InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Warren and Brown question CFPB on auto lending policies
On March 12, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger expressing concerns over the Bureau’s oversight of the auto lending market. The Senators contend that the Bureau has not taken any auto lending enforcement actions since Kraninger became director, despite reports expressing concern with the volume of outstanding auto debt and “auto lenders [] engaging in predatory practices and cutting back safeguards.” The Senators were “particularly concerned with the targeting of subprime consumers by non-bank lenders through indirect financing.” The letter seeks information regarding the Bureau’s plans to “fulfill its mission of stopping abusive practices and protecting consumers from this emerging threat,” including (i) whether the Bureau believes that the “incentive structure” between dealers and lenders in indirect financing can create risks for consumers; (ii) whether the Bureau believes lenders are intentionally charging higher rates because of arrangements with auto dealers; (iii) the types of actions the Bureau would take when it identifies a problematic relationship between a lender and a dealer; and (iv) a list of past enforcement actions by the Bureau against lenders who incentivized dealers to offer consumers a larger loan than the market value of the vehicle. In addition, the letter seeks information on the ways that the Bureau evaluates lender underwriting practices and whether it maintains a database with average LTV ratios, length of loan terms, and related data points for each lender. Finally, the Senators asked for clarifications on how the Bureau would evaluate whether auto lenders are engaging in abusive practices in light of its revised “abusiveness” standard and whether the Bureau has identified fair lending concerns with auto lenders. The letter requests that the Bureau respond to the questions by March 26.
Massachusetts AG fines auto dealer $1.5 million for predatory lending
On March 9, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a consent judgment to resolve a 2017 lawsuit brought against an auto dealership and its in-house lender alleging that the dealership misled consumers into purchasing unfavorable sale packages in violation of Massachusetts’ consumer protection law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that more than half of the auto dealer’s sales failed or ended in repossession due to misleading sales practices, predatory lending, and faulty underwriting. The consent judgment follows a January court decision awarding summary judgment in favor of the AG’s office. According to the AG’s press release, the auto dealer agreed to provide monetary and injunctive relief to resolve the entirety of the lawsuit’s allegations. The relief includes (i) paying $1.5 million, half of which will go towards reducing ongoing payments on active loans for consumers who purchased cars prior to 2018; (ii) providing eligible consumers who had their vehicles repossessed the option to cancel outstanding debts and repair their credit from the repossession; (iii) improving business practices to ensure provision of fair disclosures and enhanced repair services; and (iv) developing a structured process for handling consumer complaints received by the AG.
DoD changes interpretation of MLA related to Guaranteed Asset Protection contracts
On February 28, the Department of Defense (DoD) published an amendment to its December 2017 interpretive rule (2017 Rule) for the Military Lending Act (MLA) to withdraw a provision concerning the exemption of credit secured by a motor vehicle or personal property. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2017 Rule stated that additional costs may be added to an extension of credit so long as these costs relate to the object securing the credit, and not the extension of credit itself. In particular, the 2017 Rule stated that if credit is extended to cover “Guaranteed Auto Protection insurance or a credit insurance premium” the loan is covered by the MLA.
Following the publication of the 2017 Rule, the DoD received several requests to withdraw this Rule. The requests raised concerns that creditors “would be unable to technically comply with the MLA . . . because 232.8(f) of the [MLA] regulation would prohibit creditors from taking a security interest in the vehicle in those circumstances and creditors may not extend credit if they could not take a security interest in the vehicle being purchased.” The DoD stated that it found merit in these concerns and agreed that additional analysis is warranted. As a result, the DoD has withdrawn amended Q&A #2 from the 2017 Rule, and reinstated the 2016 Rule, which states that loans secured by “personal property” do not fall within the exception to “consumer credit” if the creditor “simultaneously extends credit in an amount greater than the purchase price.”
The amended interpretive rule is effective immediately.
