InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court addresses alternative theories of liability in BIPA class action
On January 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to reconsider and a motion to certify questions for appeal and stay proceedings pending appeal in a matter concerning class claims that an auto leasing company and its parent company (collectively, “defendants”) violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by unlawfully collecting biometric fingerprint data without first receiving informed consent. The court previously denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss after concluding the plaintiff stated a BIPA claim against both defendants. However, the auto leasing company argued, among other things, that the parent company should not be held liable because it was never the plaintiff’s employer, did not control her work environment, and had nothing to do with the fingerprint timekeeping system. The court disagreed, finding that under BIPA, the plaintiff’s allegations of the parent company were not “legal conclusions,” and “control over employee timekeeping and privacy [] describes a relevant factual aspect of her personal experience working for defendants.” According to the court, “[t]his factual allegation raises the reasonable inference that [the parent company] administered the alleged fingerprint-scanning system, and in turn, plausibly suggests that [the parent company] collected, retained, and disseminated her fingerprints.” The parent company will have the opportunity to address alternative theories of liability while seeking summary judgment against the plaintiff or at trial, the court wrote.
Courts say TCPA not invalidated by Supreme Court decision
On January 31, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California denied dismissal of a putative class action alleging that a consumer lender violated the TCPA, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc. (AAPC) (covered by InfoBytes here) does not bar the claims. According to the order, a consumer filed the putative class action alleging that the lender violated the TCPA by placing telemarketing calls to residential numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The lender moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Court’s decision in AAPC (holding that the government-debt exception in Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction, and severing the provision from the statute), invalidated the entire TCPA from the time the offending exception was added in 2015 to July 2020 when the Court severed the provision from the statute. The district court disagreed, concluding that the Court’s decision in AAPC was limited to the specific provision for robocalls to cell phones in Section 227(b) and did not extend to Section 227(c)’s do not call provisions. Additionally, the court concluded that the “Court in AAPC did not conclude that the entire TCPA was unconstitutional.” Thus, Section 227(c) “remained ‘fully operative as law’” from 2015 through July 2020.
Earlier on January 28, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied dismissal of a TCPA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Court’s decision in Barr, did not invalidate the TCPA in its entirety from 2015 until July 2020. According to the order, consumers filed a consolidated class action against a cruise line, alleging violations of, among other things, the TCPA for marketing calls made to class members’ cell phones using an automatic telephone dialing system between November 2016 and December 2017. The cruise line moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Court’s decision in AAPC (holding that the government-debt exception in Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA is unconstitutional “because it favored debt-collection speech over political or other speech in violation of the First Amendment,” and severing the provision from the statute), invalidated the entire TCPA from when the offending exception was enacted in 2015, until the Court severed the amendment in July 2020. Disagreeing with other district courts (covered by InfoBytes here and here), the district court rejected the cruise line’s argument, concluding that the Court did not intend to have TCPA actions “cavalierly dismissed by a district court.” The district court relied on a statement made by Justice Kavanaugh in the Court’s plurality opinion, stating “our decision today does not negate the liability of parties who made robocalls covered by the robocall restriction.” The district court rejected the cruise line’s argument that Kavanaugh’s statement is dicta, because, among the fragmented decisions, seven justices “agree that the 2015 amendment should be severed and the liability of parties making robocalls who were not collecting a government debt is not negated.” Thus, because the cruise line was not attempting to collect a government debt, the district court denied the motion to dismiss.
FTC settles with training companies that charged consumers to obtain credit cards
On January 29, the FTC announced a settlement with two Nevada companies and two individuals (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by charging consumers thousands of dollars to apply for numerous personal credit cards in order to pay for real estate investment training programs offered by other companies. According to the complaint, the training companies (many of which, the FTC claims, have been the subject of FTC enforcement actions for operating deceptive training schemes) pitch the defendants’ funding services to individuals who want to participate in the training companies’ programs and coaching about starting businesses or becoming real estate investors. However, the FTC claims that, in reality, the defendants are not lenders and do not actually provide any form of financing themselves. Rather, the defendants charge $3,000 or more to apply for multiple credit cards with total credit lines of at least $50,000 on behalf of the individuals—a practice known as “credit card stacking.” In addition, the FTC claims that the defendants inflated individuals’ annual incomes on credit card applications and told individuals they could anticipate earning around $100,000 if they used the training companies’ program, which individuals often purchased using credit cards they obtained from the defendants. Because most individuals did not earn the expected money, they incurred substantial credit card debt and experienced significant credit score declines.
The proposed settlement imposes a $2.1 million monetary judgment against the defendants, and permanently bans the defendants from, among other things, selling consumer credit services, misrepresenting the financial status of any consumer to a financial institution, engaging in business connected with the offer or sale of a credit repair service, and applying for or obtaining credit cards for consumers in exchange for a fee.
