InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC Files Complaint Against Operators of Online Discount Clubs and Payment Processors for Allegedly Debiting More Than $40 Million from Consumers Without Their Consent
On August 16, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against the operators of a group of marketing entities and payment processors (defendants) for allegedly violating numerous laws when they enrolled consumers into online discount clubs and debited more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership without their authorization. According to the August 15 complaint, several of the defendants promoted their respective online discount club through websites and telemarking calls to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans. Other defendants then used “Remotely Created Payment Orders” and “Remotely Created Checks” without the consumers’ authorization to debit their bank accounts for the initial application fee as well as automatically-recurring monthly fees. Notably, during the period when one of the discount clubs was launched, several of the defendants were facing contempt proceedings for allegedly violating a 2008 stipulated final order with the FTC in another deceptive debiting scam. The defendants purportedly, among other things, (i) engaged in unfair billing practices; (ii) made false, misleading, and deceptive statements when they represented, “directly or indirectly,” to consumers seeking refunds that they were not entitled to a refund because the entities possessed personal and financial information, which served to confirm that the consumers agreed to “purchase the products or services” or authorize money to be debited from their bank accounts; and (iii) provided “substantial assistance or support” in the way of payment processing services while knowing—or “consciously avoiding knowing”—that the actions being supported were in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC also claims that hundreds of thousands of consumers called to cancel their memberships and request refunds, with thousands more informing their banks about the unauthorized debits. Additionally, more than 99.5 percent of consumers enrolled in a discount clubs apparently never accessed a single coupon—“the only service for which they had supposedly paid.”
CFPB Issues New Student Loan Repayment Study
On August 16, the CFPB published a study of student loan repayment patterns over a 14-year period. The report, entitled “Data Point: Student Loan Repayment,” analyzed borrower balance and payment status data from the Bureau’s Consumer Credit Panel (CCP). By tracking overall repayment history for borrowers who entered repayment at different points in time, the CFPB observed borrower behavior, including delinquency patterns for those who have not paid down their loan balances. Key findings in the report include:
- Borrowers with recent repayment periods have repaid their loans fully at rates similar to those with repayment periods starting 15 years ago when the loan amount is held constant. “However, 25 to 30 percent of the borrowers in the older cohorts do not pay off their loans within the standard 10-year repayment period, and the more recent cohorts appear to be following the same trend.”
- An apparent relationship exists between the loan amount and repayment speed. Borrowers with loan amounts less than $5,000 are two and a half to four times more likely to fully repay their loans within eight years of entering repayment than borrowers with loans of $50,000 or more. Additionally, more than 40 percent of all borrowers entering repayment today have loan amounts exceeding $20,000—a 20 percent increase from 15 years ago.
- The proportion of student loan borrowers aged 35 or older doubled between 2002 to 2014, whereas the proportion of borrowers younger than 25 declined from 30 to 15 percent between 2002 to 2014. Notably, the CFPB found “remarkably little variation in repayment speed by consumer age despite potential differences in income or resources.”
- Of the student loan borrowers making loan payments large enough to reduce loan balances, recent cohorts are reducing their loan balances faster than earlier cohorts.
- There is an increase in the proportion of borrowers—particularly those with loans less than $20,000—not making large enough payments to lower their loan balances. Specifically, the Bureau claims this trend is in part due to the prevalence of income-driven repayment plans as well as borrowers who are either delinquent or in default on their loans.
The Bureau’s study further recognizes the need to understand how large loan balances could affect consumers’ access to and use of other credit products, such as mortgages. While most borrowers have continued to repay their student loans over the 14-year observation period, the CFPB has suggested that (i) delinquent borrowers may not be taking advantage of alternative repayment options such as income-driven repayment plans, or (ii) servicing delivery platforms may be inadequate for student loan borrowers.
