InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
State AGs sue to block Biden's SAVE Plan for student loan forgiveness
On April 1, 10 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against President Biden, the Secretary of Education, and the Department of Education seeking to block the enactment of the SAVE Plan. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SAVE Plan was an income-driven repayment plan, intended to calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size, rather than the loan balance, and forgave balances after several years since repayment. According to the complaint, the government released a rule for the new SAVE Plan intended to eliminate at least $156 billion in student debt as the second step in a three-part loan forgiveness initiative. The first step involved an attempt to cancel $430 billion in student loans under the HEROES Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Biden v. Nebraska.
The SAVE Plan assumed $430 billion in loans would be forgiven beforehand, but after the Supreme Court's decision, the defendants allegedly did not revise the cost estimate in anticipation of overturning the case. This oversight led to a significant underestimation of the SAVE Plan's true cost; plaintiffs alleged.
Plaintiffs further claimed that the SAVE Plan was written before the Supreme Court's ruling in Biden v. Nebraska and thus included outdated statements of confidence in the defendants' authority to pursue debt relief. The rule would take effect on July 1, but defendants allegedly have already started forgiving loans for some individuals before this date. The complaint alleged that on February 21, the Department of Education forgave the debt of 153,000 borrowers, which the state attorneys general claimed violated Biden v. Nebraska.
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the Department of Education exceeded its authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 by issuing the rule and that the rule would be arbitrary and capricious since defendants failed to account for the full cost of the rule.
CFPB warns remittance transfer providers against falsely advertising the costs and speed of transfers
On March 27, the CFPB issued a circular cautioning remittance transfer providers against falsely advertising the costs or speed of sending transfers to avoid violating the CFPA’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The CFPB would administer and enforce the Remittance Rule under the EFTA, but the Bureau noted that remittance providers also can be liable under the CFP Act for deceptive marketing practices, regardless of whether they comply with the Remittance Rule’s disclosure requirements. Through the circular, the CFPB warned against falsely marketing “no fee” or “free” services if the remittance transfer provider actually charges a fee, noting that “[w]ith respect to digital wallets or other similar products, it can be deceptive to market a transfer as ‘free’ if the provider imposes costs to convert funds into a different currency or withdraw funds,” and that “[i]t may also be deceptive to market international money transfers as ‘free’; if the provider is imposing costs on consumers through the exchange rate spread.” The Bureau also warned against “burying” promotional conditions in fine print, and falsely advertising how long a transfer will take especially if transfers may take longer to reach recipients. The circular would apply to traditional international money transfer providers, as well as “digital wallets” that send money internationally from the U.S. and would be part of the Bureau’s initiative to “rein in” alleged “junk fees.”
CFPB wins approval to move credit card late fee case to Washington, D.C.
On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the CFPB’s motion to transfer a case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after identifying several concerns regarding litigating the case in the Texas venue. This case has been brought by multiple trade organizations to challenge the CFPB’s attempt to alter the structure and amount of credit card late fees under its alleged authority under the CARD Act, covered by InfoBytes here. The court agreed to transfer the case after finding that both defendants, along with three of the six plaintiffs, resided in Washington where the rule at issue was promulgated; comparatively, only one of the six plaintiffs resided in Fort Worth.
The court analyzed both private- and public-interest factors. On private-interest factors, the court agreed that Washington was a more practical venue, noting that eight of the ten attorneys representing the parties list offices in Washington, while only one plaintiff was headquartered in Texas. The court concluded that plaintiffs also have not identified any substantial or practical issues with this case being held in Washington. On public interest factors, the court weighed the comparative dockets and noted that, on average, a case in Washington would be resolved faster than in Texas. The court also reasoned that there was a strong interest in having the case decided in Washington. “The Rule at issue in this case was promulgated in Washington D.C., by government agencies stationed in Washington D.C., and by employees who work in Washington D.C. Most of the Plaintiffs in this case are also based in Washington D.C. and eighty percent of the attorneys in this matter work in Washington D.C. Thus, the [U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia] has a stronger interest in resolving this dispute, as it is the epicenter for these types of rules and challenges thereto.”
CFPB, federal and state agencies to enhance tech capabilities
On March 26, the CFPB announced as a part of a coordinated statement with other federal and state agencies, the intent to enhance its technological capabilities. As part of this initiative, the CFPB will be hiring more technologists to help enforce laws and find remedies for consumers, workers, small businesses, etc. These technologists will join interdisciplinary teams within the CFPB to monitor and address potential violations of consumer rights within the evolving tech landscape, particularly considering the growing attention to generative artificial intelligence (AI). The CFPB's technologists will be tasked with identifying new technological developments, recognizing potential risks, enforcing laws, and developing effective remedies. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized the essential role of technology in the Bureau’s efforts to regulate data misuse, AI issues, and big tech involvement in financial services. Chopra and Chief Technologist Erie Meyer remarked that the CFPB has integrated technologists into its core functions, with these experts now actively involved in supervisory examinations, enforcement actions, and other regulatory proceedings. They also note that the CFPB has researched how emerging technologies, such as generative AI and near-field communication, are used in consumer finance. To foster a competitive and “law-abiding” marketplace, Chopra and Meyer also note that the CFPB will continue to issue policy guidance to assist firms with understanding legal obligations.
Senator Romney et al. pen letter confirming nonbank lending regulations, specifically on the ILC charter
On March 13, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) with 11 other senators penned a brief letter to the heads of the FDIC, OCC, and CFPB that supported the FDIC’s regulation of the industrial loan company (ILC) charter but expressed concerns about delay in processing ILC charter applications. According to the letter, ILCs provide “critical access to credit opportunities within the regulated banking sector.” The letter stated the senators “strongly oppose” regulatory actions against lawful ILC charter applications that may further delay FDIC review and decision-making.
