InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DFPI orders deceptive debt collectors to desist and refrain, pay penalties
On October 23, DFPI announced enforcement actions against four debt collectors for engaging in unlicensed debt collection activity, in violation of Debt Collection Licensing Act and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, in violation of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. In its order against two entities, the department alleged that the entities contacted at least one California consumer and made deceptive statements in an attempt to collect a payday loan-related debt, among other things. In its third order against another two entities, DFPI alleged that a consumer was not provided the proper disclosures in a proposed settlement agreement to pay off their debts in a one-time payments. Additionally, DFPI alleged that the entity representatives made a false representation by communicating empty threats of an impending lawsuit.
Under their orders (see here, here, and here), the entities must desist and refrain from engaging in illegal and deceptive practices, including (i) failing to identify as debt collectors; (ii) making false and misleading statements about payment requirements; (iii) threatening unlawful action, such as a lawsuit, because of nonpayment of a debt; (iv) contacting the consumer at a forbidden time of day; (iv) making false claims of pending lawsuits or legal process and the character, amount, or legal status of the debt; (v) failing to provide a “validation notice” ; and (vi) threatening to sue on time-barred debt.
The entities are ordered to pay a combined $87,500 in penalties for each of the illegal and deceptive practices.
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.
Bank to pay Fed, NYDFS almost $30 million for deficient third-party risk management practices
On October 19, the Fed and NYDFS announced an enforcement action against a New York-based bank for alleged violations of consumer identification rules and deficient third-party risk management practices. NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris stated that the bank failed to prevent a “massive, ongoing fraud” related to its prepaid card program. According to the Fed’s cease-and-desist order, illicit actors managed to open prepaid card accounts through a third-party, and moved hundreds of millions of dollars of direct deposit payroll payments and state unemployment benefits through the accounts. The Fed’s order requires the bank to, among other things, improve its oversight, create a new product review program, enhance its customer identification program, and submit a plan to enhance its third-party risk management program. The bank’s plan must include (i) policies and procedures to ensure third-party service providers are complying with federal and state law; (ii) a third-party risk management oversight program; (iii) policies and procedures to ensure the bank’s Chief Compliance Officer has sufficient resources to properly access the bank’s prepaid card program and is adequately staffed; and (iv) a comprehensive identity theft prevention program. The Fed also requires the bank to pay a civil money penalty of approximately $14.5 million. Under NYDFS’s consent order, the bank agreed to pay an additional $15 million civil monetary penalty, and to submit remediation and program reporting.
California enacts licensing requirements for digital asset businesses, regulation of crypto kiosks
On October 13, the California Governor signed AB 39, which will create a licensing requirement for businesses engaging in digital financial asset business activity. Crypto businesses will need to apply for a license with California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). The bill, among other things, (i) empowers DFPI to conduct examinations of a licensee; (ii) defines “digital financial asset” as “a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender, except as specified”; (iii) empowers DFPI to conduct enforcement actions against a licensee or a non-licensed individual who engages in crypto business with, or on behalf of, a California resident for up to five years after their activity; (iv) allows DFPI to assess civil money penalties of up to $20,000 for each day a licensee is in material violation of the law, and up to $100,000 for each day an unlicensed person is in violation; and (v) requires licensees to provide certain disclosures to California clientele, such as when and how users may receive fees and charges, and how they are calculated. The new law exempts most government entities, certain financial institutions, most people who solely provide connectivity software, computing power, data storage or security services, and people engaging with digital assets for personal, family, household or academic use or whose digital financial asset business activity is reasonably expected to be valued at no more than $50,000 per year. In September of last year, the California Governor vetoed a similar bill because creating a licensing framework was “premature” considering conflicting efforts.
Also effective on July 1, 2025 is SB 401, which was also enacted on October 13. SB 401 establishes regulations for crypto kiosks under the DFPI’s authority. It will, among other things, prohibit kiosk operators from accepting or dispensing more than $1,000 in a single day to or form a customer via a kiosk. Operators would be required to furnish written disclosures detailing the transaction's terms and conditions as well as transaction details. Kiosk operators will also be obligated to provide customers with a receipt for any transaction at their kiosk, including both the amount of a digital financial asset or USD involved in a transaction and, in USD, any fees, expenses, and charges collected by the kiosk operator. Finally, operators will be required to provide DFPI with a list of all its crypto kiosks in California, and such list will be made public.
Payments processor fined $20 million by State Money Transmission Regulators and State AGs
On October 16, a national payment processor entered into two settlement agreements totaling $20 million with 44 state and territory money transmission regulators and 50 state and territory attorneys general to resolve issues stemming from alleged erroneous payment transactions. The alleged erroneous payments involved the mistaken initiation of payments on behalf of almost 480,000 mortgage borrowers, with the total amount at issue totaling nearly $2.4 billion.
