InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Transportation Regulator Proposes Allowing Electronic Records And Signatures
Recently, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a proposed rule to allow the use of electronic records and signatures to satisfy the agency’s regulatory requirements. The rule would permit the use of electronic methods to sign, certify, generate, exchange, or maintain records so long as the documents accurately reflect the information in the record and can be used for their intended purpose. The proposal seeks to implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E–SIGN), and would apply only to documents that the agency’s regulations obligate entities or individuals to retain—it would not apply to forms or other documents that must be submitted directly to the agency. Comments on the proposal are due by June 27, 2014.
FinCEN Issues Five Rulings On Application Of BSA Regulations To Certain Activities
On April 29, FinCEN issued five rulings in response to companies who sought clarification regarding whether their company is a money service business under the BSA. In FIN-2014-R006, FinCEN determined that a company that operates an online real-time deposit, settlement, and payment services platform for banks, businesses, and consumers is considered a money transmitter, not a provider of prepaid access, and should be registered as a money services business under BSA regulations. In two other rulings—FIN-2014-R004 and FIN-2014-R005— FinCEN clarified the exemption from the money transmitter definition for persons that accept and transmit funds “only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services.” FinCEN determined that the escrow services at issue in FIN-2014-R004 and the transaction management services at issue in FIN-2014-R005 fit within that exemption because the acceptance and transmission of funds in these cases is not a separate and discrete service in addition to the underlying service, but instead is a necessary and integral part of the service itself. Therefore, these companies are not considered to be money transmitters subject to registration. FinCEN determined in FIN-2014-R007 that a company that rents computer systems used to mine virtual currencies is not a money transmitter. Finally, in FIN-2014-R008, FinCEN determined that although the company, which uses armored cars to facilitate the exchange of coins and cash, does not qualify for the “armored car” exemption in the money transmitter definition, it is still not considered a money transmitter. FinCEN stated that the transportation of currency and/or coin of certain denominations from the company’s vault to the customer’s location and the return transportation of currency and/or coin in the exact amount of the change provided to the company’s own vault does not constitute the acceptance of value from one person and the transportation of such value to another person or location.
New York Targets Online Lenders Through Debit Card Networks
On April 30, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) again expanded the scope of its activities targeting online payday lenders by announcing that two major debit card network operators agreed to halt the processing of payday loan deductions from bank accounts owned by New York consumers who allegedly obtained illegal online payday loans. The DFS asserts that in response to increased regulatory pressure on online lenders’ use of the ACH network—known as Operation Choke Point—those lenders are using debit card transactions to collect on payday loans originated online to New York residents. The DFS believes such loans violate the state’s usury laws. The DFS also sent cease-and-desist letters to 20 companies it believes are “illegally promoting, making, or collecting on payday loans to New York consumers.” The DFS’s assault on online lenders publicly began in February 2013 when it warned third-party debt collectors about collecting on allegedly illegal payday loans, and was first expanded in August 2013 when the DFS sent letters to 35 online lenders, including lenders affiliated with Native American Tribes, demanding that they cease and desist offering allegedly illegal payday loans to New York borrowers. At the same time, the DFS asked banks and NACHA to limit such lenders’ access to the payment system. DFS subsequently expanded its effort in December 2013 when it began targeting payday loan lead generation companies.
FDIC White Paper Assesses Use Of Mobile Financial Services To Reach Underserved
On April 24, the FDIC hosted a meeting of its Advisory Committee on Economic Conclusion, during which FDIC staff presented a white paper on the potential for mobile financial services (MFS) to reach unbanked and underbanked consumers. The Committee meeting also covered an update on the FDIC’s safe accounts project, and included panels on youth financial literacy and consumer demand for small dollar credit. The white paper concludes that, in the short run, “MFS is best positioned to have an economic inclusion impact through its ability to meet day‐to‐day financial services needs of underbanked consumers as well as consumers at risk of account closure,” while also helping “the underserved gain access to the banking system and grow their financial capability.” The white paper encourages banks, service providers, and regulators to (i) integrate MFS into broader economic inclusion strategies; (ii) integrate MFS with other delivery channels and incorporate one-on-one interactions; (iii) “fine-tune” risk management strategies to match MFS expansion and underbanked strategies; (iv) improve convenience and speed of MFS through infrastructure enhancements; (v) enable additional mobile functionalities; (vi) develop case studies to demonstrate profitable implementation of MFS for economic inclusion; and (vii) bridge MFS with traditional payment services.
