InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court rejects dismissal of CFPB claims against foreclosure relief services company
On May 20, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a foreclosure relief services company and its owner’s (collectively, “defendants”) motion to dismiss an action by the CFPB accusing the defendants of violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and Regulation O. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging that since 2014 the defendants made deceptive and unsubstantiated representations about the efficacy and material aspects of its mortgage assistance relief services, and made misleading or false claims about the experience and qualifications of its employees. The Bureau alleged that the defendants’ representations constituted abusive acts and practices because, among other things, consumers “generally did not understand and were not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of [the defendants’] marketing representations or the quality of the mortgage-assistance-relief services that [the defendants] sold.” Moreover, the Bureau claimed the defendants further violated Regulation O by charging consumers advance fees before rendering services. The defendants moved to dismiss the action.
The district court rejected all of the defendants’ arguments, concluding that the Bureau “as an organization and its establishment” are constitutionally permissible, and therefore, can bring enforcement actions against the company. The court also held that the Bureau adequately pleaded that the defendants’ were covered by the CFPA and Regulation O, as providers of “[a]udit and litigation documents to consumers, which Defendants claim will prevent foreclosure or modify the terms of [consumers] mortgage[s].” And lastly, the court held that the Bureau sufficiently alleged that the defendants took “unreasonable advantage of the consumer’s lack of understanding” of the material terms of the product they were selling.
CFPB issues Covid-19 remittance rule FAQs
On June 2, the CFPB released Regulation E Remittance Rule FAQs related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The FAQs state that a provider’s failure to deliver remittance transfer funds to a designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability due to a government-mandated closure of commercial activity in response to Covid-19 would not be considered an error under the rule if the provider could not have reasonably anticipated the closure. The FAQs note that a provider would not be able to reasonably anticipate a closure, for example, if the closure of remittance transfer services was announced in the foreign country after the provider initiated the transfer, but before the guaranteed availability date.
The Bureau previously issued a policy statement (covered by InfoBytes here), which established a temporary exception allowing institutions providing remittance transfers to estimate fees to consumers in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. From July 1 until January 21, 2021, the Bureau will not cite supervisory violations or initiate enforcement actions against certain institutions for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates.
Credit repair trade association sues CFPB over TSR six-month waiting period
On May 21, a credit repair trade association filed a complaint against the CFPB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging the Bureau violated the credit repair organizations’ First Amendment rights under the Constitution by enforcing a six-month payment waiting period in the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The association is challenging Section 310.4(a)(2)(ii) of the TSR, which prohibits credit repair organizations from requesting or receiving payment for services rendered for a minimum of six months after the services have been performed. The complaint alleges that the prohibition (i) exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act; (ii) conflicts with the Credit Repair Organizations Acts (CROA); and (iii) is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of credit repair organizations by improperly impairing fully protected speech. Specifically, the association argues that the TSR is only applicable to credit repair organizations in certain situations, and the CROA—which does not require the six-month waiting period nor proof that “results were achieved”—is “the final and decisive law concerning credit repair organizations, including the time and manner of their billing practices.” Moreover, the complaint argues that the Bureau does not have the authority to enforce the TSR against credit repair organizations, as the Dodd-Frank Act did not explicitly transfer the authority from the FTC. The complaint is seeking a declaratory judgment that the TSR is unenforceable, invalid, and unlawful.
CFPB updates HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide
On May 27, the CFPB issued an updated HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide to reflect the changes made to Regulation C by the April final rule, which permanently raised coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule, which amends Regulation C, increases the permanent threshold from 25 to 100 loans starting July 1, 2020, for both depository and nondepository institutions. The final rule also increases the permanent threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from 100 to 200, but this change will not take effect until January 1, 2022, when the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit expires. Beginning in 2022, both depository and nondepository institutions that meet this threshold must report data on open-end lines of credit by March 1 of the following calendar year. The Guide also notes the CFPB’s statement that, as of March 26, 2020, it “does not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an enforcement action against any institution for failure to report its HMDA data quarterly.”
CFPB and Massachusetts AG sue credit-repair telemarketers
On May 22, the CFPB and the Massachusetts attorney general announced a joint lawsuit against a credit repair organization and the company’s president and owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law. The complaint also alleges the defendants engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition against deceptive acts or practices and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the defendants allegedly enrolled tens of thousands of consumers by deceptively claiming that their credit-repair services could help consumers substantially improve their credit scores. The services also allegedly promised to fix “unlimited” amounts of negative items from consumers’ credit reports. However, the complaint asserts that in “numerous instances,” the defendants failed to achieve these results. The defendants also allegedly engaged in abusive acts and practices in violation of the TSR by requesting and collecting fees before achieving any results related to repairing a consumer’s credit. Among other things, the complaint further alleges that the defendants claimed to have more than 60 credit repair experts but actually only employed a handful of Boston-based employees, only some of whom interacted with consumers. The majority of the interactions, the complaint alleges, were conducted by telemarketers located in Central America who were paid “almost entirely by commission” based on the number of consumers they enrolled.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief; “damages and other monetary relief against [the defendants] as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from [the defendants’] violations, which may include, among other things, rescission or reformation of contracts, refund of monies paid, and restitution; and civil money penalties.”
