InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court dismisses data breach claims citing lack of compromised sensitive information
On January 12, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a data breach lawsuit brought against a hotel chain, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing. The plaintiff claimed class members were victims of a data breach when hotel employees at a franchise in Russia allegedly accessed personal information without authorization, including guests’ names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, genders, birth dates and loyalty account numbers. The plaintiff’s suit alleged, among other things, violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the state’s Unfair Competition Law. While the hotel disclosed the incident last March and admitted that class members’ personal information was compromised, the court determined that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims after the hotel’s investigation found that “no sensitive information, such as social security numbers, credit card information, or passwords, was compromised.” The court determined that the plaintiff failed to plausibly plead that any of the class members’ more sensitive data had fallen into the wrong hands, and that “[w]ithout a breach of this type of sensitive information, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury in fact and cannot meet the constitutional requirements of standing.”
CFPB issues debt collection small entity compliance guide
On January 15, the CFPB issued a small entity compliance guide summarizing the Bureau’s debt collection rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a final rule last October amending Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), to address debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The guide provides a detailed summary of the October final rule’s substantive prohibitions and requirements, as well as a summary of key interpretations and clarifications of the FDCPA. The Bureau noted, however, that the current small entity compliance guide does not discuss (unless specifically noted otherwise) the CFPB’s final rule issued in December (covered by InfoBytes here), which clarified consumer disclosure requirements, provided a model validation notice, and addressed required actions prior to furnishing and prohibitions concerning the collection of time-barred debt. Updates will be made to the small entity compliance guide at a later date to include provisions related to the December final rule.
CFPB and NCUA announce supervision MOU
On January 14, the CFPB announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the NCUA, which is intended to improve supervision coordination of credit unions with over $10 billion in assets. According to the Bureau’s press release, the MOU covers (i) the sharing of the Covered Reports of Examination and final Reports of Examination for covered institutions, using secure, two-way electronic means; (ii) collaboration in semi-annual strategy planning sessions for examination coordination; (iii) information sharing on training activities and content; and (iv) information sharing related to potential enforcement actions.
FTC may seek civil penalties under Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act
Recently President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021—a funding measure which extends certain emergency authorities and temporary regulatory relief contained in the CARES Act (covered by InfoBytes here)—that includes a provision under Title XIV Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, which allows the FTC to seek civil penalties for first-time violations of the FTC Act related to Covid-19 scams and deceptive practices. Specifically, the provision targets conduct “associated with—(1) the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID-19; or (2) a government benefit related to COVID-19.” Such a violation would be “treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)),” with violators subject to civil penalties. This authority is granted to the FTC for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic.
FHFA further extends foreclosure moratorium
On January 19, the FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) will extend their moratorium on single-family foreclosures and real estate owned (REO) evictions until at least February 28 (which was set to expire on January 31, previously covered here). The foreclosure moratorium applies to homeowners with a GSE-backed, single-family mortgage, and the REO eviction moratorium applies to properties that were acquired by the GSEs through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transactions.
Court says CFPB unconstitutionality argument strays from Supreme Court ruling in Seila
On January 13, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied a student loan servicer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the servicer’s argument that the CFPB is unconstitutional “strays afar” from the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. The servicer previously argued that the Supreme Court’s finding in Seila (covered by a Buckley Special Alert)—which held that that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the CFPB—meant that the Bureau “never had constitutional authority to bring this action and that the filing of [the] lawsuit was unauthorized and unlawful.” The servicer also claimed that the statute of limitations governing the CFPB’s claims prior to the decision in Seila had expired, arguing that Director Kathy Kraninger’s July 2020 ratification came too late. However, the court determined, among other things, that “[n]othing in Seila indicates that the Supreme Court intended that its holding should result in a finding that this lawsuit is void ab initio.” The court further noted that the servicer’s assertion that the Bureau “‘never had constitutional authority to bring this action’ is belied by Seila’s implicit finding that the CFPB always had the authority to act, despite the Supreme Court’s finding that the removal protection was unconstitutional.”