According to the settlement entered into between the payment processor and the money transmission regulators, who were working through the Multi-State Money Service Business Examination Taskforce, the mistaken payments resulted from a breakdown of internal data security controls that allowed customer data intended for use in the testing of processing code to trigger actual payments. The payment processor, who regularly provided payment processing services to a large residential mortgage lending and servicing company, was using actual customer mortgage payment data for test purposes. As alleged in the settlement, it was determined that in the process of conducting testing on processing code to optimize the payment processors’ payment platform, more than 1.4 million payment entries were unintentionally and erroneously processed. This erroneous payment processing was said to be primarily the result of “circumvention of internal data security controls and a lack of segregation between internal production and testing environments.”
The settlement reached with the money transmission regulators requires the payment processor to maintain a comprehensive risk and compliance program and to provide regular reporting to a state regulator monitoring committee to ensure the adequacy of its risk management programs.
Under the terms of the settlement with the money transmission regulators, the payment processor is required to pay a total of $10 million, with approximately $9.5 million of that total being shared evenly by each participating state, with the remaining roughly $500,000 being used to cover the administrative costs of the investigating states. Under the agreement with the state attorneys general, the payment processor is required to pay an additional $10 million to the various participating states and territories. These amounts are in addition to the $25 million fine previously agreed to in the CFPB Consent Order, bringing the total amount to be paid by the payment processor to $45 million.
California enacts law to extend commercial financing cost disclosure requirement
On October 7, the California governor signed SB 33 to, among other things, continue to require covered providers offering commercial loans to disclose the total cost of financing expressed as an annualized rate indefinitely. Existing law currently required this disclosure only until January 1, 2024.
SB 33 is effective January 1, 2024.
California enacts new data broker regulations
The California governor recently signed SB 362 (the “Act”), which will impose regulations on data brokers by allowing consumers to request the deletion of their personal data that was collected. The Act will allow the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to create an “accessible deletion mechanism” to make a streamlined method for consumers to delete their collected information available by January 1, 2026.
Among other amendments, businesses that meet the definition of a data broker will be required to register every year with the CPPA, instead of with the attorney general. Additionally, the Act requires data brokers to provide more information during its yearly registration, including: (i) if they collect the personal information of minors; (ii) if the data broker collects consumers’ precise geolocation; (iii) if they collect consumers’ reproductive health care data; (iv) “[b]eginning January 1, 2029, whether the data broker has undergone an audit as described in subdivision (e) of Section 1798.99.86, and, if so, the most recent year that the data broker has submitted a report resulting from the audit and any related materials to the California Privacy Protection Agency”; and (v) a link on its website with details on how consumers may delete their personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, learn what personal information is collected and how it is being used, learn how to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information, learn how to access their collected personal information, and learn how to limit the use and disclosure of their sensitive personal information. Moreover, administrative fines for violations of the Act, payable to the CPPA, have increased from $100 to $200, and data brokers that fail to delete information for each deletion request face a penalty of $200 per day the information is not deleted.
The Act further requires that data brokers submit a yearly report of the number of requests received for consumer information deletion, and the number of requests denied. The yearly report must also include the median and mean number of days in which the data broker responded to those requests.
California enacts two privacy bills AB 1194 and AB 947
On October 8, the California governor signed two bills, AB 947 amending the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and AB 1194 amending the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) of 2020. AB 947 amends the definition of “sensitive personal information” to include any personal information that reveals a consumer’s citizenship or immigration status. AB 1194 will ensure that when a consumer’s personal information relates to “accessing, procuring, or searching for services regarding contraception, pregnancy care, and perinatal care, including, but not limited to, abortion services,” business are obligated to comply with CPRA, except in cases where the information is in an aggregated, deidentified form and is not sold or shared. CRPA already empowers consumers to request the deletion of their personal information, with some exceptions to accommodate a business's obligations to adhere to federal, state, or local laws, fulfill court orders, respond to subpoenas for information, or cooperate with government agencies in emergency situations involving potential risks to a person's life or physical well-being.
AB 947 is effective January 1, 2024 and AB 1194 is effective July 1, 2024.
California enacts amendments to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act: Advertisements
On October 7, the California governor approved SB 478 (the “Act”), enacting amendments to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act designed to prohibit “drip pricing,” which involves advertising a price that is lower than the actual price a consumer will have to pay for a good or service. The Act, with specified exceptions, will make advertising the price of a good or service excluding additional fees or charges other than taxes, unlawful. The California Legislature declared that the Act is not intended to prohibit any particular method of determining prices for goods or services, including algorithmic or dynamic pricing. Instead, it is intended to regulate how prices are advertised, displayed, and/or offered.
The Act is effective July 1, 2024.
NYDFS settles with bank for compliance failures
On September 29, NYDFS announced a settlement with a South Korean-based bank’s American subsidiary to resolve allegations of repeated violations of AML requirements, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and New York law. According to the consent order, the respondent was repeatedly examined seven times in less than 10 years by DFS and entered into a consent order with the FDIC in 2017 for BSA/AML compliance, among other things. DFS claims that respondents violated (i) New York Banking Law § 44 by conducting their business in an unsafe and unsound manner; (ii) 3 NYCRR § 116.2 by failing to maintain an effective AML compliance program; and (iii) 23 NYCRR § 504.4 by incorrectly certifying compliance with Part 504. To resolve the claims, the respondent agreed to pay a $10 million civil money penalty, and write a written plan detailing improvements to its compliance policies and procedures, among other things.