be used to refund affected consumers.
DOJ and RI-based bank settlement agreement regarding redlining claims
On September 27, the DOJ announced a $9 million settlement agreement with a Rhode Island-based community bank to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in Rhode Island. The DOJ’s complaint claimed that from 2016 to at least 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island. The DOJ also alleged that all of the bank’s branches were concentrated in majority-white neighborhoods, and that the bank did not take meaningful measures to compensate for not having a physical presence in majority-Black and Hispanic communities.
Under the proposed consent order, the bank will, among other things, (i) invest at least $7 million in a loan subsidy fund for majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island to increase access to credit for home mortgage, improvement, and refinance loans, and home equity loans and lines of credit; (ii) invest $1 million towards outreach, advertising, consumer financial education, and credit counseling initiatives; (iii) invest $1 million in developing community partnerships to expand access to residential mortgage credit for Black and Hispanic consumers; (iv) establish two new branches, ensure at least two mortgage loan officers, and employ a “Director of Community Lending” in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island; (v) conduct a community credit needs assessment; and (vi) produce a fair lending status report and compliance plan and conduct fair lending training. The announcement cited the bank’s cooperation with the DOJ to remedy the identified redlining concerns.
Tenant screening company subject to FHA
On July 26, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that a tenant screening algorithm is subject to the Fair Housing Act, including the FHA's ban on racial discrimination in housing. The court held that even though the company is not itself is not a landlord, as property owners allegedly relied solely on the company's decisions to deny prospective renters' applications, the company was effectively granting it authority to make housing decisions.
Plaintiffs alleged in an amended complaint that a tenant-screening service operated by the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 and Massachusetts anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs claimed that the services discriminate against holders of rental vouchers and applicants of certain races and income classes, in violation of the FHA, resulting in less housing availability, less favorable terms and conditions in rental agreements, and discriminatory provision of services in connection with housing, in each case based on race and national origin.
Defendants, in their respective motions to dismiss, argued that the FHA does not apply to a tenant-screening service, such as the defendant, because the service does not “make housing decisions.” In denying the motion to dismiss on this count, the court reasoned that the FHA provisions do not limit liability to people or entities that “make housing decisions” but rather “focuses on prohibited acts,” and reiterated that the Supreme Court has already held that “language of the Act is broad and inclusive.” The court observed that while housing providers are the typical target of FHA claims, other entities are often held liable under the Act. The court reasoned that the application of the FHA “beyond direct housing providers” is a “logical extension[] which effectuate[s] the purpose of the FHA,” as “a housing provider could simply use an intermediary to take discriminatory and prohibited actions on its behalf and defeat the purpose of the FHA.”
Massachusetts antidiscrimination laws, among other things, make it unlawful to discriminate in the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of the sale or rental of housing or provision of such services “to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this chapter,” which includes Sections 4(6) and 4(10). Plaintiffs allege that the discriminatory rental application process was facilitated by the tenant score produced by the defendants. The court held that the chapter is construed broadly and reiterated the Massachusetts Supreme Court finding that defendants who play a role in the tenant selection process may be held liable under certain sections even if they only “aid[ed] or abet[ted]” a violation of Section 4(10). As such, the court held that the plaintiff’s claims for disparate impact discrimination for race or source of income under both FHA and Massachusetts antidiscrimination laws were sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.
District Court says bank discrimination suit can proceed
On July 21, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied a bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s allegations that she was discriminated against on the basis of race when her account was frozen due to a purported suspicious deposit. Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued the bank claiming violations of both federal and state anti-discrimination laws after she was allegedly questioned by bank employees about the authenticity of a check she tried to deposit in the amount of $27,616, which was money she received from a legal settlement. Plaintiff claimed that the bank maintained the check was fraudulent and soon afterward froze her account and deactivated her debit card. Plaintiff further stated that her debit card remained frozen even after her attorney explained the legal settlement to the bank and her check was cleared. Claiming the bank’s treatment was racially discriminatory, plaintiff maintained that because bank “employees assumed that her ‘having money must be evidence of fraud or wrongdoing,’” she suffered financial hardships and “significant emotional and physical distress.” The bank argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim because she has not shown a connection between the bank’s actions and her race and claimed the bank employees were acting to prevent fraud.
