InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Maryland says crypto enforcement could affect money transmitter licensure
On June 22, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation issued an advisory on recent enforcement actions by Maryland and federal securities enforcement agencies against cryptocurrency-related businesses that could potentially impact businesses pursuing money transmitter licensure. The actions allege certain businesses offered products constituting securities while they were only licensed as money transmitters by the Commissioner of Financial Regulation. The state takes “character and fitness” into consideration for licensure and although the Commissioner does not enforce securities laws, he or she must consider violations of law, including violations of Maryland securities law, when determining whether to grant licenses. The advisory reads, “compliance with law, particularly Maryland law, regardless of whether or not the law falls within the Commissioner’s purview, must be considered when determining whether a licensee warrants the belief that business will be conducted lawfully, and thus whether the licensee is, or remains, qualified for licensure.” Moreover, violations of securities laws could form the grounds for action by the Commissioner against a licensee, “including but not limited to, an action seeking to revoke a license.”
Rhode Island enacts provisions for real estate appraisal
On June 20, the Rhode Island state governor signed SB 850 (the “Act”), which amends the Real Estate Appraiser Certification Act and the Real Estate Appraisal Management Company (AMC) Registration Act for consistency with federal laws and recommendations from the appraisal subcommittee. Among other things, the Act includes new terminology, including “covered transaction” and “state-licensed real estate appraiser.” This Act sets forth numerous additional provisions, one of which requires that appraisals must be performed by licensed or certified appraisers unless they are specifically exempt under federal law. Also amended are state-certified appraisers and state-licensed appraisers’ classifications. Specifically, the text defining residential property appraisal is replaced with a general statement that requirements for certification and licensing of appraisers will be “as required by the appraiser qualifications board of the appraisal foundation.” Another addition addresses the continuing education requirement for state-licensed and state-certified real estate appraisers, which now stipulates that up to one-half of an individual’s continuing education requirement may be completed by participation in certain educational activities approved by the board. Concerning registration, the Act contains a new subsection, detailing that AMCs cannot be registered in the state if any owner (an individual who owns more than 10 percent) of the AMC fails to submit to a background check or any owner is determined by the director to not have good moral character. Among other amendments, the Act also stipulates that registration is now valid for only one year (previously two years) after issuance.
The Act is effective upon passage.
NYDFS publishes new proposal on cybersecurity regs
On June 28, NYDFS published an updated proposed second amendment to the state’s cybersecurity regulation (23 NYCRR 500) reflecting revisions made by the department in response to comments received on proposed expanded amendments published last November. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) NYDFS’ cybersecurity regulation, effective in March 2017, imposes a series of cybersecurity requirements for banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Proposed changes include:
- New and amended definitions. The proposed second amendment defines “Chief Information Security Office or CISO” to mean “a qualified individual responsible for overseeing and implementing the covered entity’s cybersecurity program and enforcing its cybersecurity policy, who has adequate authority to ensure cybersecurity risks are appropriately managed, including the ability to direct sufficient resources to implement and maintain an effective cybersecurity program.” Certain references to a CISO’s responsibilities have been moved and slightly modified throughout. The amendments also clarify that affiliates should only include “those that share information systems, cybersecurity resources or all or any part of a cybersecurity program with the covered entity” for the purposes of calculating the number of employees and gross annual revenue for consideration as a “Class A Company.” The definition of a “privileged account” has also been modified to remove a condition that an authorized user account or service account be able to affect a material change to the technical or business operations of the covered entity. Risk assessments also no longer include a requirement that a covered entity “take into account the specific circumstances of the covered entity, including but not limited to its size, staffing, governance, businesses, services, products, operations, customers, counterparties, service providers, vendors, other relations and their locations, as well as the geographies and locations of its operations and business relations.” Additionally, “senior governing body” now specifies that for “any cybersecurity program or part of a cybersecurity program adopted from an affiliate under section 500.2(d) of this Part, the senior governing body may be that of the affiliate.”
- Notice of a cybersecurity event. Under 23 NYCRR 500, entities are required to notify NYDFS within 72 hours after a determination has been made that a cybersecurity event has occurred at a covered entity, its affiliates, or a third-party service provider. The amendments remove a 90-day period for covered entities to provide the superintendent with requested information, and instead provides that “[e]ach covered entity shall promptly provide any information requested regarding such event. Covered entities shall have a continuing obligation to update and supplement the information provided.” Covered entities will be required to maintain for examination, and now inspection by the department upon request, all records, schedules, and supporting data and documentation.
- Exemptions. The proposed second amendment now offers that “[a]n employee, agent, wholly-owned subsidiary, representative or designee of a covered entity, who is itself a covered entity, is exempt from this Part and need not develop its own cybersecurity program to the extent that the employee, agent, wholly-owned subsidiary, representative or designee is covered by the cybersecurity program of the covered entity.”