OCC releases CRA determinations, distressed and underserved areas
On January 29, the OCC published Bulletin 2021-5, containing lists of bank type determinations and distressed and underserved areas for 2021, and its computation of the banking industry’s median hourly compensation value. The information is applicable to national banks, federal and state savings associations, and federal branches of foreign banks subject to the agency’s 2020 final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act rule (CRA). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the 2020 final rule, among other things (i) updated deposit-based assessment areas; (ii) mandated the inclusion of consumer loans in CRA evaluations; and (iii) included a non-exhaustive illustrative list of activities that qualify for CRA consideration. The 2021 list of bank type determinations identifies banks based on asset size or business model. According to the OCC, a bank’s type will “generally determine[] the performance standards and related examination procedures used to evaluate that bank’s CRA performance.” The agency’s list of distressed or underserved areas identifies tracts where banks participating in qualifying activities may receive CRA consideration under the final rule’s community development definition. Finally, the OCC states that the banking industry median hourly compensation value applicable to qualifying community development service activities will be $39.03. This figure, the agency explains, will be “used to quantify the value of a bank’s community development services” performed from October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021.
New York continues to postpone collection on certain debts
On February 1, the attorney general of New York announced an extension of its previous order to halt the collection efforts on certain debts through February 28, 2021. Consumers with student loan debt and medical debt owed to the state will receive an additional 28-day hiatus on payments including a freeze on the accrual of interest on the debts—in order to allow them to deal with the effects of Covid-19. Specifically, the moratorium on collection applies to: (i) “[p]atients that owe medical debt due to the five state hospitals and the five state veterans' home[s]”; (ii) “[s]tudents that owe student debt due to State University of New York (SUNY) campuses”; and (iii) “[i]ndividual debtors, sole-proprietors, small business owners, and certain homeowners that owe debt relating to oil spill cleanup and removal costs, property damage, and breach of contract, as well as other fees owed to state agencies.” New Yorkers who have other types of debt that are owed to the state and who are referred to the Office of the Attorney General may apply for a temporary freeze on collection by submitting an application which can be found here.
Court dismisses PPP discrimination claims against national bank
On February 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion letter granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a matter concerning whether a national bank retaliated against minority- and women-owned businesses when they stopped honoring checks and electronic payments related to the businesses’ involvement with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The plaintiffs (who operate companies that “provide ‘cash flow and investment opportunities to small and diverse businesses and individuals’”) obtained approval from the Small Business Administration to issue PPP loans to minority-owned businesses and deposited approximately $100 million into one of their business accounts at the defendant bank. The plaintiffs alleged discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, claiming the bank began refusing to honor checks or electronic payments drawn from the account. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed the bank notified them that it was unable to support their efforts to participate in the PPP program but “‘never provided a legitimate, lawful or non-discriminatory reason’” for refusing to honor the plaintiffs’ checks and electronic payments. The plaintiffs claimed that they are members of a racial minority, and alleged, among other things, that the bank later froze and closed their business and personal accounts. The court disagreed, concluding the plaintiffs “fail[ed] to plead facts that show that Defendants intended to discriminate against them because of their race.” According to the court, the plaintiffs “do not plead that they were treated differently than any other individuals or businesses who are not members of a protected class. Rather, they conclude, without support, that [the bank’s] decision to decline Plaintiffs’ PPP Loan transactions was motivated solely by discriminatory intent. This is insufficient.” Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims of breach of contract.
Illinois regulator releases educational one pager on Covid-19 relief
In January, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued a one-pager setting forth eviction, mortgage, and student loan information for consumers. The flyer addresses the eviction moratorium, forbearance of mortgage payments, and student loan borrower relief.
Washington Department of Financial Institutions once again extends “work from home” guidance
On January 29, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions issued interim regulatory guidance to licensed mortgage loan originators and companies that sponsor them relating to temporary remote work. The guidance extends earlier interim guidance (previously covered here, here, here, and here) permitting mortgage loan originators to work from home, provided certain data security obligations are met. The guidance extends through December 31, 2021.
Colorado amends and extends executive order setting forth tenant protections
On January 29 , the Colorado governor issued Executive Order 2021-029 amending and extending Executive Order 2020-307, which set forth certain tenant protections. Executive Order 2020-307 prohibits a landlord, mobile home park owner, property management entity, and others from charging a fee or penalty against a tenant or mobile home owner for failure to timely pay rent. Executive Order 2021-029 extends the moratorium on late fees until 30 days after January 29, 2021, unless extended further by executive order.
California governor signs legislation extending tenant protections
On January 29, the California governor signed SB 91, which provides relief to tenants and small property owners, and extends the eviction moratorium established under AB 3088 (previously discussed here), which is set to expire at the end of January. Among other things, under SB 91, a housing provider and similar entities are prohibited from using an alleged Covid-19 rental debt as a negative factor for evaluating a prospective housing application. In addition, the bill would prohibit a person from selling or assigning unpaid rental debt or charging or increasing fees related to late payment of Covid-19 rent. The bill also extends other eviction protections to July 1, 2021.