InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FCC issues record $225 million fine for spoofed robocalls
On March 17, the FCC issued a record $225 million fine against two Texas-based telemarketers and their associated companies for allegedly transmitting roughly one billion illegally spoofed robocalls falsely claiming to offer plans issued by well known-health insurance companies. The Truth in Caller ID Act prohibits telemarketers from manipulating caller ID information with the intent to harm, defraud or wrongfully obtain anything of value. According to the FCC’s investigation, one of the companies’ allegedly spoofed robocalls “caused at least one company whose caller IDs were spoofed to become overwhelmed with angry call-backs from aggrieved consumers.” One of the telemarketers also apparently admitted that he placed millions of spoofed calls each day, including to numbers on the Do Not Call list. FCC acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel issued a statement commenting on the agency’s “largest fine ever,” in which she noted that the “individuals involved didn’t just lie about who they were when they made their calls—they said they were calling on behalf of well-known health insurance companies on more than a billion calls. That’s fraud on an enormous scale.”
3rd Circuit: ECOA does not preempt NJ’s common-law doctrine of necessaries in FDCPA case
On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that because ECOA does not preempt New Jersey’s common-law doctrine of necessaries (where a spouse is jointly liable for necessary expenses incurred by the other spouse) a defendant debt collector was permitted to send medical debt collection letters to a deceased individual’s spouse without violating the FDCPA. The defendant was retained to collect the deceased spouse’s medical debt and sent collection letters to the plaintiff who maintained she was not responsible for the debt and subsequently filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff owed the debt under New Jersey’s doctrine of necessaries because her deceased spouse incurred the debt for medical treatment. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that the doctrine of necessaries conflicts with the spousal-signature prohibition found in the ECOA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the 3rd Circuit concluded that “ECOA does not preempt the doctrine of necessaries because the debt is ‘incidental credit’ exempt from the prohibition.” According to the 3rd Circuit, the Federal Reserve Board determined that incidental credit is exempt from the § 202.7(d) spousal-signature prohibition because it “refers to extensions of consumer credit. . .(i) [t]hat are not made pursuant to the terms of a credit card account; (ii) [t]hat are not subject to a finance charge. . .and (iii) [t]hat are not payable by agreement in more than four installments.” The 3rd Circuit determined that because the medical debt in question satisfied all three criteria, the spousal-signature prohibition did not apply, and therefore ECOA and its regulations did not conflict with the doctrine of necessaries. Further, the 3rd Circuit held that ECOA focuses “on ensuring the availability of credit rather than the allocation of liability between spouses.”
OFAC announces Hong Kong-related designations
On March 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added several Chinese citizens and Hong Kong nationals to the Specially Designated Nationals List. The individuals were designated under Executive Order (E.O.) 13936, which, among other things, authorizes the imposition of sanctions on persons who are determined to be responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong. Under E.O. 13936, “[a]ll property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, . . .are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in” with any foreign person identified to have engaged in the aforementioned activities.
Agencies to allow supplementary leverage ratio flexibility to expire
On March 19, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board announced that the temporary changes to the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) for depository institutions will expire as scheduled on March 31. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule last May, which temporarily permitted depository institutions to exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks from the calculation of the SLR, enabling depository institutions to expand their balance sheets to provide additional credit to households and businesses in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. In connection with announcing its decision to allow the temporary SLR changes to expire, the Fed noted that due to “recent growth in the supply of central bank reserves and the issuance of Treasury securities, the Board may need to address the current design and calibration of the SLR over time to prevent strains from developing that could both constrain economic growth and undermine financial stability.” The Fed noted it intends to “shortly seek comments on measures to adjust the SLR” and “will take appropriate actions to assure that any changes to the SLR do not erode the overall strength of bank capital requirements.”
CFPB sues student loan debt-relief operation
On March 16, the CFPB sued a California-based student loan debt relief company, its owner, and manager (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly charging borrowers more than $3.5 million in unlawful advance fees. The complaint alleged that between 2015 and 2019, the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the CFPA by unlawfully marketing and enrolling borrowers in the company’s purported debt relief services. Defendants allegedly charged and collected advance fees from borrowers with federal student loans to file paperwork on their behalf in order to access free Department of Education debt-relief programs. According to the Bureau, the defendants violated the TSR by requesting and receiving payment of fees before renegotiating, settling, reducing, or altering the terms of at least one debt pursuant to an agreement, and before the consumer made at least one payment pursuant to that agreement. The Bureau also alleged that the owner defendant formed a California limited liability company (relief defendant) and unlawfully transferred a portion of the funds received from the advance fees into the relief defendant’s bank account. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, as well as restitution and civil money penalties. The complaint also seeks to have the relief defendant disgorge or compensate consumers for the funds it received.