- Additional modifications. Other slight modifications have been made throughout that include removing a requirement that covered entities “document material issues found during testing and report them to its senior governing body and senior management,” and deleting a requirement that Class A companies use external experts to conduct risk assessments at least once every three years. The proposed second amendment makes changes to third-party service provider policy requirements and multi-factor authentication provisions and replaces a reference to a covered entity’s board of directors or equivalent with the “senior governing body.” Language defining these responsibilities has been slightly modified. Additionally, incident response plans must also now include a root cause analysis describing “how and why the event occurred, what business impact it had, and what will be done to prevent reoccurrence.” Furthermore, when assessing penalties, the superintendent may now also consider “the extent to which the relevant policies and procedures of the company are consistent with nationally recognized cybersecurity frameworks, such as NIST.”
The proposed second amendment is subject to a 45-day comment period expiring August 14.
Nevada enacts health data privacy measures
On June 16, the Nevada governor signed SB 370 (the “Act”) to enact provisions imposing broad restrictions on the use of consumer health data. The Act is intended to cover health data and persons or entities not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Act defines a regulated entity as a person who conducts business in the state of Nevada or produces or provides products or services that are targeted to consumers in the state that “determines the purpose and means of processing, sharing or selling consumer health data.” Exempt from the Act’s requirements are government agencies, financial institutions and data that is collected, maintained or sold subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other federal laws, law enforcement agencies, and third parties that obtain consumer health data from a regulated entity through a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other transaction, among others.
The Act increases privacy protections, and outlines several requirements, such as (i) entities must maintain a consumer health data privacy policy that clearly and conspicuously discloses the categories of health data collected and specifies how the data will be used, collected, and shared (including with third parties and affiliates); (ii) entities must obtain voluntary consent from consumers prior to collecting, sharing, and selling their health data, and are required to provide a means by which a consumer can revoke such authorization; (iii) entities are restricted from geofencing particular locations to collect and sell data; and (iv) entities are required to develop specific security policies and procedures. Consumers are also empowered with the right to have their health data deleted and may request a list of all third parties with whom the regulated entity has shared or sold their health data. The Act details prohibited practices and outlines numerous compliance elements relating to access restrictions, responding to consumers, and processor requirements.
Furthermore, a violation of the Act constitutes a deceptive trade practice. While the Act does not create a private right of action, under existing law a court has authority “to impose a civil penalty of not more than $12,500 for each violation upon a person whom the court finds has engaged in a deceptive trade practice directed toward an elderly person or a person with a disability. Additionally, under existing law if a person violates a court order or injunction brought by the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, the Director of the Department of Business and Industry, the district attorney of any county in the state or the attorney general, “the person is required to pay a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.” Willful violations may incur an additional penalty of not more than $5,000, as well as injunctive relief.
The Act is effective March 31, 2024.
Nevada amends licensing and regulation provisions
On June 15, the Nevada governor signed SB 355 (the “Act”) to amend several provisions relating to existing state law, which provides for the licensure and regulation of various financial institutions by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. Among other things, the Act prohibits the commissioner “from requiring an applicant for a license to establish a new depository institution to identify the physical address of the proposed depository institution in the application for the license.” Additionally, while the Act requires data collectors that own, license, or maintain personal information to provide notice to the state attorney general and certain other persons of certain breaches of security involving personal information, the amendments now exempt persons licensed to engage in the business of lending in Nevada from these requirements.
The Act sets forth numerous other provisions, including (i) removing the requirement that debt collection agencies notify a medical debtor via registered or certified mail before taking any action to collect a medical debt; (ii) authorizing certain financial institution employees to temporarily delay certain financial transactions involving the suspected exploitation of an older person or vulnerable person (and setting forth certain liability exemptions); and (iii) authorizing an employee of a licensee to engage in the business of lending in the state at a remote location if authorized by the licensee and specific criteria are met (the Act also outlines prohibited conduct for persons working remotely). Remote work provisions apply to employees of a mortgage company, including mortgage loan originators, so long as the mortgage company provides authorization. The Act also exempts remote locations from certain mortgage transaction recordkeeping requirements, and instead stipulates that a mortgage company must “keep and maintain records of all mortgage transactions made by an employee at a remote location in accordance with the requirements established by the Commissioner of Mortgage Lending by regulation.”
The Act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. The remaining provisions take effect October 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024.