FTC Files Complaint Against Independent Sales Organization and Sales Agents for Alleged Credit Card Laundering Charges
On August 7, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against 12 defendants, comprised of an independent sales organization (ISO), sales agents, payment processors, and identified principals, for allegedly violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by laundering credit card transactions on behalf of a “telemarketing scam” operation (operation) through fictitious merchant accounts. According to a July 28 complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants engaged in a scheme with the operation to process credit card charges through merchant accounts set up by the operation under fictitious company names instead of processing charges through a single merchant account under the operation’s name. This type of practice, the FTC claims, is known as “credit card laundering” or “factoring” and violates the TSR. The defendants purportedly (i) underwrote and approved the operation’s fictitious companies; (ii) set up merchant accounts with its acquirer for the fictitious companies; (iii) used sales agents to market processing services to merchants; (iv) processed nearly $6 million through credit card networks; and (v) transferred sales revenue from the transactions to companies controlled by the defendants. The FTC seeks “permanent injunctive relief, recession or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten moneys, and other equitable relief.”
Notably, in 2013, the FTC accused the same “telemarketing scam” operation of allegedly promoting “worthless business opportunities” to consumers and falsely promising that they would earn thousands of dollars. A 2015 summary judgement resulted in over $7 million in consumer injury. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
CFPB Releases New Overdraft Protection Study and Prototype “Know Before You Owe” Disclosures
On August 4, the CFPB concurrently announced the release of a new study titled “Data Point: Frequent Overdrafters” on the use of overdraft services by consumers, as well as four new “Know Before You Owe” overdraft disclosure prototype templates. The announcement highlights findings in the study regarding the frequency of use and the costs associated with optional overdraft services. Alongside the publication of the study, the Bureau published four prototype templates currently under testing. These templates—which are not yet effective—are meant to improve on existing model forms by more “clearly laying out the size of the fees and when they can be charged,” as well as clarifying “the institution’s overdraft policies” and explaining that the decision to opt-in to the overdraft services is optional and covers only one-time debit card and ATM transactions. The Bureau continues to test the prototypes and consider further changes. The 2010 model form continues to apply until further notice from the CFPB. These developments reflect the CFPB’s years-long interest in overdraft products and build upon a prior 2014 Data Point study of this issue, as previously reported in Infobytes.
CFPB Fines National Bank $4.6 Million for FCRA Violations
On August 2, the CFPB ordered a national bank to pay $4.6 million for allegedly failing to establish adequate policies and procedures for providing consumer deposit account information to nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (NSCRAs). The consent order alleges that the bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V by failing to provide consumers the results of investigations into their disputes and by withholding the contact information for the consumer reporting company supplying the information used to deny a checking account application. Pursuant to the consent order, in addition to the civil money penalty, the bank must (i) implement policies and procedures to ensure NSCRAs receive accurate consumer deposit account information; (ii) provide consumers with the results of its dispute investigations concerning information furnished to NSCRAs; and (ii) give consumers NSCRA contact information in situations of adverse action.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Focuses on Consumer Complaint Process
On August 1, the CFPB released a special edition of its monthly complaint report, highlighting company and consumer responses to the Bureau’s consumer complaint process. According to the Bureau, it has handled over 1.2 million complaints from 2011 through July 1 of this year. In the last three years, debt collection, credit reporting, and mortgage complaints were the top three consumer complaint categories. The report illustrates the handling of a consumer complaint:
- Consumer Resource Centers answer questions about consumer financial products and services and provide status updates on existing complaints;
- The CFPB states that companies receive complaints typically within a day, and that within 15 days, consumers generally receive a response in one of the following four categories: (i) closed with monetary relief; (ii) closed with non-monetary relief; (iii) closed with explanation; and (iv) closed. The Bureau states that companies have provided “timely responses to approximately 97% of complaints”;
- Consumers can check the status of their complaints through the Bureau’s portal, review responses received from the company, and provide feedback on the company’s response.
Consumer feedback, the CFPB stated, primarily concerns disputes regarding companies’ responses. Among the dispute categories, 23 percent related to mortgages, 22 percent to consumer loans, and 20 percent to credit cards. The Bureau reported that negative and positive feedback is used to improve the complaint process.
