InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC provides its 2023 ECOA activities to CFPB
On February 12, the FTC provided the CFPB with an annual summary of its 2023 enforcement, research and policy development, and educational-related initiatives on ECOA, as Dodd-Frank allows the Commission to enforce ECOA and any CFPB rules applicable to entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction. The letter emphasized the commitment of each agency to enforce laws protecting civil rights, fair competition, consumer protection, and equal opportunity in the development and use of automated systems and artificial intelligence. Additionally, the letter stated the FTC continued its involvement in initiatives such as military outreach and participation in interagency task forces on fair lending. Its initiatives focused on consumer and business education regarding issues related to Regulation B and guiding fair lending practices. The Commission also highlighted (1) an enforcement action against a group of auto dealerships alleging ECOA and its implementing Regulation B violations in connection with the sale of add-on products; (2) refund checks sent as a result of the settlement of two enforcement actions against auto dealerships in which it was alleged that the dealerships violated ECOA and Regulation B by discrimination against Black and Latino consumers by charging them higher financing costs; and (3) an amicus brief submitted to an appeals court in support of the CFPB’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the lower court’s decision regarding the applicability of ECOA to individuals other than “applicants.”
FTC encourages potential defendants to sign tolling agreements to avoid "undue delay"
On February 20, Samuel Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in an FTC blog post, that although the FTC welcomes open dialogue with parties in open investigations, the Commission is prepared to quickly pivot to litigation in cases should companies cause “undue delay” to redress for consumers. In light of a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the FTC can no longer pursue monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which lacks a statute of limitations. Instead, the FTC said, it frequently turns to Section 19, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, which allows courts to order defendants to provide redress only if violations occurred within three years of the Commission’s action. To facilitate timely productive discussions, the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection often requests tolling agreements from potential defendants to provide time for information gathering and dialogue while preserving the possibility of a pre-litigation settlement or closing the investigation in appropriate cases. Parties are encouraged to sign these agreements, as refusal may impact extension requests and meeting opportunities. If necessary, the FTC will recommend litigation to protect consumer interests.
FTC proposes two actions to combat AI impersonation fraud
On February 15, the FTC announced its supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking relating to the protection of consumers from impersonation fraud, especially from any impersonations of government entities. The first action from the FTC was a final rule that prohibited the impersonation of government, business, and their officials or agents in interstate commerce. The second action was a notice seeking public comment on a supplemental proposed rulemaking that would revise the first action and add a prohibition on, and penalties for, the impersonation of individuals for entities who provide goods and services (with the knowledge or reason to know that those goods or services will be used in impersonations) that are unlawful. In tandem, these actions sought to prohibit the impersonation of government and business officials.
The FTC notes that these two actions come from “surging complaints” on impersonation fraud, specifically from artificial intelligence-generated deep fakes. The final rule will expand the remedies and provide monetary relief, whereas the FTC stated this rule will provide a “shorter, faster and more efficient path” for injured consumers to recover money. The rule would enable the FTC to seek monetary relief from scammers that use government seals or business logos, spoof government and business emails, and impersonate a government official or falsely imply a business affiliation.
FTC, DFPI win MSJ against a fraudulent mortgage relief operation
On February 13, the FTC and California Department of Financial Protection (DFPI) announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted their motion for summary judgment against several companies and owners that the agencies alleged were operating a fraudulent mortgage relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and DFPI filed a joint complaint against the defendants in September 2022 alleging that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (the MARS Rule or Regulation O), the Telemarking Sales Rule, the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court found the defendants violated all five laws. According to the motion, the defendants falsely represented that they could lower homeowners’ interest rates and reduce the principal balances, but, after taking the payment upfront, rarely delivered any agreed-upon services. The defendants also allegedly made misleading claims during telemarketing calls with homeowners regarding home foreclosure and mortgage payments, among other claims, including with homeowners with numbers on the national Do Not Call registry.
The court ordered the defendants to pay approximately $16 million in restitution and $3 million in civil penalties. Further, the court ordered that the defendants are subject to a (i) permanent ban on advertising, promoting, offering for sale, or selling, or assisting others in those acts, any debt relief product or service and all telemarketing; and (ii) prohibition against making misrepresentations or unsubstantiated claims regarding products or services.