FinCEN Announces Enforcement Action Over MSB's Currency Transaction Reporting
On April 24, FinCEN released an assessment of civil money penalty against a Florida money services business (MSB) and its owner for failing to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act’s program, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. FinCEN determined that since at least 2008, the MSB, which operated as both an independent check casher and as a foreign currency exchange dealer, willfully violated the BSA by failing to register with FinCEN and failing to develop and implement an effective AML program. Specifically, FinCEN found that the MSB lacked adequate AML programs to verify the identities of persons conducting transactions, to monitor for suspicious activities, to identify currency transactions exceeding $10,000, and to ensure that the MSB filed the required currency transaction reports (CTRs) in a timely manner. According to FinCEN, the MSB also failed to implement internal controls sufficient for creating and retaining adequate BSA records related to currency exchange, and its owner and compliance officer failed to conduct a BSA/AML risk assessment. As a result of the compliance deficiencies, FinCEN determined the MSB failed to file, or failed to timely file CTRs on $4.5 million worth of transactions. The MSB and its owner admitted to these determinations and agreed to pay a $10,000 penalty.
State Regulators Circulate Model Consumer Guidance On Virtual Currency
On April 23, the CSBS’s Emerging Payment Task Force, together with the North American Securities Administrators Association, released “Model State Consumer and Investor Guidance on Virtual Currency.” The model guidance provides basic background information on virtual currency, and tips for consumers considering buying, selling, transacting with, or investing in a virtual currency.
Michigan Federal Court Addresses Personal Jurisdiction Based On Online Sales Through Hyperlinked Third-Party Website
On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan exercised personal jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit after determining that an out-of-state company’s website was sufficiently interactive such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Due Process. Mor-Dall Enters. v. Dark Horse Distillery, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-915, (W.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2014). In assessing personal jurisdiction, the court relied on the sliding scale framework established in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) to assess whether a website has minimum contacts with a forum state. The court determined that the company’s website, which does not allow customers to make purchases directly but rather links customers to a third-party vendor to complete a sale, is interactive and demonstrates that the company “clearly does business over the internet.” Because the website solicits customers from across the country, including Michigan, the company purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in Michigan, the court explained. In so holding, the court declined to follow a Northern District of Iowa decision that a company’s website’s use of a hyperlink to a third-party vendor does not give rise to personal jurisdiction over that company. Instead, the court relied on a Sixth Circuit copyright infringement case which held that a record label whose website directed customers to Amazon.com to make purchases availed itself of the privilege of acting in the forum state. The court further held that the cause of action arises in Michigan, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable given the quality and quantity of contacts. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Florida District Court Holds Property Buyer's Emails With Online Auction Company Are Not An Enforceable Contract
On April 7, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a property buyer’s breach of contract and specific performance claims based on emails from an online auction company, holding that the emails alone did not create an enforceable real estate sales contract. Rouse v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 14-497, 2014 WL 1365420 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014). The buyer, who won an online auction to purchase a property, sued the seller after the seller determined it did not wish to proceed with the sale. The buyer alleged breach of contract and sought specific performance, arguing that an email he received from the online auction company confirming his winning bid for the property and a subsequent email from the auction company indicating that the seller agreed to the terms of the purchase agreement memorialize all of the essential terms of the sale. The court held that even if the auction company’s emails satisfy the writing requirement of the statute of frauds as proper electronically signed documents, the confirmation email specifically stated that the seller’s acceptance of the bid and the purchase of the property was contingent not only on the seller’s approval of the purchase, but also on the execution of the purchase agreement by the winning bidder. Because the purchaser offered no evidence that he executed the purchase agreement, the court dismissed without prejudice the buyer’s breach of contract and specific performance claims. The court dismissed with prejudice the buyer’s equitable estoppel claim, but declined to dismiss the buyer’s unjust enrichment claim to recoup costs associated with repairs the buyer made to the property between the time of the auction and the seller’s decision not to proceed with the sale. The court held that the latter claim is dependent upon the seller’s actual knowledge of the repairs, which cannot be determined at this stage.