Maryland orders vehicle title lender to pay $2.2 million
On February 21, the Maryland attorney general announced the issuance of a final order against a vehicle title lender, its owner, and related businesses (defendants) for making unlicensed and usurious consumer loans in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. According to the AG’s Consumer Protection Division (Division), the defendants offered consumers short-term, high-interest loans secured by a consumer’s motor vehicle title. The defendants allegedly kept the vehicle’s title, and, if the consumer failed to make a payment on the loan, would repossess or sell the vehicle. The Division claimed that these transactions, which the defendants claimed were pawn transactions, were actually consumer loans under Maryland law and carried interest rates of 360 percent. Under the terms of the final order, all loans the defendants made to Maryland consumers are void and unenforceable. The defendants are also ordered to, among other things, permanently cease engaging in unlicensed lending activities in the state and may not make loans that exceed the maximum allowed rate of interest, charge fees that are not permitted under state law, repossess secured vehicles or other personal property, or operate without requisite surety bonds. In addition, the defendants may not repossess consumers’ vehicles and must return any repossessed vehicles still in their possession. Finally, the defendants must pay at least $2.2 million in restitution to affected consumers, a $1.2 million civil penalty, a $50,000 claims procedure fee, and $73,000 in costs.
New York extends consumer protections for vehicle leases
On December 23, the New York governor signed S 3631, which amends the state’s insurance law to increase protections for New York consumers from unplanned charges at the end of a motor vehicle lease. The definition of “service contracts” is broadened to cover more comprehensive service contracts on motor vehicles leased for personal use. Service contracts covered by the law will now include agreements that apply to accidental damage and excess use and wear and tear, including missing parts of the vehicle, and items not covered by a warranty or other service agreement, as long as such services do not exceed the purchase price of the automobile. The law became effective when signed.
District Court allows claims to proceed against car dealership
On October 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion allowing consumer protection claims to proceed against a car dealership related to fees added to vehicle purchase prices, while granting two other related entities’ motions to dismiss. The plaintiff’s complaint against the dealership and related entities alleged that the dealership charged her additional mandatory fees when purchasing the vehicle, required her to spend $3,500 on a service contract in order to obtain financing, and charged interest on the contract even though, the plaintiff alleged, the contract constituted a fee related to the extension of credit and therefore was not subject to interest. These actions, the plaintiff alleged, violated TILA, the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, and the Consumer Service Contract Act (CSCA). According to the plaintiff, the contracts contained cancellation provisions that guaranteed a full refund if a request was submitted within a specified period with a guaranteed 10 percent penalty for each 30-day period for which the refund was unpaid. The plaintiff executed timely refund requests but claimed that the entities failed to refund the fees within the allotted contractual period. In separate motions to dismiss, the entities argued that, while the allegations could be considered contractual breaches, they were not sufficient to constitute violations under the alleged consumer protection statutes. The court agreed and granted the entities’ motions, ruling that their contract language complied with the CSCA and that, although the entities allegedly failed to perform under their contracts, they would only have violated the CFA if they knew at the time the contract was formed that they did not intend to fulfill their contractual duties. Moreover, the court referred to a New Jersey Supreme Court holding, which said that a breach of warranty or contract, “‘is not per se unfair or unconscionable. . .and. . .alone does not violate a consumer protection statute” unless there are “substantial aggravating circumstances.” As such, the court determined, the entities’ alleged breaches of the cancellation provisions were not “‘unconscionable commercial practices’” as required under the CFA. However, the plaintiff can amend her claims.
Moreover, the court ruled that the allegations against the dealership can proceed, and denied the dealership’s bid to send the case to arbitration. According to the court, the dealership’s argument that it never received notices that the plaintiff had initiated arbitration proceedings because of a “clerical error” or a wrong mailing address were unpersuasive, and referred to the American Arbitration Association’s decision to decline “to administer the case due to the failure of [the dealership] to pay the required arbitration fees.”
DOJ sues Maryland car dealership for ECOA violations
On September 30, the DOJ announced it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that a Maryland used car dealership and its owner and manager violated ECOA by offering different terms of credit based on race to consumers seeking to finance cars. According to the complaint, between September 2017 and April 2018, compliance testing done by the DOJ concluded that the defendants’ “actions, policies, and practices discriminate against applicants on the basis of race with respect to credit transactions…by offering more favorable terms to white testers than to African American testers with similar credit characteristics.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that African American testers were, among other things, (i) told they needed higher down payment amounts than white testers for the same car; (ii) quoted higher bi-weekly payments for “buy here, pay here” financing than white testers for the same car; and (iii) not offered to fund down payments in two installments, as compared to white testers. The DOJ also alleges that the conduct was “intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of the rights of others” and seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief.