District court: Initial debt collection communication via email does not violate FDCPA
On May 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a debt collector’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit with prejudice brought by a plaintiff alleging violations of the Electronic Signatures in Global Commerce (E-SIGN) Act and the FDCPA. The defendant sent an email to the plaintiff attempting to collect an unpaid debt that contained a validation notice. The plaintiff argued that the email violated the E-SIGN Act because she did not consent to receive email from the defendant, and that it also violated the FDCPA “because the email referred to ‘send[ing]’ a copy of the verification of the debt whereas § 1692g(a)(4) specifies that a copy of the verification will be ‘mailed.’” Among other arguments, the plaintiff claimed that the email’s subject line, which stated “This needs your attention,” violated the FDCPA because it did not convey that the message was seeking to collect a debt, and that she received several more emails during the validation period, which confused her and “overshadowed” the validation notice in the initial communication.
The court disagreed, stating that because there are “no express restrictions” within the FDCPA about how the initial communication must be made, allowing it to be made electronically is a “reasonable argument.” Specifically, the court noted that the CFPB has recognized that certain communication technologies such as email did not exist when the FDCPA was passed, and referred to the Bureau’s commentary on its proposed debt collection rule that stated “a validation notice as part of an initial communication can be conveyed via email.” [Emphasis in the original.] The court also determined that the plaintiff lacked standing with respect to her claim that the initial email’s subject line violated the FDCPA since she opened the email and clicked on the link. Furthermore, the court noted that using the word “send” instead of “mailed” in the initial communication would not have confused the least sophisticated debtor because the “debtor, if concerned about getting a verification of debt via email, could always ask for a copy to be sent via physical mail instead.”
CFPB approves mortgage servicing and small-dollar lending NAL templates
On May 22, the CFPB announced it issued two no-action letter (NAL) templates. The two templates approved by the Bureau are intended to support financial institutions to better assist struggling consumers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Details of the two approved templates include:
- Mortgage servicing. The Bureau approved a template submitted by a mortgage software company that would enable mortgage servicers to use the company’s online platform—which is an online version of Fannie Mae Form 710—to implement loss mitigation practices for borrowers. A copy of the company’s application is available here.
- Small-dollar lending. 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 template covers, among other things, a product structured as either (i) a fixed-term, installment loan, which the customer would pay back in fixed minimum payment amounts over the term of the loan; or (ii) an open-end line of credit, linked to the consumer’s deposit account, where any amounts drawn would be repaid by consumers in fixed minimum amounts over a fixed repayment period. An institution would need to certify that their product offering meets the product features—labeled as “guardrails” in the template—but the Bureau notes that the inclusion of “any particular guardrail should not be interpreted as a statement by the Bureau that small-dollar credit products must contain such guardrails to avoid violating the law.” A copy of the group’s application is available here.
CFPB: March and April set records for most complaints
On May 21, the CFPB issued a consumer complaint bulletin analyzing complaints the Bureau has received during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bulletin analyzes complaints mentioning “COVID, coronavirus, pandemic, or CARES Act” that were received as of May 11. Of the over 143,000 complaints the Bureau has received in 2020, 4,541 complaints were related to Covid-19. Highlights of the bulletin include: (i) overall, the Bureau had the highest complaint volumes in its history in March and April at 36,700 and 42,500, respectively; (ii) mortgage and credit cards are the top complaint categories for Covid-19 complaints; (iii) eight percent of complaints submitted by servicemembers were Covid-19 related compared to five percent of non-servicemembers; and (iv) after the emergency declaration, the weekly average complaint volume for prepaid cards grew 84 percent, while the volume for student loans decreased by 19 percent. Among other things, the bulletin includes breakdowns of complaint volumes by consumer financial products and examples of common issues from complaint narratives that mention a Covid-19 keyword.
Senators question CFPB on student loan servicer examinations
On May 20, several senators, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger requesting information regarding the Bureau’s examination of companies that service student loans guaranteed by the federal government. The senators noted that they are “encouraged to learn that the CFPB recently began its first examination of a servicer of federally-held student loans since 2017,” but they stated that, given the Department’s “record [of] obstructing CFPB oversight and enforcement, [they] are skeptical of the Department’s role in this joint examination and would strongly oppose limitations, restrictions, or other interference with the CFPB’s ability to conduct complete and thorough examinations.” Among other things, the senators also expressed concerns that the Bureau and the Department have not yet finalized the Supervisory Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would allow the Bureau to access student borrower loan data that the senators claim is necessary for the Bureau to conduct future examinations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies signed an MOU to share student loan complaint data last February. The senators requested clarification on measures the Bureau is taking to carry out its statutory mandate to oversee the federal student loan market, including (i) how many examinations the Bureau has planned for 2020; (ii) what progress, if any, has been made on reestablishing the supervisory MOU; (iii) how the Bureau is monitoring student loan servicers’ compliance with the CARES Act, including pausing payments, interest, and collection; and (iv) whether the Bureau has identified any trends in borrower complaints since the Covid-19 pandemic began. The senators asked that the Bureau respond to the questions by June 3.
CFPB further extends comment period for proposed rulemaking on time-barred debt disclosures
On May 19, the CFPB announced a further extension to the comment period on its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to time-barred debt disclosures (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). The NPRM, issued in February, would amend Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA, to require debt collectors to make certain disclosures when collecting time-barred debts. Due to challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic, the June 5 deadline has been extended until August 4.