CFPB Issues Bulletin Warning Service Providers About Pay-By-Phone Fees
On July 31, the CFPB issued a bulletin to warn service providers that misleading consumers about pay-by-phone fees may potentially be a violation of Dodd-Frank’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau also provided guidance regarding its expectations for UDAAP and FDCPA compliance when assessing pay-by-phone fees. According to the bulletin, the CFPB noted several instances where consumers were either not informed up front of the fees that came with paying expenses over the phone or were not offered lower-cost alternatives. The Bureau cited several public enforcement actions, in which it alleged, among other things, that entities (i) misrepresented available payment options or gave the impression that a fee was required to make a payment by phone, when the only purpose of the fee was to expedite the phone payment; (ii) failed to disclose phone pay fees, thus creating the impression that there was no service fee; or (iii) lacked monitoring and oversight programs to deter this type of misleading behavior. The Bureau further encouraged service providers to consult a 2016 bulletin issued to discuss “detecting and preventing consumer harm from production incentives” to examine whether existing or future provider production incentive programs might “steer borrowers to certain payment types or to avoid disclosures,” which it says increases the potential risk for UDAAP.
FTC to Host Joint Conference on Protecting Military Consumers
On July 27, the FTC announced it is partnering with state and local authorities to host the Protecting Military Consumers: A Common Ground Conference on September 7 in Los Angeles to provide training on consumer fraud and other issues affecting servicemembers and their families. The conference is geared towards military attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and consumer protection officials, and will include the following topics:
- student loans and for-profit colleges;
- identity theft and imposter scams;
- debt collections;
- mortgage disputes; and
- real estate fraud.
Additionally, the conference will discuss several federal, state, and local consumer protection laws, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Military Lending Act, and FTC and CFPB rules and regulations.
Earlier in July, the FTC held a Military Consumer Financial Workshop to educate consumers on financial issues and scams they may face. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
CFPB Ombudsman’s Office Issues Mid-Year Update
In July, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office issued its mid-year update for 2017. Each year, the Ombudsman is required to submit an annual report to the CFPB Director. The mid-year update outlines issues related to individual inquires made to the Ombudsman’s Office, the accessibility of CFPB print materials, whistleblower communications, Ombudsman Forums, Ombudsman Interactives, and the office’s independent outreach programs. Highlighted are several key points:
- Individual Inquires. The Ombudsman’s Office reported that 820 inquiries were received from consumers, financial entities, consumer and trade groups, and others in the first six months of 2017—an increase from the 541 inquiries received during the same time frame the previous year
- Whistleblower Communications. The Bureau continued to receive complaints about alleged violations of consumer financial protection laws. However, according to the Ombudsman, the contact points for whistleblowers have become more difficult to find since the CFPB’s 2016 website refresh. The Ombudsman’s Office provided suggestions to make the information easier to locate.
- Ombudsman Forums. The Ombudsman’s Office recently conducted a forum with compliance officers, or people in similar roles, from companies that engage with the CFPB. The forum facilitated discussions on: (i) compliance management and the consumer complaint process; (ii) the public Consumer Complaint Database; (iii) the examination process; (iv) CFPB compliance tools and resources; and (v) current regulatory compliance process considerations. Additionally, an event with the associations of state government regulators is planned.
- Ombudsman Interactives. The “Ombudsman Interactives” initiative was launched earlier this year to facilitate discussions similar to those at the Ombudsman Forums. Attendees at consumer, trade, and other conferences participated in the onsite interactives.
- Ombudsman Outreach. The Ombudsman’s Office reported that it continues its independent outreach programs intended to share information on the CFPB’s resources and latest work. A coordinated outreach program held this year was attended by nationwide state banking associations.