Nevada expands collection agency licensing requirements
On June 16, the Nevada governor signed SB 276 (the “Act”) to revise certain provisions relating to debt collection agencies and make amendments to the state’s collection agency licensing law. While existing law requires collection agencies to be licensed, the amendments expand the type of activities that trigger collection agency licensure. Notably, the Act now requires any “debt buyer” to hold a license, which is defined as “a person who is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing claims that have been charged off for the purpose of collecting such claims, including, without limitation, by personally collecting claims, hiring a third party to collect claims or hiring an attorney to engage in litigation for the purpose of collecting claims.” Mortgage servicers, however, are now exempt unless the “mortgage servicer is attempting to collect a claim that was assigned when the relevant loan was in default.” The amendments also repeal provisions governing foreign collection agencies and now require that such agencies be licensed in the same fashion as domestic collection agencies.
In addition to licensed mortgage servicers the amendments also exclude others from the definition of the term “collection agency,” including an expanded list of certain financial institutions (as well as their employees), persons collecting claims that they originated on their own behalf or originated and sold, and other persons not deemed to be debt collectors under federal law. The term “collection agent” has also been refined to exempt persons who do not act on behalf of a collection agency from requirements governing collection agents.
The Act revises requirements relating to “compliance managers” (formerly referred to as “collection managers”) – including an avenue to request a waiver from the Nevada compliance manager examination requirement if certain experiential requirements are met – and makes changes to certain record retention and application requirements, including amendments to the frequency with which the commissioner reviews a licensee’s required bond amount (annually instead of semiannually). A provision requiring applicants to pursue branch licenses for second or remote locations is also repealed. Instead, collection agencies must simply notify the commissioner of the location of the branch office. Further, collection agencies are now required to display license numbers and certificate identification numbers of compliance managers on any website maintained by the collection agency.
Additionally, the Act now authorizes collection agents to work remotely provided the agents meet certain criteria, including: (i) signing a written agreement prepared by the collection agency that requires the agent to maintain agency-appropriate security measures to ensure the confidentiality of customer information; (ii) refraining from disclosing details about the remote location to a debtor; (iii) refraining from conducting collection activity-related work with a debtor or customer in person at the remote location; (iv) allowing work conducted from the remote location to be monitored; and (v) completing various compliance and privacy training programs. Remote collection agents must adhere to certain practices requirements and restrictions set forth by both the Act and the FDCPA. Collection agencies must also maintain records of remote collection agents, provide oversight and monitoring of collection agents that work remotely, develop and implement a written security policy governing remote collection agents, and establish procedures to ensure collection agents working remotely are not acting in an illegal, unethical, or unsafe manner.
Finally, the Act imposes new prohibitions against collection agencies and their agents and employees. Among other things, a collection agency (and its compliance manager, agents, or employees) is banned from suing to collect a debt when it knows or should have known that the applicable statute of limitations has expired. The amendments further clarify that the applicable limitation period is not revived upon “payment made on a debt or certain other activity relating to the debt after the time period for filing an action based on a debt has expired.” Certain notice must also be given to a medical debtor notifying that such a payment does not revive the applicable statute of limitations. A collection agency may also not sell “an interest in a resolved claim or any personal or financial information related to the resolved claim.”
The Act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and on October 1, 2023 for all other purposes. “Debt buyers” have until January 1, 2024 to submit a collection agency license application pursuant to the new provisions.
Connecticut joins states enacting commercial financing disclosures and lender and broker registration requirements
On June 28, Connecticut became the latest state to require certain providers of sales-based commercial financing to provide disclosures to borrowers and that such providers and brokers register with the state. SB 1032 (the “Act”) defines “commercial financing” as any extension of sales-based financing by a provider in amounts of $250,000 or less, which the recipient does not intend to use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A “provider” is defined by the Act as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient” and includes, unless otherwise exempt, a “commercial financing broker,” but does not include “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, Connecticut credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union or any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing.” “Sales-based financing” means a transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time (i) as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales made or revenue received by the recipient, or (ii) according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue. The Act establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous additional exemptions.
Under the Act, when extending a specific offer for sales-based financing, the provider must disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the Act. As a condition of obtaining commercial financing, should the provider require a recipient to pay off the balance of existing commercial financing from the same provider, the provider would be required to include additional disclosures. The Act also discusses conditions and criteria when using another state’s commercial financing disclosure requirements that meet or exceed Connecticut’s provisions may be permitted. Providers may rely on a statement of intended purpose made by the “recipient” (defined as “a person, or the authorized representative of a person, who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing by a provider”) to determine whether the financing is commercial financing.
Further, the Act provides that a commercial financing contract entered into on or after July 1, 2024, may not contain any provisions waiving a recipient’s right to notice, judicial hearing, or prior court order in connection with the provider obtaining any prejudgment remedy. Additionally, a provider may not revoke, withdraw, or modify a specific offer until midnight of the third calendar day after the date of the offer. Notably, there is a requirement that providers and brokers of commercial financing be registered with the state banking commissioner, in addition to adhering to the prescribed disclosure requirements, no later than October 1, 2024.