FTC bans student loan “scammers” from debt relief industry
On February 6, the FTC announced two orders (here and here) that will ban a group of student loan debt relief “scammers” (defendants) from the debt relief industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, defendants allegedly misled consumers by charging them for services that are free through the Department of Education, claiming consumers needed to pay fees or make payments to access federal student loan forgiveness. As a consequence, the FTC filed a temporary restraining order resulting in an asset freeze, among other things.
As a result of the FTC’s action, and subject to court approval, defendants are banned from operating in the debt relief industry, as well as prohibited from making false statements about financial products or services and from using deceptive tactics to gather consumers’ financial information. Moreover, the proposed orders include a monetary judgment of $7.4 million, with a significant portion suspended due to financial constraints. Defendants must surrender personal and business assets, and if any of them materially misrepresent their finances, the entire monetary judgment will become immediately payable.
FTC orders tax filing software company to cease and desist following ALJ decision
On January 22, the FTC issued an opinion and order against the maker of a popular tax filing software. The FTC found that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by marketing the software as “free” when it was not available as free to more than two-thirds of consumers and ordered the company to “cease and desist making the deceptive claims.”
The FTC’s opinion and order were issued after its de novo review following the September 2023 ruling from an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), in the FTC’s March 2022 administrative complaint against the company (previously reported by InfoBytes here), in which the ALJ found that the company engaged in deceptive advertising.
The company is a publicly traded corporation that offers a variety of software programs. The software in question is a program that assists customers with preparing and filing their taxes. The FTC alleged that since 2016 the company marketed its tax filing software in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act through television and online ads, stating consumers could file their taxes for free when less than one-third of taxpayers were eligible for the company’s free edition of the software.
The FTC took issue with the company’s claim that the software was “free” when it restricted its eligibility for the free version to those with “simple tax returns.” While the definition of “simple tax returns” has changed over time, in 2022 it was limited to filed returns that included a Form 1040 with limited attached schedules. However, the FTC alleged most taxpayers do not have “simple tax returns” as defined by the company, including those with mortgage or property income, investment income, or charitable donations over $300.
According to the FTC, from 2016 to 2022, the company ran “dozens” of unique ads through television, radio, the internet, social media, and other advertising channels, that garnered “billions of impressions.” The company and its ad agency understood that advertising its product as free would be a “powerful” lure to entice new customers, stating “Lead with [f]ree to raise heads and drive traffic and acquisition[.]” Although disclaimers are present in the ads, the FTC alleged the company’s disclaimers are inadequate to “cure the misrepresentations” faced by the consumer.
The company continued to market its products as free for three years after multiple lawsuits were filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney and the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, California, alleging unfair and deceptive marketing of free versions of the software. Various state Attorneys General opened subsequent investigations that led the company to enter into a settlement agreement with all fifty states pursuant to which the company agreed to pay $141 million and submit to restrictions on its advertising and marketing of the software. Among other restrictions, the FTC’s final order prohibits the company from making any misrepresentations of the cost of its products and services, or the requirement that a consumer use its paid products or services in order to accurately file their taxes online or claim a credit or deduction. Additionally, the order imposes record-keeping and reporting requirements that will remain effective for a period of twenty years after the issuance date of the order.
FTC obtains injunction and monetary judgment against telemarketing company
On January 31, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois finalized, in actions brought by the FTC, a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against a telemarketing company and certain individuals for violating the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, specifically the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). The FTC’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the court, whereby the defendants were ordered to pay a monetary judgment for a civil penalty of $28,681,863.88 in favor of the FTC, and the defendants were permanently banned from participating in telemarketing or assisting and facilitating others engaged in telemarketing to consumers. The court found that the defendants violated the TSR by “initiating or causing the initiation of outbound telephone calls to consumers whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry… and by assisting and facilitating their inbound transfer partners’ violations of the TSR.” This final action comes after the FTC was granted its initial order for permanent injunction and other relief in November 2023.
FTC hosts tech summit on artificial intelligence; CFPB weighs in
On January 25, the FTC hosted a virtual tech summit focused on artificial intelligence (AI). The summit featured speakers from the FTC––including all three commissioners––software engineers, lawyers, technologists, entrepreneurs, journalists, and researchers, among others. First, Commissioner Slaughter spoke on how there are three main acts that led to where we are today in creating guardrails for AI use: first, the emergence of social media; second, industry groups and whistleblowers rang the alarm on data privacy and forced regulators to play catch-up; third, regulators must now urgently grapple with difficult social externalities such as impacts on society and political elections.
