Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events


Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • CFPB Succession: Bureau reportedly no longer examining for MLA compliance

    Federal Issues

    According to reports citing “internal agency documents,” acting Director of the CFPB Mick Mulvaney intends to cease supervisory examinations of the Military Lending Act (MLA), contending the law does not explicitly prescribe the Bureau the authority to examine financial institutions for compliance with the MLA. In 2013, amendments to the MLA granted enforcement authority to the same agencies with administrative enforcement power under TILA, including the Bureau, but these amendments did not also provide these same agencies with the statutory authority to supervise institutions for compliance with the MLA. The Bureau currently includes the MLA in the statutory- and regulation-based procedures section of the Supervision and Examination Manual and has not released a formal statement in response to reports of this supervisory change.

    Federal Issues Supervision Compliance Examination Military Lending Act CFPB

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court rules student loan servicer must turn over Department of Education borrower records to Bureau


    On August 10, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ordered a loan servicer hired by the Department of Education (Department) to service loans it owns to turn over certain Department-owned student loan borrower documents to the CFPB, which relate to the servicer’s collection and management of its federal student loan borrowers’ payments. During the course of the ongoing litigation (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the servicer withheld the documents in discovery on the grounds that they belonged to the Department and were therefore protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act. Moreover, the servicer asserted that the dispute was really between the Bureau and the Department because, in order to turn over the documents, the servicer would first have to obtain permission from the Department.

    However, according to the opinion issued by the court, turning over the documents would not violate the defendants’ agreement with the Department or violate federal privacy law. Specifically, the court stated that “there is no dispute that the borrower documents at issue are in the possession of [d]efendants, even if, as [d]efendants assert, they are owned by the Department,” and as such, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “requests can be made for production of documents, electronically stored information, and things in ‘the responding party’s possession, custody or control.’” Furthermore, the court stated that “the Privacy Act’s general prohibition on disclosure of records . . . does not create a qualified discovery privilege” and cannot be used as a means to “block the normal course of court proceedings, including court-ordered discovery.”

    Courts Student Lending CFPB Department of Education

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB settles unauthorized payday loan allegations

    Federal Issues

    On August 10, the CFPB announced a settlement with multiple defendants that allegedly made unauthorized payday loans. The settlement results from a 2014 complaint that alleged, among other things, that the defendants accessed consumer checking accounts to illegally deposit the proceeds of payday loans and withdraw related fees without consumer consent. The stipulated final judgment and order, among other things, (i) imposes a penalty of up to approximately $69 million if the defendants fail to fully comply with the operative terms of the settlement; (ii) prohibits the defendants from performing similar activities in the future; and (iii) assesses a civil money penalty of $1, in part based on the defendants’ inability to pay.

    On July 23, as previously covered by InfoBytes, a court approved a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants, who neither admitted nor denied the Bureau’s allegations, for a civil money penalty of $1 (based, in part, on his inability to pay) and agreement to fully cooperate with the Bureau.

    Federal Issues CFPB Enforcement Payday Lending

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB amends Regulation P, provides exemptions for annual privacy notice requirement

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On August 10, the CFPB issued final amendments to Regulation P, which implements the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and provides, among other things, exemptions for financial institutions from sending annual privacy notices to consumers provided they meet certain conditions. The final rule—originally proposed in July 2016 (as previously covered in InfoBytes here)—implements a December 2015 statutory change in Section 75001 of the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,” which permits certain exemptions provided a qualifying financial institution (i) has not changed its privacy notice from the one previously delivered to its customer, and (ii) limits its sharing of a customer’s nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties so that a customer does not have the right to opt out, as otherwise afforded under the statute and Regulation P. The final rule will not affect the collection or use of a customer’s nonpublic personal information, and all financial institutions are still required to deliver initial privacy notices to customers. Moreover, the final rule establishes requirements for alternative delivery methods and provides deadlines for financial institutions that lose the exception and are required to resume delivery of annual privacy notices.

    The amendments to Regulation P will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB Regulation P Gramm-Leach-Bliley Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB announces HMDA File Format Verification Tool and new 2017 data reports and datasets

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On August 9, the CFPB released the 2018 File Format Verification Tool (FFVT). The FFVT tests whether HMDA reporters’ files meet formatting requirements, specifically whether the file (i) is pipe-delimited; (ii) has the proper number of data fields; and (iii) has data fields formatted as integers, where necessary. It does not include any data validation or consistency tests. Because the tool has no login functions, no federal agency will receive or review the files tested. Additionally, earlier in the week, the Bureau announced the release of the 2017 HMDA Dynamic National Loan-Level Dataset and the Aggregate & Disclosure reports. The Dynamic National Loan-Level Dataset contains the raw HMDA data reported by all HMDA reporters, redacted by the Bureau to protect applicant and borrower privacy. The Disclosure Reports summarize lending activity for individual institutions by MSA or MD and nationwide and the National Aggregate Reports summarize aggregate lending activity of all institutions, tabulated by a variety of loan, borrower, and geographical characteristics.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB HMDA Mortgages

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court again denies request to stay CFPB payday rule compliance date


    On August 7, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied a request by two payday loan trade groups to reconsider its June decision denying a stay of the compliance date (August 19, 2019) of the Bureau’s final rule on payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other installment loans (Rule) until 445 days after final judgment in the pending litigation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court granted the trade groups’ and the CFPB’s joint request to stay the lawsuit—which asks the court to set aside the Rule— because of the Bureau’s plans to reconsider the Rule, but the court denied, without explanation, the request to stay the compliance date. In denying the reconsideration request, the court acknowledged considering, among other things, the trade groups’ motion and the CFPB’s response, which supported the motion but again, did not provide a substantive justification for the denial.

