InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC names Ted Dowd as Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel
On February 23, the OCC announced that Ted Dowd will serve as the Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel for the agency while the OCC searches for a successor to Ben McDonough. Dowd is currently the Deputy Chief Counsel, a position he has fulfilled since 2018 where he oversaw the operations of all OCC district counsel offices. Under the new position, Dowd will oversee all legal aspects of the OCC, as well as support the agency’s activities in bank chartering, supervision, enforcement, and rulemaking, among others. This positional change will go into effect on April 8 when the current OCC Chief Counsel Ben McDonough begins a new position at another agency.
FTC takes action against tax prep company for alleged unfair and deceptive practices
On February 23, the FTC announced an action against a tax preparation company for alleged unfair and deceptive acts and practices related to the sale of tax preparation products and services. The FTC alleged in its redacted administrative complaint that the defendant unfairly pushed consumers into paying for more expensive tax preparation products. The FTC further alleged the company made it unnecessarily difficult to downgrade the consumer’s tax preparation plan, both by requiring the consumer to first speak with a representative and by requiring the consumer to re-input the data if the consumer chooses to downgrade to the lower-priced product. The FTC also stated that the company’s upgrade policy, in contrast, is notably simple compared to its downgrade policy, and consumers’ “data seamlessly moves to the more expensive product instantly.” The FTC also claimed that the company’s “file for free” advertisements are deceptive because not all consumers’ tax situations are eligible for the free service.
This action follows the FTC’s action against another tax preparation software provider last month (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC provides its 2023 ECOA activities to CFPB
On February 12, the FTC provided the CFPB with an annual summary of its 2023 enforcement, research and policy development, and educational-related initiatives on ECOA, as Dodd-Frank allows the Commission to enforce ECOA and any CFPB rules applicable to entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction. The letter emphasized the commitment of each agency to enforce laws protecting civil rights, fair competition, consumer protection, and equal opportunity in the development and use of automated systems and artificial intelligence. Additionally, the letter stated the FTC continued its involvement in initiatives such as military outreach and participation in interagency task forces on fair lending. Its initiatives focused on consumer and business education regarding issues related to Regulation B and guiding fair lending practices. The Commission also highlighted (1) an enforcement action against a group of auto dealerships alleging ECOA and its implementing Regulation B violations in connection with the sale of add-on products; (2) refund checks sent as a result of the settlement of two enforcement actions against auto dealerships in which it was alleged that the dealerships violated ECOA and Regulation B by discrimination against Black and Latino consumers by charging them higher financing costs; and (3) an amicus brief submitted to an appeals court in support of the CFPB’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the lower court’s decision regarding the applicability of ECOA to individuals other than “applicants.”
FTC encourages potential defendants to sign tolling agreements to avoid "undue delay"
On February 20, Samuel Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in an FTC blog post, that although the FTC welcomes open dialogue with parties in open investigations, the Commission is prepared to quickly pivot to litigation in cases should companies cause “undue delay” to redress for consumers. In light of a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the FTC can no longer pursue monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which lacks a statute of limitations. Instead, the FTC said, it frequently turns to Section 19, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, which allows courts to order defendants to provide redress only if violations occurred within three years of the Commission’s action. To facilitate timely productive discussions, the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection often requests tolling agreements from potential defendants to provide time for information gathering and dialogue while preserving the possibility of a pre-litigation settlement or closing the investigation in appropriate cases. Parties are encouraged to sign these agreements, as refusal may impact extension requests and meeting opportunities. If necessary, the FTC will recommend litigation to protect consumer interests.
California Attorney General settles with food delivery company for allegedly violating two state privacy acts
On February 21, the California State Attorney General Office announced its complaint against a food delivery company for allegedly violating the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (CalOPPA) for failing to provide consumers notice or an opportunity to opt-out of the sale.
The CCPA requires businesses that sell personal information to make specific disclosures and give consumers the right to opt out of the sale. Under the CCPA, a company must disclose a privacy policy and post an “easy-to-find ‘Do Not Sell My Personal Information’ link.” The California AG alleged that the company provided neither notice. The AG also alleged that the company violated CalOPPA by not making required privacy policy disclosures. The company’s existing disclosures indicated that the company could only use customer data to present someone with advertisements, but not give that information to other businesses to use.
The proposed stipulated judgment, if approved by a court, will require the company to pay a $375,000 civil money penalty, and to (i) comply with CCPA and CalOPPA requirements; (ii) review contracts with vendors to evaluate how the company is sharing personal information; and (iii) provide annual reports to the AG on potential sales or sharing personal information.
New York State Attorney General wins $77 million judgment against short-term lenders for predatory lending
On February 8, New York State Attorney General (AG) Letitia James announced a more than $77 million judgment against three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies for usury and fraud based on allegations the lenders used short-term loans to charge illegally high-interest and undisclosed fees.