The first panel discussed the various business models at play in the AI space. One journalist spoke on the recent Hollywood writers’ strike, opining that copyright law is a poor legal framework by which to regulate AI, and suggested labor and employment law as a better model. An analyst at a venture capital firm discussed how her firm finds investment opportunities by reviewing which companies use a language-learning model, as opposed to the transformer model, which is more attractive to that firm.
Before the second panel, Commissioner Bedoya discussed the need for fair and safe AI, and said that in order for the FTC to be successful, it must execute policy with two topics in mind: first, people need to be in control of technology and decision making, not the other way around; and second, competition must be safeguarded so that the most popular technology is the one that works the best, not just the one created by the largest companies.
During the second panel, a lawyer from the CFPB spoke on how the CFPB is doing “a lot” with regards to AI, and that the CFPB gives AI technology no exceptions in the laws it oversees. The CFPB recently issued releases on how the “black box” model in credit decision making needs to be fair and free from bias. When discussing future AI enforcement actions, the CFPB lawyer said in a “high-level” way that AI enforcement is currently “capacity building”; they are building out their resources to be more intellectually diverse, including having recently created their technologist program.
FTC orders companies and individuals to turn over millions
On January 17, the FTC announced two proposed settlements against an independent sales organization and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly participating in deceptive and unfair acts and practices. The FTC alleges the defendants violated FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, the Cooling-Off Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by targeting Spanish-speaking consumers with “false or unfounded earnings claims and other deceptive promises,” relating to business opportunities. According to the complaint, defendants sold business opportunities to Spanish-speaking consumers that used unsubstantiated earnings claims to convince consumers to pay thousands of dollars for its products and services. The complaint also alleged that although defendants’ marketing and sales were conducted largely in Spanish, the company’s purchase agreements that outline the cancellation policy were often provided exclusively in English. Additionally, the complaint alleged that defendants frequently rejected consumers’ refund requests as untimely, and when consumers reported the defendants to law enforcement or the Better Business Bureau, defendants offered partial refunds to those consumers contingent upon their withdrawal of their complaints and agreement to refrain from posting negative reviews about defendants.
The proposed stipulated order, among other things, would (i) permanently ban the defendants from offering any business coaching on ecommerce or real estate; (ii) require the defendants to support their claims about how much consumers can earn using any product or service that the defendants market or sell; (iii) prohibit the defendants from repeating the unlawful practices that formed the basis for the complaint; (iv) require defendants to pay $29,175,000 and surrender all funds and assets of the receivership entities and those additionally listed; and (v) identify repayment obligations of various financial institutions and require the identified financial institution to remit the balance of each identified account to the Commission. The defendants neither admitted nor denied any of the allegations in the complaint.
FTC bans data aggregator company from selling consumer data
On January 18, the FTC issued a complaint against a digital platform and data aggregator (the company) and ordered the company to no longer sell or license precise location data, among other requirements. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC’s order followed a recent FTC decision against a data broker in which the FTC alleged the data broker’s contracts were “insufficient to protect consumers from the substantial injury” caused by location data collection as consumers visited sensitive locations, such as churches, healthcare facilities, and schools.
In this case, the company obtained large amounts of personal data on consumers’ demographic data, movements, and purchasing history and retained that information for five years. The company had applications and third-party apps that have been downloaded over 390 million times, leading to about 100 million unique devices sending location data each year to the company. Like the previous FTC order, this FTC order alleged the company collected sensitive information on where consumers live, work, and worship; where their children went to school; where they received medical treatment; and if they attended rallies or demonstrations. The FTC alleged that the company cross-references consumers’ data location histories with points of interest to advertisers, including offering a push notification about a product when a consumer is located near a store that sells that product.
The FTC alleged the company failed to notify users that consumers’ location data is used for targeted advertising. Additionally, the FTC alleged the company retains consumer data “longer than reasonably necessary” which the FTC argues could lead to future consumer injury. According to the FTC, these allegations constitute deceptive or unfair practices as prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Under the order, the company must not materially misrepresent how the company collects or uses consumers’ location data, the company must not sell or license location data, and the company must implement a sensitive location data program as proscribed by the order. The company must also delete all historical location data for all consumers which does not affirmatively consent to the continued retention of such data. The company neither admits nor denies any of these allegations.