InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC issues final order with skincare company for false reviews
On November 6, the FTC announced a final order with a skincare company, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers by posting fake reviews on a retailer’s website and failed to disclose company employees wrote the reviews. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2019, the FTC filed the complaint against the company asserting that (i) the product reviews posted on the company’s website were not “independent experiences or opinions of impartial ordinary users of the products” and therefore, were false or misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act; and (ii) the failure to disclose the reviews were written by the owner or employees constitutes a deceptive act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, because the information would “be material to consumers in evaluating the reviews of [the company] brand products in connection with a purchase or use decision.”
The Commission, in a 3-2 vote, approved the final order, which prohibits the company from misrepresenting the status of an endorser, including misrepresentations that the endorser or reviewer is an “independent or ordinary user of the product.” The order requires the company and owner to “clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to that representation, any unexpected material connection between such endorser and (1) any Respondent; or (2) any other individual or entity affiliated with the product.” The final order does not include any monetary relief for consumers.
In dissent, two Commissioners objected to the final order, stating that the agency is “doubling down on its no-money, no-fault settlement with [the company], who was charged with egregious fake review fraud.” The dissent urged the Commission to publish a statement on monetary remedies in order to restate “legal precedent into formal rules” and designate specific misconduct as penalty offenses through Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency “to seek penalties against parties who engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the Commission.”
CFPB takes action against debt-relief and debt-settlement companies
On November 5, the CFPB announced an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a student loan debt-relief company, a debt-settlement company, and the owner of both companies (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by charging illegal advance fees and using deceptive tactics to induce consumers to sign up for services. According to the complaint, from 2015 to the present, the defendants allegedly charged consumers upfront fees between $1,000 and $1,450 for the debt-relief company to file paperwork with the U.S. Department of Education to obtain loan consolidation, loan forgiveness, or income-driven repayment plans. According to the complaint, some consumers paid the upfront fee using a third-party financing company and paid an APR between 17 and 22 percent. Additionally, the CFPB alleges that the defendants required some consumers to pay the fee in installments into a trust plan, which carried a $6 monthly banking fee paid to the administrator of the trust accounts. The Bureau alleges that the defendants failed to provide the proper disclosures under the TSR. Moreover, the complaint asserts that from 2019 to the present, the defendants violated the CFPA by representing to consumers that they were turned down for a loan in order to pitch the company’s settlement services.
The complaint seeks consumer redress, injunctive relief, and civil money penalties.
Virginia stays residential foreclosure proceedings
On November 9, 2020 the Virginia governor signed House Bill 5115, which places restrictions on foreclosures. The law provides tenants who are defendants in a unlawful detainer action for failure to pay rent with a 60-day continuance, and a 30-day stay of foreclosure proceedings for owners of one-to-four-family units or larger residential dwelling units, if those tenants or owners provide “written proof” (as defined in the bill) that they were affected by Covid-19. Stays must be requested within 90 days following the end of the declared emergency, and the bill itself is set to expire 90 days after the end of the declared emergency.
CFPB will not alter credit reporting guidance deadline relief
On November 9, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger sent a letter to the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) stating that the Bureau is not planning to make any changes to the guidance it issued in April (covered by InfoBytes here), which informed furnishers that the Bureau will refrain from taking enforcement actions and citing during exams in certain situations as long as furnishers make “good faith efforts” to investigate consumer disputes as quickly as possible. The letter was sent in response to a request made by the NCLC and several other consumer advocacy groups in September, which urged the Bureau to revoke the policy based on an alleged rise in consumer complaints received by the Bureau about dispute investigation delays. The advocacy groups claimed that the significant increase was “likely as a result of the CFPB guidance,” and requested that—at a minimum—the Bureau “limit the extra time provided to the CRAs and furnishers to 15 days, or at most 30 days beyond the FCRA-mandated 30-day deadline for investigation disputes.”
“I want to make clear that all companies continue to remain responsible for FCRA compliance with dispute resolutions in a timely fashion,” Kraninger responded. “However, during the extraordinary times in which we find ourselves, the Bureau does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against firms who exceed the deadlines to investigate such disputes—but only as long as efforts are made in good faith to do so as quickly as possible.” (Emphasis in the original.)
OCC warns of key banking risks
On November 9, the OCC released its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2020, which reports on key risk areas that pose a threat to the safety and soundness of national banks and federal savings associations. In particular, the OCC noted the financial impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the federal banking industry, emphasizing that while economic activity rebounded in the third quarter, there is significant ongoing risk. The report discusses, as a special topic in emerging risks, growing trends in payment products and services. The report also highlights several key risk areas for banks: credit, strategic, operational, and compliance. Specifically, the report notes that credit risk is increasing as government assistance programs expire and the economic downturn has led to elevated unemployment levels. The report further notes that strategic risks affecting profitability is an emerging issue due to low interest rates, which historically have negatively affected profitability when low for a long period of time. Moreover, the report notes elevated operational risks due to complex operating environments with cybersecurity being a key concern. The increase in large-scale telework has created unique security and internal control challenges. Lastly, the report discusses elevated compliance risks due to the expedited implementation of a number of Covid-19-related assistance programs.