SBA releases PPP guidance as portal reopens
On January 19, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan portal re-opened to all participating lenders (covered by InfoBytes here). To assist lenders, the SBA released an interim final rule, consolidating prior rules related to PPP loan forgiveness and incorporating changes made by the Economic Aid Act. The interim final rule also addresses conflict of interest provisions and related disclosure requirements, and applies to PPP loans for which loan forgiveness payments have not been remitted by the SBA as of December 27, 2020. To assist lenders, the SBA also issued a set of frequently asked questions addressing how to calculate revenue reduction and maximum loan amounts for Second Draw PPP loans, as well as documents borrowers must provide to substantiate their calculations. The SBA reiterated that borrowers and lenders may rely on this guidance as the agency’s interpretation of the CARES Act, the Economic Aid Act and the PPP interim final rules (covered by InfoBytes here), emphasizing that the “government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance and to the PPP interim final rules and any subsequent rulemaking in effect at the time the action is taken.”
In preparation for the re-opening, the SBA also released guidance for lenders on calculating the maximum amount for First Draw PPP loans. The guidance outlines documentation requirements for different types of businesses, and advises lenders handling second-draw loans to make sure the loan number for a borrower’s first-draw PPP loan is included on the second-draw application. The SBA also released two procedural notices. The first notice informs PPP lenders of the process for borrower resubmission of loan forgiveness applications (see SBA Form 3508S, SBA Form 3508EZ, and PPP Loan Forgiveness Calculation Form, all revised January 19), as well as lender responsibilities for notifying borrowers of lender and SBA decisions to approve or deny forgiveness in full or in part. The notice also discusses the process for remitting any portion of the loan forgiveness amount by the SBA to the lender, along with offsets of remittances to lenders to cover a lender’s outstanding debts. The second notice addresses PPP excess loan amount errors, and clarifies that borrowers may not receive forgiveness for excess loan amounts, even if “the excess loan amount was caused by borrower error or lender error.”
OFAC updates CAATSA FAQs
On January 5, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the publication of two new FAQs related to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). FAQ 869 states that entities owned 50 percent or more by a person subject to the non-blocking menu-based sanctions in Section 235(a) of CAATSA are not subject to the same non-blocking sanctions. FAQ 870 details the prohibitions of the loan and credit-related sanction described in Section 235(a)(3) of CAATSA. Additionally, OFAC amended FAQ 545 and 546.
Find continuing InfoBytes covered on CAATSA-related sanctions here.
OFAC issues Syria-related settlement with French bank for $8.5 million
On January 4, the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced an over $8.5 million settlement with a French bank that facilitates trade finance between Europe and the Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia for 127 apparent violations of Syria-related sanctions. The 127 apparent violations include: (i) 114 internal transfers on behalf of Syrian entities totaling over $1 billion, with 45 of the transfers processed between two clients, one being a sanctioned Syrian entity and 69 of the transfers conducted as a foreign exchange transaction with a sanctioned Syrian customer; and (ii) 13 “back-to-back” letter of credit transactions or other trade finance transactions involving sanctioned Syrian parties, processed through a U.S. bank.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that management had “actual knowledge” of the conduct, and that the bank “conferred substantial economic benefit to U.S.-sanctioned parties,” causing “significant harm to the integrity of U.S. sanctions programs and their associated policy objectives.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including (i) the majority of the violations occurred in late 2011, after an August 2011 Executive Order significantly expanded U.S. sanctions against Syria; (ii) the bank voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations and cooperated with the investigations; and (iii) had a compliance program in place at the time of the apparent violations.
California appellate court concludes lender’s arbitration provision unenforceable
On January 11, the Court of Appeals of the State of California affirmed the denial of an auto lender’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable. According to the opinion, in May 2019, consumers filed a class action complaint alleging the lenders charged unconscionable interest rates in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The company moved to compel arbitration, which the consumers opposed, arguing that the agreement was “procedurally and substantively unconscionable,” and that the California Supreme Court decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (covered by a Buckley Special Alert here, holding that a waiver of the plaintiff’s substantive right to seek public injunctive relief is not enforceable) applied. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the McGill rule applied and that the injunctive relief provision could not be severed from the rest of the arbitration agreement because severability did not apply to the class waiver provision.
On appeal, the state appellate court agreed with the trial court, concluding that the McGill rule applied. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the injunctive relief the consumers were seeking “encompasses all consumers and members of the public,” and “an injunction under the CLRA against [the lender]’s unlawful practices will not directly benefit the Customers because they have already been harmed and are already aware of the misconduct.” Moreover, the appellate court determined that there is no precedent holding that “the remedy of public injunctions under CLRA and UCL should be limited to false advertising claims.” The court further concluded that the class waiver was not severable, stating that the lender’s argument that the arbitration agreement could not be determined void until after an appellate court reviews the viability of the class waiver was “illogical.” Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to arbitrate.