InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FFIEC releases APR, APY computational tools
On April 16, the FFIEC, on behalf of its member agencies, announced the release of two computational tools for annual percentage rates (APR) and annual percentage yields (APY). These web-based tools are intended to assist financial institutions when complying with consumer protection laws and regulations.
The APR Computational Tool is intended to help examiners and financial institutions verify finance charges and APRs included on consumer loan disclosures subject to TILA and Regulation Z, including calculations “related to unsecured and secured installment and construction loans, including real estate-secured loans.” The tool can also be used to verify military annual percentage rates for loans subject to the Military Lending Act. The APY Computational Tool is designed to support the verification of APYs on consumer deposit account disclosures, including advertisements and periodic statements, subject to the Truth in Savings Act and Regulation DD. See FDIC FIL-45-2020 and OCC Bulletin 2020-40 regarding the release of these tools.
9th Circuit: Trustees’ loan transaction is entitled to state and federal consumer disclosure protections
On April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of claims under TILA, RESPA, and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act, holding that a loan transaction made by a borrower in her capacity as a trustee (appellant-borrower) remained a consumer credit transaction entitled to state and federal consumer disclosure protections. According to the opinion, the appellant-borrower obtained a loan to finance repairs to a personal residence that was occupied by her niece—the trust’s sole beneficiary. The appellant-borrower alleged that the lender’s (defendant-appellee) loan disclosures were materially inconsistent with the loan’s terms and filed a complaint alleging that “the due date disclosures did not accurately reflect the terms of the loan.” The complaint sought rescission of the loan under TILA, damages against the defendant-appellee under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act due to the alleged use of unfair means to collect her debt, and inaccurate disclosure damages and reimbursements for payments she claimed she was not obligated to make. Under TILA and RESPA, rescission and damage remedies are only available to consumer credit transactions, and the defendant-appellee moved to dismiss on the ground that a residential loan to a trust can only qualify as a consumer credit transaction where a trustee-borrower lives at the residence. The appellant-borrower countered that the CFPB’s Official Staff Commentary (Commentary) to Regulation Z, which implements TILA, explains “that ‘[c]redit extended for consumer purposes to certain trusts is considered to be credit extended to a natural person rather than credit extended to an organization.’” The district court agreed with the defendant-appellee’s position that the loan was not a consumer credit transaction and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit noted that the Commentary states that “a loan for ‘personal, family, or household purposes’ of the beneficiary of this type of trust is a consumer credit transaction,” and that furthermore, “trusts should be considered natural persons under TILA, so long as the transaction was obtained for a consumer purpose, because, ‘in substance (if not form) consumer credit is being extended.” The appellate court rejected the defendant-appellee’s argument and concluded that the loan should be considered a consumer credit transaction under all three statutes. Holding that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint by construing the statutes too narrowly, it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CFPB fines short-term lender $1.3 million for unfair and deceptive acts and practices
On April 1, the CFPB announced a $1.3 million settlement with a Texas-based short-term lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FCRA, and TILA. The Bureau alleged that while “marketing, servicing, and collecting on high-interest payday, auto-title, and unsecured consumer-installment loans,” the lender made deceptive representations through advertisements and telemarketing calls when promoting purported loan discounts. The Bureau also alleged that the lender engaged in unfair collection call practices by allegedly calling consumers who failed to make payments numerous times—some more than 15 or 20 times a day—even after being asked to stop. In addition, the lender allegedly repeatedly called consumers’ workplaces and references as a tactic to obtain payments and disclosed, or risked disclosing, to third parties the existence of the delinquent debts. According to the Bureau, the lender also violated FCRA by failing to maintain adequate consumer reporting policies and procedures to ensure the “accuracy and integrity” of the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and violated TILA by failing to provide telemarketers guidance on how to lawfully disclose a loan’s annual percentage rate as required by federal law when responding to consumers’ questions about interest and other loan costs.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is required to pay a $1.1 million civil money penalty, $286,675 in consumer redress, and is, among other things, (i) permanently restrained from certain collection practices; (ii) required to ensure employees do not misrepresent discount offers when marketing or selling consumer financial products or services; and (iii) tasked with ensuring employees correctly disclose the APR of loan products.
CFPB outlines regulatory flexibility related to Covid-19
On March 26, the CFPB announced several regulatory flexibility measures to help financial companies work with consumers affected by Covid-19. Specifically, the measures postpone certain industry data collections on Bureau-related rules. These include:
- HMDA. Quarterly information reporting by certain mortgage lenders as required under HMDA and Regulation C will not be expected during this time. However, entities should continue collecting and recording HMDA data in anticipation of making annual submissions. Entities will be provided information by the Bureau on when and how to commence new quarterly HMDA data submissions. (See statement here.)