Rhode Island Division of Banking issues guidance on workplace practices to mitigate spread of Covid-19
On November 6, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation, Division of Banking issued Banking Bulletin 2020-6 announcing certain standards for personnel and office operations that it encourages financial institutions to implement to mitigate further spread of Covid-19. These standards include, among others, guidelines for employee mask-wearing and congregation, and arrangement of office furniture to encourage social distancing.
Fed report highlights banks’ Covid-19 responses
On November 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued its Supervision and Regulation Report, which summarizes banking system conditions and the Fed’s supervisory and regulatory activities. The current report discusses the safety and soundness of the banking industry, especially with respect to economic and financial stresses resulting from Covid-19 containment measures. The report highlights, among other things, that Fed programs “have helped to preserve the flow of credit” and that banks have taken several actions to maintain financial and operational resiliency. These actions include providing access to substantial lines of credit for corporate borrowers and playing a significant role in supporting small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program. In addition, the report notes that loan growth has grown slightly since the beginning of the year and that capital positions and liquidity conditions remain strong. However, the report cautions that while “economic indicators have shown marked improvement since the second quarter, a high degree of uncertainty persist.” The report also details the Fed’s current areas of supervisory focus and describes how banks have adapted to a largely remote working environment.
The same day, the Fed also announced updates to the list of firms supervised by its Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee Program, which is responsible for supervising the largest and most complex firms. As a result, “certain foreign banks with U.S. operations that have substantially decreased in size and risk over the past decade will move to the Large and Foreign Banking Organization supervision portfolio, where they will be supervised with other banks of similar size and risk.” The Fed stresses that the “portfolio move will have no effect on the regulatory capital or liquidity requirements of any firm.”
Bank gets NAL from CFPB using small-dollar template
On November 5, under the CFPB’s revised no-action letter (NAL) policy, the Bureau issued a NAL to a national bank regarding certain small-dollar credit products offered by the bank. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May, the Bureau approved a template in response to a request by a nonpartisan public policy, research and advocacy group for banks that would assist depository institutions in offering a standardized, small-dollar credit product under $2,500 with a repayment term between 45 days and one year. The bank submitted its application using this template.
Among other things, the NAL notes that the bank’s application includes (i) each of the “13 Guardrail Certifications” described in the template; (ii) a copy of the small-dollar credit product’s terms and conditions the bank intends to provide to consumers; (iii) marketing materials intended to be used to market the product; and (iv) substantially similar consumer benefits and consumer risks as described in the advocacy groups’ template application. A copy of the bank’s application is available here.
Additionally, the Bureau released a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notice, covering research efforts to “identify information that could be disclosed to consumers during the payday loan process to help them make better-informed decisions.”
California voters approve expanded privacy rights
On November 3, California voters approved a ballot initiative, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), that expands on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). While there are a number of differences between the CPRA and the CCPA, some key provisions include:
- Adding expanded consumer rights, including the right to correction and the right to limit sharing of personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising, whether or not for monetary or other valuable consideration.
- Changing the definitions of various entities, including increasing the numerical threshold for being a business to 100,000 from 50,000 consumers and households and removing devices from this threshold.
- Adding the category of sensitive personal information that is subject to specific rights.
- Creating a new privacy agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to administer, implement, and enforce the CPRA.
It is important to note that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act exemptions are in the CPRA, and the act extends the employee and business-to-business exemption to January 1, 2023.
Implementation deadlines
The CPRA becomes effective January 1, 2023, with enforcement delayed until July 1, 2023. However, the CPRA contains a look-back provision (i.e., the CPRA will apply to personal information collected by a business on or after January 1, 2022). The new privacy agency also is required to begin drafting regulations starting on July 1, 2021, with final regulations to be completed one year later.
Learn more
Please refer to a Buckley article for further information on the differences between the CCPA and the CPRA: 6 Key Ways the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 Would Revise the CCPA (Corporate Compliance Insights), as well a continuing InfoBytes coverage here.
Nebraska voters approve initiative capping payday loan APRs at 36 percent
On November 3, according to reports, voters passed Nebraska Initiative 428, which proposed an amendment to Nebraska statutes to prohibit delayed deposit services licensees (otherwise known as payday lenders) from offering loans with annual percent rates (APRs) above 36 percent. Under the amendment, loans with APRs that exceed this cap will be deemed void, and lenders who make such loans will not be authorized to collect or retain fees, interest, principal, or any other associated charges. Specifically, Initiative 428 proposed removal of the existing limit that prohibited lenders from charging fees in excess of $15 per $100 loaned and replaced it with the 36 percent APR cap. It would additionally prohibit lenders from offering, arranging, or guaranteeing payday loans with interest rates exceeding 36 percent in Nebraska regardless of whether the lender has a physical location in the state.