InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Ninth Circuit Invalidates Online Marketing Company Consumer Contract, Arbitration Agreement
On December 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an online marketing company cannot compel arbitration in a suit brought by a putative class of consumers who claim they were improperly charged for a subscription service they never intended to purchase. Lee v. Intelius, Inc. No. 11-35810, 2013 WL 6570899 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2013). The named plaintiffs sued a company that performs background checks after noticing regularly monthly charges for a report they allegedly did not intend to purchase. The background check company added an online marketing firm as a third-party defendant, arguing it was that firm whose subscription service the consumers were allegedly misled into purchasing. The district court explained that the background check company provided the marketing company space on its website and used the now illegal “data pass” method of sharing credit card information to assist the marketing company in enrolling consumers in free trial subscription offers, which converted to a monthly billed subscription without cancellation. The district court held that the consumers entered into a contract for the subscription service, but denied the marketing company’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal the Ninth Circuit disagreed, determining that the subscription service website to which consumers were directed after purchasing background reports was designed to deceive consumers. The appellate court reasoned that under Washington law, a contract requires mutual assent to its essential terms—including the names of the parties—in order to be binding, and in this case the web page through which the consumers allegedly purchased the subscription service did not sufficiently identify the marketing company as the contracting entity. The court expressed skepticism that the consumers assented to the contract by providing their email addresses and clicking a “yes” button, but given that Washington law is not settled on whether a website “click” can constitute an electronic signature, the court did not rest its conclusion on whether the consumers objectively manifested consent to the contract. Further, the court held that even on the assumption that consumers did enter a contract to purchase the subscription service by clicking on the “yes” button, they did not agree to arbitration because the arbitration terms were included in a separate hyperlink that consumers did not click.
Federal, State Authorities Announce Coordinated Economic Sanctions Enforcement Actions Against Foreign Bank
On December 11, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets and Controls (OFAC), and the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that a foreign bank agreed to pay $100 million to resolve federal and state investigations into the bank’s practices concerning the transmission of funds to and from the U.S. through unaffiliated U.S. financial institutions, including by and through entities and individuals subject to the OFAC Regulations. The investigations followed a voluntary review by the bank of its U.S. dollar transactions, the results of which it submitted to federal, state, and foreign authorities. The federal and state authorities alleged that the bank engaged in payment practices that interfered with the implementation of U.S. economic sanctions, including by removing material references to U.S.-sanctioned locations or persons from payment messages sent to U.S. financial institutions. They assert the alleged failures resulted from inadequate risk management and legal review policies and procedures to ensure that activities conducted at offices outside the U.S. comply with applicable OFAC Regulations. As part of the resolution, the bank consented to a Federal Reserve cease and desist order and civil money penalty order, pursuant to which the bank must pay $50 million, continue to enhance its compliance controls, and retain an independent consultant to conduct an OFAC compliance review. A separate settlement with OFAC requires the bank to pay $33 million, which will be satisfied as part of the payment to the Federal Reserve. The DFS order assesses an additional $50 million penalty. The DFS highlighted that, as part of its cooperation with authorities, the bank took disciplinary action against individual wrongdoers, including through dismissals.
Federal Reserve Board Seeks Additional Comment On Electronic Returned Checks Processing
On December 12, the Federal Reserve Board issued a revised proposed rule that would, among other things, encourage depositary banks to receive, and paying banks to send, returned checks electronically. The revised proposal is intended to address comments the Board received in response to a 2011 proposal to amend subparts C and D of Regulation CC. The Board is now seeking comment on two alternative frameworks for return requirements. Under the first, the expeditious-return requirement currently imposed on paying and returning banks for returned checks would be eliminated; a paying bank returning a check would be required to provide the depositary bank with a notice of nonpayment of the check—regardless of the amount of the check being returned—only if the paying bank sends the returned check in paper form. Under the second, the current expeditious-return requirement—using the current two-day test—would be retained for checks being returned to a depositary bank electronically via another bank, but the notice-of-nonpayment requirement would be eliminated. The Board is proposing to retain, without change, the current same-day settlement rule for paper checks. In addition, the Board is also requesting comment on applying Regulation CC’s existing check warranties to checks that are collected electronically and on new warranties and indemnities related to checks collected electronically and to electronically-created items. Comments are due by May 2, 2014.