In a June 2020 announcement, Attorney General James detailed her office’s investigation, which concluded that the companies employed practices including (i) extending MCAs to small business owners at illegal interest rates over short durations; (ii) imposing undisclosed fees; (iii) withdrawing excess amounts from merchants’ bank accounts; and (iv) procuring judgments against merchants through the submission of falsified affidavits in New York State courts.
The judgment follows a September 2023 court decision finding violations of New York’s prohibitions against, among other things, usury and predatory lending, and requiring the companies to cease collections and to repay thousands of small businesses the interest they paid. The companies were ordered to provide the full restitution and damages within 60 days to all merchants who entered into MCAs, including refunding all amounts taken from merchants or their guarantors in connection with the MCAs, minus the principal amounts funded to the borrowers. After the companies failed to pay the damages, the AG sought the entry of the monetary judgment from the court.
FTC, DFPI win MSJ against a fraudulent mortgage relief operation
On February 13, the FTC and California Department of Financial Protection (DFPI) announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted their motion for summary judgment against several companies and owners that the agencies alleged were operating a fraudulent mortgage relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and DFPI filed a joint complaint against the defendants in September 2022 alleging that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (the MARS Rule or Regulation O), the Telemarking Sales Rule, the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court found the defendants violated all five laws. According to the motion, the defendants falsely represented that they could lower homeowners’ interest rates and reduce the principal balances, but, after taking the payment upfront, rarely delivered any agreed-upon services. The defendants also allegedly made misleading claims during telemarketing calls with homeowners regarding home foreclosure and mortgage payments, among other claims, including with homeowners with numbers on the national Do Not Call registry.
The court ordered the defendants to pay approximately $16 million in restitution and $3 million in civil penalties. Further, the court ordered that the defendants are subject to a (i) permanent ban on advertising, promoting, offering for sale, or selling, or assisting others in those acts, any debt relief product or service and all telemarketing; and (ii) prohibition against making misrepresentations or unsubstantiated claims regarding products or services.
Broker-dealer settles AML allegations with FINRA
On February 12, FINRA settled allegations with a Florida-based broker-dealer for failing to implement reasonable procedures requiring escalation of potentially suspicious trading activity. Closely following the SEC and DFPI’s recent enforcement action (covered by InfoBytes here), the company, without admitting or denying the allegations, agreed to pay a $700,000 fine to settle claims regarding its failure to effectively implement anti-money laundering (AML) programs. FINRA claimed that the company did not adequately equip its analysts to review and address trading alerts related to suspicious activities by customers, which could total up to 100 alerts per trading day. Additionally, the company allegedly lacked proper written procedures in connection with the acceptance and resale of low-priced securities as required to comply with Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 in violation of FINRA Rules. FINRA also noted that, despite being aware that improvements to the AML program were necessary as early as 2016, the company did not fully implement recommended improvements until March 2022. In issuing the fine, FINRA highlighted that the company was fined for similar AML violations back in 2011 and emphasized instances where the company’s analysts failed to escalate suspicious activity to the AML department in a timely manner, leading to regulatory inquiries and subpoenas regarding certain customers’ practices.
CFPB secures $12 million after decade-old complaint against foreclosure relief scam company
On February 8, the CFPB announced the resolution of an enforcement action, begun in 2014, against a foreclosure relief operation that allegedly violated Regulation O. After a decade of court orders, opinions, and appeals, on February 5, 2024, the defendants and the CFPB jointly agreed to the dismissal of their respective appeals and on February 7, 2024, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the parties’ appeals. The final settlement required the defendants to pay $10.9 million in consumer redress and a $1.1 million penalty. The enforcement action notes that the defendants remain “subject to the bans” under the district court’s 2022 order.
The CFPB had alleged that the defendants violated Reg. O by taking payments from consumers for (i) mortgage modifications before they signed an agreement from their lender; (ii) failing to make required disclosures; (iii) directing consumers not to contact lenders; and (iv) making deceptive statements to consumers. As previously reported by InfoBytes, the CFPB and the Florida Attorney General obtained a judgment against this group in May 2015 for parallel violations.
SEC charges alleged hedge fund with defrauding $1.2 million from investors
On February 2, the SEC issued a complaint which charged a company for allegedly raising $1.2 million from 15 investors through an offer and sale of fraudulent securities for a hedge fund. The company raised this money from 2017-2018 and offered securities that would be used to form a hedge fund and invest in crypto-assets using “specific” investment strategies. (The company ostensibly managed the hedge fund, but the hedge fund never appeared to be created.)
The company made several misrepresentations which the SEC claimed violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These alleged misrepresentations included the founder’s background and education, the demand for and size of the proposed hedge fund, and the investment scheme to grow a return for investors. The investors were given an investor pitch deck that put forth the hedge fund’s terms, investment strategy, and management team. Then, the investors gave a minimum investment of $1 million; however, the hedge fund investors were offered the opportunity to invest for less than $1 million through a separate entity.
Through this, the SEC alleged that the company violated the federal securities law and put forth two claims for relief. The SEC permanently enjoins the company from issuing, buying, offering, or selling any security, including crypto-assets. No civil monetary judgment has been offered.