    Courts CFPB Payday Rule CFPB Succession Federal Issues

    Share page with AddThis
  • Regulators create Global Financial Innovation Network


    On August 7, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced the creation of the Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN) in collaboration with 11 global financial regulators, including the CFPB. As set forth in the GFIN Consultation Document, the three major functions of the initiative are: (i) information sharing among regulators on topics including emerging technologies and business models; (ii) providing a forum for joint policy work; and (iii) instituting “cross-border trials” to create a testing environment for companies as they deal with global regulatory challenges. GFIN’s intention is to serve as an efficient way for innovative fintech firms to interact with regulators and promote transparency, and plans to explore the concept of a “global sandbox” to create opportunities for these firms to test new financial services and products such as artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technology, and initial coin offerings in multiple jurisdictions.

    In a press release issued the same day, the Bureau noted that the decision to join the group is a demonstration of its “commitment to promoting innovation by coordinating with state, federal and international regulators.” Acting Director Mick Mulvaney further commented, “We look forward to working closely with other regulatory authorities—whether in the United States or abroad—to facilitate innovation and promote regulatory best practices in consumer financial services.”

    The working group seeks multi-jurisdictional comments on the Consultation Document to assess feedback on its proposed mission, function, and priorities. U.S. persons can submit comments through the Bureau’s Office of Innovation or through the FCA and other regulators. Comments must be received by October 14.

    Fintech Financial Conduct Authority CFPB Regulatory Sandbox International

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB updates “workpapers” section of Supervision and Examination Manual

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    In August, the CFPB released an updated version of the Supervision and Examination Manual, which includes minor changes to the workpapers section of the examination process and an updated scope summary template. According to the manual, workpapers are the records documenting the review conducted by examiners to reach conclusions about the financial institution’s compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The manual emphasizes that “[a]ll information collected and all records created during the review that are used to support findings and conclusions could potentially be included in the workpapers” and all workpapers must be reviewed and signed off by the examiner in charge. The Bureau requires all workpapers and related documentation to be maintained in electronic form.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB Examination Supervision Compliance

    Share page with AddThis
  • Washington state updates mortgage provisions of Consumer Loan Act

    State Issues

    On July 24, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions adopted new mortgage-related provisions of the state’s Consumer Loan Act (CLA). In addition to technical changes and certain definition modifications, the rulemaking, among other things, (i) adds a requirement that if electronic records are stored using a closed service, the service must be located in the U.S. or its territories; (ii) prohibits certain servicing activities, such as receiving payments and collection activities, from being conducted outside the U.S. or its territories; and (iii) requires servicers to maintain a compliance management system with the functionalities that are described in the CFPB’s Supervision and Examination Manual. The rulemaking is effective September 1.

    State Issues State Regulators Mortgages Mortgage Servicing Compliance Examination CFPB

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court denies service provider’s motion to dismiss on several grounds, rules Bureau’s structure is constitutional


    On August 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana denied a Texas-based service provider’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by the CFPB over allegations that the service provider engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by assisting three tribal lenders in the improper collection of short-term, small-dollar loans that were, in whole or in part, void under state law. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The defendants moved to dismiss the claims on multiple grounds: (i) the Bureau’s structure is unconstitutional; (ii) the claims are not permitted under the CFPA; (iii) the complaint “fails to, and cannot, join indispensable parties;” and (iv) certain claims are time-barred.

    In answering the service provider’s challenges to the Bureau’s constitutionality, the court ruled that the CFPB’s structure is legal and cited to orders from nine district courts and an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit Court, which also rejected similar arguments. (See Buckley Sandler Special Alert.) Addressing whether the Bureau’s claims were permitted under the CFPA, the court ruled that other courts have held that enforcing a prohibition on amounts that consumers do not owe is different from establishing a usury limit, and that moreover, “[t]he fact that state law may underlie the violation . . . does not relieve [d]efendants . . . of their obligation to comply with the CFPA.” Regarding the defendants’ argument that the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of failure to join an indispensable party because the tribal lenders possess sovereign immunity to the suit, the court wrote that “[u]nder these circumstances, the Court will not create a means for businesses to avoid regulation by hiding behind the sovereign immunity of tribes when the tribes themselves have failed to claim an interest in the litigation.” Furthermore, the court found that the remedies sought by the Bureau would not “impede the [t]ribal [l]enders’ ability to collect on their contracts or enforce their choice of law provisions directly.” Finally, the court stated that, among other things, the service provider failed to show that the Bureau’s suit fell outside the CFPA’s three-year statute of limitations for filing claims after violations have been identified.

    Courts CFPB Consumer Finance CFPA Consumer Lending Usury State Issues

    Share page with AddThis