CFPB issues summer 2019 Supervisory Highlights
On September 13, the CFPB released its summer 2019 Supervisory Highlights, which outlines its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of automobile loan origination, credit card account management, debt collection, furnishing, and mortgage origination. The findings of the report cover examinations that generally were completed between December 2018 and March 2019. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Auto loan origination. The Bureau noted that one or more examinations found that guaranteed asset protection (GAP) products were sold to consumers with low loan-to-value (LTV) loans, resulting in those consumers purchasing a product that was not beneficial to them. The Bureau concluded these sales were an abusive practice, as “the lenders took unreasonable advantage of the consumers’ lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product.”
- Credit card account management. The Bureau found several issues with credit card account servicing, including violations of Regulation Z for failing to clearly and conspicuously provide disclosures required by triggering terms in online advertisements and for offsetting consumers’ credit card debt against funds that the consumers had on deposit with the issuers without sufficient indication that the consumer intended to grant a security interest in those funds.
- Debt collection. The Bureau noted violations of the FDCPA’s prohibition on falsely representing the amount due when debt collectors claimed and collected interest that was not authorized by the underlying contracts between the debt collectors and the creditors.
- Credit information furnishing. The Bureau found multiple violations of the FCRA, including furnishers failing to complete dispute investigations within the required time period and failing to promptly send corrections or updates to all applicable credit reporting agencies after a determination that the information was no longer accurate.
- Mortgage origination. The Bureau noted that creditors had violated Regulation Z by disclosing inaccurate APRs for closed-end reverse mortgages and also by using a unit-period of one month instead of one year to calculate the total annual loan cost (TALC) rate and the future value of all advances, leading to inaccurate TALC disclosures.
The report notes that in response to most examination findings, the companies have taken, or are taking, remedial and corrective actions, including by identifying and compensating impacted consumers and updating their policies and procedures to prevent future violations.
Lastly, the report also highlights the Bureau’s recently issued rules and guidance.
CFPB updates auto finance section of the Supervision and Examinations Manual
On August 28, the CFPB updated its examination procedures for automobile finance in its Supervision and Examinations Manual. The procedures are comprised of seven modules and each examination will cover one or more modules. Prior to using the procedures, examiners will complete a risk assessment and examination scope memorandum, which will assist in determining which of the seven modules the exam will cover: (i) company business model; (ii) advertising and marketing; (iii) application and origination; (iv) payment processing and account maintenance; (v) collections, debt restructuring, repossession, and accounts in bankruptcy; (vi) credit reporting, information sharing, and privacy; and (vii) examiner conclusions and wrap-up.
Florida AG settles UDAP action with auto dealership
On August 5, the Florida attorney general announced a $1.2 million settlement with a Florida auto dealership and its owner (defendants) for allegedly violating the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by failing to pay off outstanding liens on vehicle trade-ins. According to a complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, the AG initiated an investigation alleging that the defendants, among other things, accumulated unpaid obligations of more than $1.2 million to lienholders on traded-in vehicles. As a result, consumers were held accountable for the debt and received invoices from the lienholders. For consumers who did not make payments on their trade-ins, the lienholders often reported the defaults to credit bureaus, with, in some instances, the adverse credit reporting affected service members’ security clearances. The AG also noted that in certain circumstances, the lienholder attempted to repossess vehicles that were no longer owned by the consumers. Additionally, the defendants also failed to process title transfers within the statutorily required time frame, which resulted in some consumers experiencing difficulty when trying to obtain financing and insurance on their other vehicles, and others being sold traded-in vehicles without having clear title. In 2018, the dealership was purchased and the outstanding liens paid by the acquiring company. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants have agreed to pay approximately $1.2 million in equitable consumer restitution, $235,000 in civil penalties, and $15,000 for attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants are also permanently enjoined from owning, operating, or managing an auto or truck dealership in the state at any time in the future.