Finally, the banking commissioner is authorized to adopt regulations to carry out the Act’s provisions. Providers who violate the Act’s provisions, or any adopted regulations, will be subject to civil penalties. The commissioner may also seek injunctive relief against providers who knowingly violate any of the provisions.
The Act takes effect July 1, 2024.
DFPI orders crypto platform to halt operations
On June 27, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a desist and refrain order against a digital asset trading platform and two of its promoters for allegedly selling unqualified securities and making material misrepresentations and omissions to investors, a violation of California securities laws.
DFPI alleges that the platform leveraged a “multi-level marketing scheme” to award its promoters who sold unqualified securities to investors in the form of investment contracts and received cash investments ranging from $5,000-$20,000. Allegations also include that the platform “purported” to provide educational classes designed to empower the Latino community with respect to crypto asset trading. The order details that through these efforts to garner more investors, “misrepresentations of material fact [were made] to investors and potential investors, namely that investors would receive a return on their initial investment every three months.” Investors have allegedly not received any return on their initial investment. The commissioner found that the platform “fail[ed] to provide the promised returns on their purported investments” and that “[d]espite multiple requests, investors have not had their funds returned.”
The order requires the platform to desist and refrain from the offer and sale of securities and stop making misrepresentations about returns in California.
26 state AGs support FTC’s proposal on Negative Option Rule
On June 26, a coalition of 26 state attorneys general from New York, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, submitted a comment letter in support of the FTC’s proposed amendments to its Negative Option Rule. While the Negative Option Rule is intended to combat unfair or deceptive practices related to subscriptions, memberships, and other recurring-payment programs, the FTC maintained that current laws and regulations do not clearly provide a consistent legal framework for these types of programs. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
In March, the FTC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM), which would apply to all subscription features in all media (including “the internet, telephone, in-print, and in-person transactions”) and would regulate additional types of negative-option practices, including automatic renewals, free trial offers, and continuity plans. The NPRM proposes to add a new “click to cancel” provision making it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up. Sellers would be required to first ask consumers whether they want to hear about new offers or modifications before making a pitch when consumers are trying to cancel their enrollment. Sellers further must provide consumers who are enrolled in negative option programs with an annual reminder involving anything other than physical goods before they are automatically renewed.
In their letter, the states expressed support for the FTC’s NPRM, in particular, the provisions that would preserve state authority to regulate negative-option marketing and to enact greater protections and stricter laws than those proposed by the FTC. The states also agreed that the NPRM provides additional guidance and clarity on how businesses can comply with existing legal frameworks. However, the states urged the FTC to consider additional clarifications and improvements, including (i) requiring businesses to “clearly and conspicuously inform consumers of any conditions (or lack thereof) concerning cancellation”; (ii) requiring businesses to obtain an additional round of consent before charging a consumer at the end of a free trial; (ii) clarifying businesses’ cancellation mechanisms must be cost effective, timely, simple, and easy to use; (iii) expanding the methods that a consumer may use to cancel a recurring contract and allowing “all consumers to cancel through any medium that the seller uses to sell subscriptions or memberships, regardless of the medium through which that particular consumer signed up”; and (iv) requiring businesses to provide negative option reminders in additional ways—“not only through the same medium that the consumer used to consent to the negative option feature but also through any other medium that the seller uses to communicate with the consumer.”
Court orders credit union to pay $5 million to settle overdraft allegations
On June 27, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement, resulting in a defendant credit union paying approximately $5.2 million to settle allegations concerning illegal overdraft/non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees and inadequate disclosure practices. As described in plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the defendant was sued in 2020 for violating the EFTA (Regulation E) and New York General Business Law (NY GBL) § 349. According to plaintiffs, defendant charged overdraft fees and NSF fees that were not permitted under its contracts with its members or Regulation E. Plaintiffs’ Regulation E and NY GBL liability theories are premised on the argument that defendant’s “opt-in form did not inform members that these fees were charged under the ‘available balance’ metric, rather than the ‘actual’ or ‘ledger’ balance metric”—a violation of Regulation E and NY GBL § 349. The plaintiffs’ liability theory was that defendant’s “contracts did not authorize charging overdraft fees when the ledger or actual balance was positive.”
Under the terms of the settlement, defendant is required to pay $2 million, for which 25 percent of the settlement fund will be allocated to class members’ Regulation E overdraft fees, 62.5 percent will go to class members’ GBL overdraft fees, and 12.5 percent will be allocated to class members’ breach of contract overdraft fees. Defendant is also required to pay $948,812 in attorney’s fees, plus costs, and $10,000 service awards to the two named plaintiffs. Additionally, the defendant has agreed to change its disclosures and will “forgive and release any claims it may have to collect any at-issue fees which were assessed by [defendant] but not collected and subsequently charged-off, totaling approximately $2,300,000.”