CFPB Announces Healthcare Credit Card Enforcement Action Over Deferred-Interest Financing
On December 10, the CFPB released a consent order with a federal savings association, pursuant to which the bank will refund approximately $34 million to more than one million credit card holders who were enrolled in deferred-interest financing for healthcare services. The order does not include a civil penalty. The deferred-interest action is the first public action taken by the CFPB since it promised to scrutinize such products in its October credit card report.
The product at issue typically is offered by healthcare providers who offer personal lines of credit for healthcare services, including medical, dental, cosmetic, vision, and veterinary care. The CFPB alleges that the bank failed to sufficiently train healthcare providers to deliver material information about deferred-interest promotional periods associated with the credit cards, which led to consumers being misled during the enrollment process. The CFPB further claimed that healthcare providers improperly completed applications and submitted them on behalf of consumers, failed to provide consumers with copies of the credit card agreement, and, where disclosures were provided, those disclosures failed to adequately explain the deferred-interest promotion.
In addition to consumer redress, the order mandates certain terms of the bank’s contracts with medical providers offering the healthcare credit card. For example, the bank must incorporate specific “transparency principles” into its agreements with healthcare providers, and the contracts must prohibit certain charges. The bank also must enhance disclosures provided with the card application and billing statements, and improve training for healthcare providers offering the card. In addition, the order details consumer complaint resolution requirements, and prohibits certain incentive arrangements and paid endorsements. To date, the CFPB has not released the attachments to the consent order, which include, among other things, the transparency principles and disclosures.
The New York Attorney General entered into a similar agreement with the bank earlier this year. Under that agreement, the bank was likewise required to add a set of transparency principles to provider contracts to ensure that card terms were described accurately and to revise promotional interest rate options and other disclosures to better inform consumers’ use of the card.
Fifth Circuit Holds State AG Credit Card Add-On Suit Not Subject To Federal Jurisdiction
On December 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a set of parens patriae suits filed by the Mississippi Attorney General (AG) against credit card issuers is not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) or National Bank Act (NBA) preemption. Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-60686, 2013 WL 6230960 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013). The consolidated appeal involves cases originally filed by the AG in state court against six credit card issuers for allegedly violating the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act in connection with the marketing, sale, and administering of certain ancillary products, including payment protection plans. After the card issuers removed the cases, a federal district court denied the state’s motion to remand, holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction because: (i) the cases were CAFA mass actions; (ii) the NBA (and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act for one state-chartered bank defendant) preempted some of the state law claims; and (iii) it had supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Sixth Circuit disagreed and held that the card issuers failed to prove that any card holder met CAFA’s individual amount in controversy requirement, rejecting the issuers’ argument that the state is the real party in interest and its claims for restitution and civil penalties exceed the threshold. The court also rejected the issuers’ argument—and the district court’s holding—that the payment protection plans were part of the loan agreement and the fees associated with the plans constitute “interest,” such that the state’s challenge to the plans was an implicit usury claim preempted by the NBA. Instead, the court held that while the plans could conceivably fit within the definition of “interest,” there is no clear rule on this subject that demands removal. Moreover, the court held that even if the payment protection plan fees are “interest,” the claims still would not be preempted because the state does not allege that the issuers charged too much interest, but rather challenges the alleged practice of improperly enrolling customers in the plans. The court reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Federal District Court Holds Evidence Of Online Notice Regarding Arbitration Policy Change Alone Insufficient To Support Arbitration Demand
On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration, in part because the bank failed to provide evidence that its customer received an online notice of a contract change that added the arbitration clause. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-6030, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013). In this case, a bank customer filed suit alleging the bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The bank moved to compel arbitration, claiming that it properly amended the controlling customer agreement to include the arbitration clause at issue by providing written notice in a billing insert, and by providing the same notice online to customers who logged into their account. The court held that the bank failed to demonstrate the customer logged on to her online account and received the notice at issue. Similarly, the court explained that the bank’s supporting declaration only stated that the customer’s account was “targeted to receive” the written notice, but the bank did not state the customer actually was provided with the notice. The court also questioned whether the amendment adding the arbitration clause was fair, explaining that the original customer agreement allowed the bank to amend “charges, fees, or other information contained in the disclosure” and suggested that the original agreement’s terms did not indicate the addition of an arbitration agreement was an anticipated modification.