Buckley Sandler Insights: CFPB Updates Rulemaking Agenda
On July 20, the CFPB released its Spring 2017 rulemaking agenda. The agenda was last updated in Fall 2016. The summer release date, and the fact that certain deadlines listed in the updated agenda have already passed, indicates that the agenda’s release may have been delayed after the CFPB drafted it. The following aspects of the updated agenda are particularly noteworthy:
- Regulation Reviews: The Bureau plans to begin “the first in a series of reviews of existing regulations that we inherited from other agencies through the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act,” noting that “other federal financial services regulators have engaged in these types of reviews over time, and believe that such an initiative would be a natural complement to our work to facilitate implementation of new regulations.” The Bureau has formed “an internal task force to coordinate and deepen the agency’s focus on concerns about regulatory burdens and projects to identify and reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens….” The agenda lists “pre-rule activities” as continuing through September 2017. Separately, the Bureau notes its ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of the Mortgage Servicing Rules, the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, and the Remittance Transfer Rule pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act’s five-year lookback provision.
- Small Dollar Lending: The Bureau reports that it received more than one million comments on its June 2016 proposed rule to impose ability-to-repay requirements for payday, vehicle title, and similar installment loans. The Bureau states that it “continue[s] to believe that the concerns articulated in the [proposed rule] are substantial” but does not provide an expected release date for a final rule.
- “Larger Participants” in Installment Lending: The agenda lists September 2017 as the expected release date for “a proposed rule that would define non-bank ‘larger participants’ in the market for personal loans, including consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans.” Designation as a larger participant brings a non-bank entity within the CFPB’s supervisory jurisdiction. The agenda indicates that a companion rule requiring payday, vehicle title lenders, and other non-bank entities to register with the Bureau is also underway, as noted below.
- Debt Collection: In July 2016, the Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration for debt collection and convened a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the rulemaking. The Bureau notes that, “[b]uilding on feedback received through [that] panel, we have decided to issue a proposed rule later in 2017 concerning debt collectors’ communications practices and consumer disclosures.” The agenda states that a proposed rule is expected in September 2017. The Bureau also states that, in a departure from the July 2016 outline of proposals, the Bureau “intend[s] to follow up separately at a later time about concerns regarding information flows between creditors and FDCPA collectors and about potential rules to govern creditors that collect their own debts.”
- Overdrafts: The Bureau states that the current opt-in regime “produces substantially different opt-in rates across different depository institutions” and that its “supervisory and enforcement work indicates that some institutions are aggressively steering consumers to opt in.” The Bureau reports that it is “engaged in consumer testing of revised opt-in forms and considering whether other regulatory changes may be warranted to enhance consumer decision making.” The agenda lists “pre-rule activities” as continuing through June 2017.
- Small Business Lending: The agenda lists “pre-rule activities” on the implementation of the small business data reporting provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as continuing through June 2017. Specifically, the agenda states that, at this juncture, the CFPB “is focusing on outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in the small business lending market and of the potential ways to implement section 1071.”
- HMDA & ECOA Amendments: The agenda lists October 2017 as the expected release date for the April 2017 proposed ECOA amendments to clarify requirements for collecting information on ethnicity, race, and sex, but does not list an expected release date for finalization of the April 2017 proposed technical corrections to the 2015 HMDA rule, or the July 2017 proposed amendments to the 2015 HMDA rule’s requirements for reporting home equity lines of credit.
- TRID/Know Before You Owe Amendments: The agenda lists March 2018 as the expected release date for finalization of the July 2017 proposed rule addressing the “black hole” issue, which is discussed in our special alert.
- Mortgage Servicing Amendments: The Bureau states that it expects to issue a proposal in September 2017 “to make one or more substantive changes to the rule in response to . . . concerns” raised by the industry.
- Arbitration: Interestingly, the agenda states that the Bureau’s final rule on mandatory arbitration clauses, which was released this month to significant controversy, was not expected until August.
- Non-Bank Registration: The Bureau states that it is “considering whether rules to require registration of [installment lenders] or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to us by both consumer advocates and industry groups.”
- Prepaid Cards: The agenda does not provide an expected release date for finalization of the June 2017 proposed amendments addressing error resolution and limitations on liability, application of the rule’s credit-related provisions to digital wallets, and other issues.
- Credit Card Agreement Submission: The Bureau is “considering rules to modernize our database of credit card agreements to reduce burden on issuers that submit credit card agreements to us and make the database more useful for consumers and the general public.” The agenda lists “pre-rule activities” as continuing through October 2017.