The court disagreed, ruling that due to the bank’s alleged actions and the fact that plaintiff’s account was frozen in violation of its own policies, discriminatory intent is plausible. The court noted that “most significantly,” plaintiff’s account remained frozen for eight days after the check cleared and the possibility of fraud was discounted. The court reasoned that defendant failed to explain why its fraud-prevention policies would justify keeping an account frozen after a check has been cleared. “[A] defendant’s hostile treatment of a plaintiff can allow for an inference of discriminatory intent even if the defendant’s actions lack a direct connection to race,” the court wrote, noting that fraud prevention does not fully explain all of the bank’s actions, which “went beyond” simply conveying suspicion about a potentially fraudulent check or freezing plaintiff’s account.
CFPB, FTC, and consumer advocates ask 7th Circuit to review redlining dismissal
The CFPB recently filed its opening brief in the agency’s appeal of a district court’s decision to dismiss the Bureau’s claims that a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company and its owner violated ECOA by engaging in discriminatory marketing and consumer outreach practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau sued the defendants in 2020 alleging fair lending violations predicated, in part, on statements made by the company’s owner and other employees during radio shows and podcasts. The agency claimed that the defendants discouraged African Americans from applying for mortgage loans and redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area. The defendants countered that the Bureau improperly attempted to expand ECOA’s reach and argued that ECOA “does not regulate any behavior relating to prospective applicants who have not yet applied for credit.”
In dismissing the action with prejudice, the district court applied step one of the Chevron framework (which is to determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue”) when reviewing whether the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA in Regulation B is permissible. The court concluded, among other things, that Congress’s directive does not apply to prospective applicants.
In its appellate brief, the Bureau argued that the long history of Regulation B supports the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA, and specifically provides “that ‘[a] creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.” While Congress has reviewed ECOA on numerous occasions, the Bureau noted that it has never challenged the understanding that this type of conduct is unlawful, and Congress instead “created a mandatory referral obligation [to the DOJ] for cases in which a creditor has unlawfully ‘engaged in a pattern or practice of discouraging or denying applications for credit.’”
Regardless, “even if ECOA’s text does not unambiguously authorize Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants, it certainly does not foreclose it,” the Bureau wrote, pointing to two perceived flaws in the district court’s ruling: (i) that the district court failed to recognize that Congress’s referral provision makes clear that “discouraging . . . applications for credit” violates ECOA; and (ii) that the district court incorrectly concluded that ECOA’s reference to applicants “demonstrated that Congress foreclosed prohibiting discouragement as to prospective applicants.” The Bureau emphasized that several courts have recognized that the term “applicant” can include individuals who have not yet submitted an application for credit and stressed that its interpretation of ECOA, as reflected in Regulation B’s discouragement prohibition, is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” The Bureau argued that under Chevron step two (which the district court did not address), Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants from applying in the first place is reasonable because it furthers Congress’ efforts to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal access to credit.
Additionally, the FTC filed a separate amicus brief in support of the Bureau. In its brief, the FTC argued that Regulation B prohibits creditors from discouraging applicants on a prohibited basis, and that by outlawing this type of behavior, it furthers ECOA’s purpose and prevents its evasion. In disagreeing with the district court’s position that ECOA only applies to “applicants” and that the Bureau cannot proscribe any misconduct occurring before an application is filed, the FTC argued that the ruling violates “the most basic principles of statutory construction.” If affirmed, the FTC warned, the ruling would enable creditor misconduct and “greenlight egregious forms of discrimination so long as they occurred ‘prior to the filing of an application.’”
Several consumer advocacy groups, including the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, also filed an amicus brief in support of the Bureau. The consumer advocates warned that “[i]nvalidating ECOA’s longstanding prohibitions against pre-application discouragement would severely limit the Act’s effectiveness, with significant consequences for communities affected by redlining and other forms of credit discrimination that have fueled a racial wealth gap and disproportionately low rates of homeownership among Black and Latino households.” The district court’s position would also affect non-housing credit markets, such as small business, auto, and personal loans, as well as credit cards, the consumer advocates said, arguing that such limitations “come at a moment when targeted digital marketing technologies increasingly allow lenders to screen and discourage consumers on the basis of their protected characteristics, before they can apply.”