Federal Reserve Board Seeks Comments On Payment System Upgrades
On November 27, the Federal Reserve Board requested comments on proposed changes to its procedures for posting debit and credit entries to institutions’ Federal Reserve accounts for ACH debit and commercial check transactions. In a policy statement, the Board seeks comments on a proposal to change the posting time of ACH debit transactions processed by the Federal Reserve Banks' FedACH service overnight to 8:30 a.m. ET from 11:00 a.m. ET to align with the posting of ACH credit transactions. For commercial check transactions, the Board seeks to move the posting time for receiving most credits for deposits and debits for presentments to 8:30 a.m. ET, and to set two other posting times at 1:00 p.m. ET and 5:30 p.m. ET. The Board is also proposing to establish a set of principles that would be applied to any new posting rules for the Reserve Banks' same-day ACH service. In a related proposed rule, the Board offered for comment companion amendments to Regulation J to permit Reserve Banks to obtain settlement from paying banks by as early as 8:30 a.m. ET for checks that the Reserve Banks present, and to permit the Reserve Banks to require paying banks that receive presentment of checks from the Reserve Banks to make the proceeds of settlement for those checks available to the Reserve Banks as soon as 30 minutes after receiving the checks. Comments on both the policy statement and the proposed rule are due 60 days after the documents are published in the Federal Register.
CFPB Director Delivers Remarks On Nonbank Supervision, Payment Systems
On November 21, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered remarks at The Clearing House Annual Conference, including a review of the CFPB’s efforts to resolve concerns raised by the mortgage market through adoption of new mortgage rules and the objective of evenhanded oversight that is not dependent on charter choice or regulator. Mr. Cordray placed particular emphasis on the CFPB’s ability and efforts to “level the playing field” through its nonbank supervision program.
Notably, Director Cordray raised questions about recent efforts by other regulators and law enforcement authorities to investigate and take action against nonbank entities, like online payday lenders, by focusing on how these nonbanks get paid through bank payment systems. Cordray cautioned that, “[t]he focus of these . . . actions may create burdens that fall disproportionately on individual banks that are participants in the payment systems” and that the referenced approach “may not be the most efficient or effective approach.” Rather, Director Cordray suggested that further attention should be given to “how [payment] systems are designed and how they function for all of the institutions that participate in them.” The Director also expressed interest in working with the Clearing House to improve the CFPB’s understanding of using enhanced computer analytics and communications to identify patterns in payment systems, which he stated would better enable the CFPB to “identify and enforce the law against illegitimate firms that are otherwise able to reduce their own costs by hitching a free ride on the payments system,” as well as to consider necessary changes in law or practice.
Senate Committees Begin Review Of Virtual Currency Regulation
This week, two Senate Committees—Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs—held hearings to hear from regulators and other stakeholders about how virtual currencies fit within the existing regulatory framework, and to assess whether there is a need to alter that framework in response to potential risks presented by emerging virtual currency technologies. The hearings followed an inquiry initiated by Senate Homeland Security leaders over the summer. Senators who participated in the hearings did not indicate any desire to move quickly to establish new federal regulations to address potential risks presented by innovation in virtual currencies. Rather, the lawmakers generally expressed a desire not to inhibit continued innovation, while supporting market participants who want to play by the rules and protecting the market from those who do not. In both hearings, FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery described her agency’s ability to address the BSA/AML and terrorism financing risks presented by virtual currencies by employing FinCEN’s existing statutory authority and regulatory tools. Similarly, during the Senate Banking hearing, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors expressed confidence in the ability of state regulators to address consumer protection and other risks posed by virtual currencies through the existing state regulatory framework and processes. Still, committee members raised broader questions about the how to define or categorize virtual currencies (e.g. as a currency versus as a security) and the impact of such a classification on a range of other issues including monetary policy and tax administration. The breadth of the issues, which may need to be addressed by a range of government actors, formed the basis of Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Tom Carper’s (D-DE) call for a “whole government” approach to virtual currency.
Louisiana Appellate Court Addresses Personal Jurisdiction Based On Out-Of-State Website Sales
On November 5, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed a trial court’s holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a dispute that involved only one sale of goods over the Internet to a Louisiana-based customer. BioClin BV v. MultiGyn USA, LLC, No. 2012-CA-0962, 2013 WL 5935233 (La. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2013). A Dutch company appealed a trial court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction the company’s suit against a Florida based web-retailer for infringement. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the company failed to establish that the defendant’s one-time sale of goods into Louisiana over the Internet subjected the defendant to that state’s courts, and that “extenuating personal jurisdiction would not comport with the notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Relying on the sliding scale established in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, to assess whether a website has minimum contacts with a forum state sufficient to invoke personal jurisdiction, the appeals court explained that the “mere creation of a website, does not constitute purposeful availment of the forum benefits,” nor does a one-time sale of goods through that website into the state.