- TILA. During this time, annual submissions required under TILA, Regulation Z, and Regulation E “concerning agreements between credit card issuers and institutions of higher education; quarterly submission of consumer credit card agreements; collection of certain credit card price and availability information; and submission of prepaid account agreements and related information” will not be expected. (See statement here.)
- Section 1071. A survey seeking information from financial institutions on the cost of compliance in connection with pending rulemaking on Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act has been postponed. As previously covered by InfoBytes, under the terms of a stipulated settlement resolving a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071, the Bureau agreed to outline a proposal for collecting data and studying discrimination in small-business lending.
- PACE Financing. A survey of firms providing Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to consumers for the purposes of implementing Section 307 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act has been postponed.
- Supervision and Enforcement. The Bureau’s policy statement provides “that it does not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an enforcement action against any entity for failure to submit to the Bureau” specified information related to credit card and prepaid accounts. However, the Bureau’s announcement advises entities to “maintain records sufficient to allow them to make delayed submissions pursuant to Bureau guidance.” With respect to operational challenges facing institutions due to Covid-19, the Bureau states that it will work with institutions when scheduling examinations and other supervisory activities to minimize disruption and burden. “[W]hen conducting examinations and other supervisory activities and in determining whether to take enforcement action, the Bureau will consider the circumstances that entities may face as a result of the [Covid-19] pandemic and will be sensitive to good-faith efforts demonstrably designed to assist consumers,” the announcement states.
CFPB sues regional bank for sales practices
On March 9, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a regional bank for alleged violations of TILA, the Truth in Savings Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act relating to the bank’s sales practices. According to the complaint, the bank had instituted a “cross-sell” sales strategy along with sales goals to increase sales to customers. The complaint alleges that, although the bank knew that sales employees “engag[ed] in misconduct in order to meet goals or earn additional compensation,” the bank purportedly “took insufficient steps to properly implement and monitor its program, detect and stop misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers.” The complaint alleges two claims for “abusiveness” in violation of the CFPA, which are the first such allegations since the Bureau issued a policy statement in January regarding its “abusiveness” standard, covered in InfoBytes here. Among other things, the Bureau seeks injunctive relief, monetary relief, disgorgement, and a civil money penalty. After the complaint was filed, the regional bank issued a press release rejecting the charges in the CFPB’s complaint.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On February 26, the CFPB released 10 new lender credit FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- “[L]ender credits include [(i)] payments, such as credits, rebates, and reimbursements, that a creditor provides to a consumer to offset” a consumer’s closing costs paid “as part of the mortgage loan transaction”; and (ii) “premiums in the form of cash” provided by a creditor “to a consumer in exchange for specific acts, such as for accepting a specific interest rate, or as an incentive, such as to attract consumers away from competing creditors.”
- Lender credits can be specific or non-specific. Non-specific lender credits are also known as “general lender credits.” The FAQs provide examples of both types of lender credit, and note that the distinction is important, as the two types of lender credits are disclosed differently on the Closing Disclosure.
- Creditors are not required to disclose “a closing cost and a related lender credit on the Loan Estimate if the creditor” absorbs the cost, but will be required to disclose these costs if they are “offsetting a cost charged to the consumer.”
- Creditors are required to disclose a closing cost and a related lender credit on a Closing Disclosure if they absorb the cost, “even if the consumer will not be charged for the closing cost.”
- To disclose lender credits on a Loan Estimate, creditors must calculate the sum “of all general and specific lender credits.”
- The nature of how lender credits are disclosed on a Closing Disclosure varies based on whether it is a general lender credit or a specific lender credit.
- The nature of how lender credits for a “no-cost loan” are disclosed varies based “on whether [a] creditor is absorbing closing costs as well as whether [it] is offsetting costs for specific settlement services.”
- When disclosing all of the closing costs charged to consumers, creditors must include a corresponding total amount of lender credits.
- Creditors that provide “a lender credit to offset a certain dollar amount of closing costs” without specifying which costs are providing a general lender credit. The FAQs outlines the disclosure process.
- Lender credits can only change in certain circumstances. Regulation Z does not limit increases in lender credits on a Loan Estimate, but a decrease in “lender credits disclosed on [a] Loan Estimate” may “lead to a violation of the good faith disclosure standard” if it is not tied to a triggering event outlined in Regulation Z.
New York AG settles with student debt relief companies
On February 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement between the State of New York and a student loan debt relief operation including five debt relief companies and one individual (defendants) in order to resolve allegations that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, TILA, state usury laws, and various other state laws. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the New York attorney general brought the lawsuit in 2018 alleging that the defendants “engag[ed] in deceptive, fraudulent and illegal conduct…through their marketing, offering for sale, selling and financing” of debt relief services to student loan borrowers. The AG claimed that, among other things, the defendants allegedly (i) charged consumers who purchased the debt relief services illegal upfront fees; (ii) misrepresented that they were part of or working with the federal government; (iii) falsely claimed that fees paid by borrowers would be applied to borrowers’ student loan balances; and (iv) induced borrowers to enter into usurious financing contracts to pay for the debt relief services.
Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants—without admitting or denying the allegations—agreed to a judgment of $2.2 million, which will be suspended if the defendants promptly pay $50,000 to the State of New York and comply with all other provisions of the agreement. The defendants are also permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief product or service—or from assisting others in doing the same. Additionally, the defendants must request that any credit reporting agency to which the defendants reported consumer information in connection with the student loan debt relief services remove the information from those consumers’ credit files. The defendants also agreed not to sell, transfer, or benefit from the personal information collected from borrowers. According to the settlement, six additional defendants were not included in the agreement and the AG’s case against them continues.
CFPB issues Winter 2020 Supervisory Highlights
On February 14, the CFPB released its winter 2020 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of student loan servicing, payday lending, debt collection, and mortgage servicing. The findings of the report, which are published to assist entities in complying with applicable consumer laws, cover examinations that generally were completed between April and August of 2019. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Debt collection. The Bureau cited violations of the FDCPA’s requirement that debt collectors must, after the initial written communication, disclose that their communications are from a debt collector. The report also included the failure of some debt collectors to provide a written validation notice to consumers within five days after the debt collector initially contacts the consumer regarding the collection of a debt.
- Payday lending. The Bureau found violations of the CFPA, including among other things, lenders failing to apply consumer payments to their loan balances and treating the accounts as delinquent. The Bureau also found weaknesses in employee training that resulted in providing consumers with inaccurate annual percentage rates in violation of Regulation Z.
- Mortgage servicing. The Bureau pointed out that servicers had violated Regulation X by failing to provide written acknowledgement of receipt of consumer loss mitigation applications, including whether the applications were complete or incomplete, within five days of receipt. Servicers also failed to provide in writing a list of loss mitigation options for which the consumer was eligible within 30 days of receiving a complete loss mitigation application.
- Student loan servicing. The Bureau noted that after loans were transferred, some servicers billed incorrect monthly amounts to the consumers.
The report notes that in response to most examination findings, the companies have taken or are taking remedial and corrective actions, including by identifying and compensating impacted consumers and updating their policies and procedures to prevent future violations. Lastly, the report also highlights the Bureau’s recently issued rules and guidance.
National bank to challenge CFPB on cards suit
On January 30, the CFPB announced that it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against a national bank (defendant) based upon alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its implementing Regulation Z, the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The CFPB claims that among other things, when servicing credit card accounts, the defendant did not properly manage consumer billing disputes for unauthorized card use and billing errors, and did not properly credit refunds to consumer accounts resulting from such disputes. Specifically, the complaint alleges that violations included the defendant’s (i) “practice of automatically denying billing error claims or claims of unauthorized use for failure of the consumers to provide Fraud Affidavits, including agreeing to testify as witnesses”; (ii) “failure to refund related finance charges and fees when it resolved billing error notices or claims of unauthorized use in consumers’ favor”; (iii) failure “to provide written notices of acknowledgement or denial in response to billing error notices”; and (iv) failure “to provide credit counseling referrals.” The CFPB is seeking injunctive relief, monetary relief, disgorgement of defendant’s ill-gotten gains, civil money penalties, and costs of the action.
The defendant issued a response to the suit on January 31, stating that it self-identified the issues to the Bureau five years ago while simultaneously correcting any flawed processes. According to the defendant’s statement, “the CFPB’s action is misguided” and “well beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations. The defendant vows to “vigorously challenge” the suit.
FTC settles with credit repair companies
On January 17, the FTC announced it had reached settlements with a number of defendants alleged to have operated “an unlawful credit repair scam that has deceived consumers across the country.” According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants purportedly made false representations to consumers regarding their abilities to improve credit scores, falsely promised to remove any negative entries on the consumers’ credit reports, illegally collected upfront fees from consumers before the services were fully performed, and used threats and coercion to intimidate consumers from disputing charges. The FTC alleged these misleading statements and illegal actions violated TILA, the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Act, and the Credit Repair Organizations Act, among other things. Additionally, the FTC claimed that the defendants “routinely engage in electronic fund transfers from consumers’ bank accounts without obtaining proper authorization, and use remotely created checks to pay for credit repair services they have offered through a telemarketing campaign, in violation of the TSR.” The defendants, without admitting or denying the allegations, agreed to settlements that ban the defendants from offering credit repair services through “advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling,” impose a total monetary penalty of nearly $14 million, and require several defendants to turn over the contents of bank and merchant accounts as well as investment and cryptocurrency accounts. See the settlements here, here, and here.