N.D. Cal. Validates Forum Selection Clause In Website's Hyperlinked Terms Of Use
On April 11, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the forum selection clause within a website’s terms of use provisions, which an online customer had to accept in order to proceed with the transaction, is valid and supports a transfer of the case to another forum. Moretti v. Hertz Corp., No. 13-2972, 2014 WL 1410432 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014). An online customer filed a putative class action in California state court against a car rental company and a travel website over a price disclosure dispute. The companies removed the action to federal court and sought to transfer the case to Delaware based on a forum selection clause included in the terms of use provisions on the travel website through which the car rental was arranged. In support of the motion to transfer, the travel website provided employee declarations establishing that the terms of use included a forum selection clause, and that the transaction could not have been completed unless the customer clicked a box to accept the terms of use. The court held that even though the terms of use were provided through a hyperlink on the site, in the absence of affirmative denial from the customer that he did not click to accept the terms of use, the customer had notice and consented to the terms and the forum selection clause contained therein. The court granted the defendants’ transfer motion and ordered the case transferred to the District Court of Delaware.
CFPB Proposes Remittance Rule Amendments
On April 15, the CFPB issued a proposed rule and request for comment to extend a temporary exception to Regulation E’s requirement that remittance transfer providers disclose certain fees and exchange rates to consumers. Pursuant to Regulation E, as amended to implement section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act, insured depository institutions are permitted to estimate certain third-party fees and exchange rates in connection with a remittance transfer until July 21, 2015, provided the transfer is sent from the sender’s account with the institution, and the institution is unable to determine the exact amount of the fees and rates due to circumstances outside of the institution’s control. The CFPB is proposing to exercise its statutory authority to extend this exception for an additional five years, until July 21, 2020. The agency explained that, based on its outreach to insured institutions and consumer groups, allowing the initial temporary exception to lapse would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. Comments on the proposed rule are due within 30 days of its publication in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule also includes several clarifications and technical corrections to the CFPB’s final remittance rule and official commentary, which were subsequently amended or delayed—including in August 2012 and January 2013—leading to a May 2013 revised final rule. In this latest round of proposed amendments, the CFPB is seeking to address concerns about the remittance rule’s applicability to U.S. military installations abroad. Because the rule does not expressly address transfers to such installations, the CFPB now seeks (i) comments on whether to treat locations on U.S. military installations abroad as being located within a State or a foreign country for the purposes of the rule, (ii) data on the relative number of transfers sent to and from individuals and/or accounts located on U.S. military installations abroad, and (iii) comments on the appropriateness of extending any clarification regarding U.S. military installations to other U.S. government installations abroad, such as U.S. diplomatic missions.
With respect to transfers from accounts (as defined under Regulation E), the CFPB is also proposing amendments to make clear that whether a transfer is for personal, family, or household purposes—and thus, whether the transfer could be a remittance transfer subject to the rule—is determined by ascertaining the purpose for which the account was established, rather than the purpose of the particular transfer. The proposed amendments would therefore clarify that the rule does not apply to, e.g., transfers from an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account owned by a business entity. In addition, the proposed rule seeks to clarify that faxes are considered writings for purposes of the remittance rule, and that, in certain circumstances, a remittance transfer provider may give oral disclosures after receiving a written remittance inquiry from a consumer. The CFPB is also proposing to revise the rule’s error resolution requirements, including with regard to errors based on the sender’s provision of incorrect or insufficient information. Specifically, the proposed amendment would clarify that, where such errors occur, the remittance transfer provider may not deduct its own fee from the amount refunded or applied towards a new transfer.