FDIC encourages banks to submit diversity self-assessments
On March 15, the FDIC’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) encouraged FDIC-supervised financial institutions with 100 or more employees to submit voluntary self-assessments of their diversity policies and practices. OMWI’s diversity program will assess a financial institution’s diversity policies in the following areas: (i) organizational commitment; (ii) workforce profile and employment practices; (iii) procurement and business practices/supplier diversity; (iv) transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion; and (v) an entities’ self-assessment. OMWI noted that the self-assessment is not an examination requirement, and therefore will not impact a financial institution’s safety and soundness, consumer compliance, or Community Reinvestment Act examination ratings.
3rd Circuit: Debt collection letter with invitation to call does not violate FDCPA
On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collection agency after concluding that a letter inviting recipients to call to “eliminate further collection action” did not deceive debtors. The plaintiff brought the putative class action lawsuit under the FDCPA claiming the defendant’s letter deceived debtors by making them think a phone call is a “legally effective” way of ending collection activity. The plaintiff also argued that the letter raised uncertainty about a debtor’s right to dispute a debt in writing. According to the plaintiff, because the letter placed the invitation to call above an acknowledgment that recipients can also respond in writing, debtors were left uncertain about which format to use. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit reasoned that the letter was not deceptive. According to the appellate court, the defendant never said “explicitly or implicitly[] that the phone call would, by law” end collection efforts. Further the letter did not create any confusion about whether a debtor should call or write to exercise their rights. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the order of paragraphs in the letter created confusion.
OFAC issues FAQs on sanctioned Chinese military companies
On March 14, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published FAQs related to two Chinese military companies sanctioned pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13959, “Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies.” FAQ 880 states that, following a court order preliminarily enjoining the implementation of E.O. 13959 against a previously sanctioned company, the prohibitions are no longer applicable pending further order of the court. FAQ 881 clarifies when prohibitions in E.O. 13959 will take effect with respect to a company that was initially erroneously named, then delisted, and then correctly named.
OFAC settles with manufacturer for violating Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations
On March 15, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a $216,464 settlement with an Ohio-based manufacturer for alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). According to OFAC’s web notice, between 2013 and 2017, the company allegedly failed to act on multiple apparent warning signs and exported multiple shipments of goods to two European companies despite having “reason to know that the goods were intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation to Iran by the two European companies.” OFAC noted that the company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations and acknowledged that it “had actual knowledge” that some of the transactions were intended specifically for reexportation to Iran.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the company failed to follow up on multiple warning signs that the European companies were reexporting goods to Iran; (ii) senior leadership knew or should have known the goods were being reexported to Iran; and (iii) the company and senior leadership “had actual knowledge” that the two final shipments were to be reexported to an Iranian end-user.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the company (i) has had no prior sanctions history with OFAC; (ii) ceased all shipments to the European companies when it made its disclosure and requested that the goods be returned; (iii) cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and entered into tolling agreements; and (iv) strengthened its trade compliance and export policies and procedures to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future.
California again modifies CCPA regs; appoints privacy agency’s board
On March 15, the California attorney general announced approval of additional regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA—enacted in June 2018 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and amended several times—became effective January 1, 2020. According to the announcement, the newly-approved amendments strengthen the language of CCPA regulations approved by OAL last August (covered by InfoBytes here). Specifically, the new amendments:
- Require businesses selling personal information collected in the course of interacting with consumers offline to provide consumers about their right to opt out via offline communications. Consumers must also be provided instructions on how to submit opt-out requests.
- Provide an opt-out icon for businesses to use in addition to posting a notice of right to opt-out. The amendments note that the opt-out icon may not be used in lieu of requirements to post opt-out notices or “do not sell my personal information” links.
- Require companies to use opt-out methods that are “easy” for consumers to execute and that require “minimal” steps to opt-out. Specifically, a “business’s process for submitting a request to opt-out shall not require more steps than that business’s process for a consumer to opt-in to the sale of personal information after having previously opted out.” Additionally, except as otherwise permitted by the regulations, companies are prohibited from requiring consumers to provide unnecessary personal information to implement an opt-out request, and may not require consumers to click through or listen to reasons as to why they should not submit an opt-out request. The amendments also state that businesses cannot require consumers “to search or scroll through the text of a privacy policy or similar document or webpage to locate the mechanism for submitting a request to opt-out.”
The AG’s press release also notes that the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which was approved by voters last November and sought to amend the CCPA, will transfer some of the AG’s responsibilities to the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), covered by InfoBytes here; however, the AG will retain the authority to go to court to enforce the law. Enforcement of the CPRA will begin in 2023.
Additionally, on March 17, the California governor announced appointments to the five-member inaugural board for the CPPA, consisting of experts in privacy, technology, and consumer rights. The CPPA is tasked with protecting the privacy rights of consumers over their personal information, and “will have full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce” the CCPA and the CPRA, including bringing enforcement actions before an administrative law judge.