White House targets “junk fees” in higher education with several new initiatives
On March 15, the White House issued a fact sheet on proposed measures aimed at curbing or eliminating alleged “junk fees” in higher education, citing that it found college students incurred “billions in fees” when having to pay for services they may not want. The first action the Biden Administration highlighted was a FY 2025 budget proposal that would eliminate student loan origination fees. The White House found that seven million student loan borrowers pay origination fees somewhere between one and four percent of their student loans. The second item the Biden Administration sought to end was college banking “junk fees,” citing a recent report by the CFPB on this issue (covered by InfoBytes here). To address this issue, the Dept. of Education has proposed a rule on college banking products that cannot include harmful fees. Third, the White House supports another proposed rulemaking from the Dept. of Education that would end automatic billing on tuition for textbooks, allowing students to shop around for better prices. Last, the Dept. of Education is considering a rulemaking that would stop colleges from pocketing leftover meal plan “dollars,” and instead will return the balance to students. The Biden Administration noted these were just a few items meant to help student initiatives, including increasing the transparency of college costs and preventing schools from withholding transcripts. These rules will go into effect on July 1.
Senator Warren invites student loan servicer to testify before Congress
On March 18, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent a letter to a large student loan servicer, inviting its executives to testify at an upcoming hearing hosted by the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy on April 10. The hearing will focus on the servicer’s performance, student loan borrowers’ experience with return to repayment, and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The letter alleged the servicer “mishandl[ed]” borrowers return to repayment after the pandemic by impeding public servants’ access to PSLF relief, among other things. Senator Warren also alleged the servicer failed to perform “basic servicing functions” for PSLF borrowers which led to a backlog of public service workers’ forms eligible towards receiving credit on their student debts. The letter further alleged the servicer implemented a “call deflection scheme” to redirect borrowers' calls from customer service representatives. Testifying would give the servicer the chance to provide context to the allegations, Warren said.
FTC fines two fintech firms $59 million for PPP loan practices
On March 18, the FTC announced enforcement actions against two companies that allegedly made “false promises” to small businesses seeking Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Both companies have agreed to settle with the FTC to resolve alleged violations of the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act and the FTC Act.
According to the FTC’s complaint on the first company—a company that offers online financing products to small businesses—and its subsidiary allegedly engaged in a pattern of deceptive and unfair conduct by quoting shorter processing times for consumers’ applications, despite being aware of the significant delays. The companies also allegedly ignored consumers’ requests to withdraw their pending applications frequently. The FTC further alleged that roughly 40 percent of the companies’ consumers had their applications canceled or rejected. The proposed stipulated order included a prohibition against misrepresentations, an injunction concerning the companies’ application practices (which had prohibited them from failing to allow consumers to promptly withdraw their applications), and a $33 million judgment for monetary relief. The companies must also comply with reporting requirements detailed in the settlement.
The FTC’s complaint against the second company—an online platform offering PPP financing services to small businesses—and its CEO, alleged that respondents made deceptive claims to consumers, many of whom were eligible but never received funding because the respondents failed to fix known technical issues with their system or provide consumers with assistance. According to the complaint, the company claimed that processing a loan would only take 24 hours through the “fast lane” service, but the company’s chat support was slow, as were its review and processing times. The FTC noted that the time-sensitive nature of PPP funding meant any delays had significant impacts on consumers. In addition to the $26 million monetary judgment, the settlement with the company and its CEO prohibited them from making any deceptive, false, or unsubstantiated claims about financial services or products.
CBO report outlines strengths and risks of the FHLBank system
Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on the Federal Home Loan Banks’ (FHLBanks) role in the financial system, outlining their strengths and risks in the larger financial system. The CBO noted that FHLBanks are insulated from failure because their main activity, granting advances to members, was “overcollateralized and benefits from the banks’ super-lien position.” On accounting this year, the CBO estimated that in FY 2024, FHLBanks will receive $7.3 billion in subsidies, driven by new debts and reductions in debt-service costs. The CBO also estimated that in FY 2024, FHLBanks will issue $800 billion of debt and make advances of $560 billion. The CBO listed three potential risks FHLBanks could pose to the broader financial system: first was a risk to taxpayers in the event the FHLBank system failed and required government support; second was the risk that any FHLBank stress could spill over into other financial areas; and third was the risk of losses to the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund from FHLBanks’ collateralized lending and their “super-lien positions.” However, the CBO’s report noted that FHLBanks pose less of a risk than Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or other commercial banks. Further, there have never been any credit losses on an FHLBank advance. Despite these strengths, CBO noted that FHLBanks could still fail in an economic crisis.
Chopra pens comment letter on appraisal issues, including bias, related to not-for-profit player’s oversight
On March 18, the Director of the CFPB, Rohit Chopra, in his capacity as a voting member of the FFIEC, released a comment letter regarding the recent Appraisal Subcommittee hearings. He opened on how the appraisal process was governed not by a governmental agency, but instead by a not-for-profit corporation leading to “key issues” related to appraisal bias. Despite its private status, this organization was governed by the Appraisal Subcommittee which monitors and reviews the organizational structure of the not-for-profit appraisal corporation. Chopra outlined several issues gleaned from the four hearings: First, Chopra noted “severe deficiencies” with the not-for-profit’s conflict of interest policies, noting that the Executive Branch’s conflict of interest policies for employees spanned 77 pages, while the not-for-profit’s policy was less than 10. Second, the not-for-profit has an “insular and contorted governance structure” that favors private over public interests. And third, the Appraisal Foundation’s governance processes, such as electing its President, lack transparency. Chopra highlighted these three examples and described the overall lack of accountability as “deeply troubling” because the not-for-profit was one of the most powerful players when it comes to appraisals.