InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies crack down on deceptive Covid-19 treatment claims
On March 3, the FTC, along with the DOJ and FDA, filed a lawsuit against a New York-based marketer of herbal tea for allegedly claiming its tea was clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent Covid-19. The announcement reiterated the agencies’ commitment to cracking down on companies that unlawfully market unproven Covid-19 treatments. According to the joint agency complaint, the defendants’ deceptive marketing claims that their herbal tea product is capable of preventing or treating Covid-19 (and is more effective than Covid-19 vaccines) are not supported by competent or reliable scientific evidence and pose “a significant risk to public health and safety.” Moreover, the defendants have allegedly repeatedly ignored FTC and FDA warnings that their deceptive advertising and misrepresentations violate the FTC Act, the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other remedies to prevent the harms caused by the defendants’ deceptive misrepresentations.
Fed, NYDFS fine Pakistan bank over $50 million for AML deficiencies
On February 24, the Federal Reserve Board and NYDFS announced an enforcement action against a Pakistan-based bank for alleged anti-money laundering (AML) violations. According to the Fed’s consent order and NYDFS’s consent order, following examinations conducted by the Fed and NYDFS in 2014 and 2015, the bank’s New York branch was identified as having deficiencies in its AML compliance and risk management programs, including compliance with related federal laws, rules, and regulations. According to the NYDFS press release, the bank did not comply with a Written Agreement with the Fed and NYDFS entered into in 2016 in which the bank acknowledged oversight and compliance deficiencies and agreed to remediate them. According to NYDFS, “[t]hese continued failures revealed that the Branch’s senior management were unwilling or unable to promote a culture of compliance, adequate resources were not provided for compliance programs, and the Bank failed to adequately supervise the Branch by allowing problems to worsen year after year. The conditions at the Branch demonstrated severe weaknesses, and unsafe, unsound conditions requiring urgent restructuring.”
Under the terms of the consent orders, the bank is required to pay civil money penalties of approximately $20.4 million to the Fed and $35 million to NYDFS. In addition to the monetary penalties, the bank is required to, among other things: (i) create a written plan detailing enhancements to the policies and procedures of the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program, its Suspicious Activity Monitoring and Reporting program, and its customer due diligence requirements; (ii) engage an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the bank’s remediation efforts; and (iii) submit a status report within 60 days regarding a system of internal controls “reasonably designed to ensure compliance with BSA/AML requirements.” NYDFS acknowledged the bank’s “cooperation with the investigation and its ongoing remedial efforts.”
FTC bans debt relief scheme operators
On February 28, the FTC announced the permanent ban of the operators (collectively, “defendants”) of a debt relief scheme from processing debt relief payments and ordered the defendants to pay a $5.3 million fine. According to the FTC’s July 2020 complaint, which was filed jointly with the Florida attorney general in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive and abusive practices by selling their credit card interest rate reduction services to consumers in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The FTC and Florida AG claimed that the defendants utilized telemarketing calls promising to reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates permanently and substantially, and, after posing as representatives or affiliates of consumers’ credit card companies, the defendants allegedly claimed they could save consumers thousands of dollars in credit card interest and enable them to pay off their debt faster. The complaint also asserted that the defendants, at times, opened new credit cards that offered low introductory interest rates and transferred the balances of consumers’ existing debt to the new cards. For that, customers paid upfront fees of between $995 and $4,995 while also paying “substantial” fees to transfer the balances.
Under the terms of the settlement, the operators are permanently prohibited from participating the debt relief industry, misrepresenting material facts in connection with any product or service, and engaging in deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts and practices, unsubstantiated claims, and other payment practices. Two individual defendants agreed to pay a $225,000 monetary penalty and the other defendant agreed to pay $200,000.
FDIC releases January enforcement actions
On February 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. During the month, the FDIC made public nine orders consisting of “four Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one order terminating consent order, one voluntary termination of deposit insurance, and three orders of prohibition from further participation.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Wisconsin-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “fail[ed] to obtain adequate flood insurance for two loans,” and “faile[d] to provide to borrowers a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance within a reasonable time before the completion of the transaction on four loans.” The order requires the payment of a $3,000 civil money penalty. The orders also include pay a civil money penalty order imposed against a Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “made, increased, extended, or renewed a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral”; and (iii) “failed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $16,250 civil money penalty.
Massachusetts settles with auto lender
On February 18, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a national auto lender entered into a settlement with the Commonwealth resolving allegations that the lender did not provide sufficient disclosures to consumers related to its debt collection practices, with over 1,000 borrowers expected to be eligible for relief. According to the Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD), the lender allegedly failed to provide certain consumers with sufficient information about the calculation methods for any deficiencies remaining on their auto loans after their cars were repossessed. The AOD requires the auto lender to pay $5.6 million in restitution to eligible borrowers, and cover administration and investigation costs associated with the matter. According to Massachusetts Attorney General Laura Healey, the “settlement, which combines cash payments with debt relief and credit repair, will help many subprime borrowers in need.”
CFTC orders unregistered respondents to pay $2.6 million for fraudulent solicitations
On February 23, the CFTC announced a $2.6 million settlement with a North Carolina-based company and its president for allegedly acting as unregistered commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators, and for advertising without making required disclosures. Among other things, the respondents allegedly engaged in binary options solicitation and trading fraud through the operation of two webpages and related social media channels. According to the CFTC, the respondents made numerous false statements to solicit business, which claimed that traders could choose from the company owner’s winning strategies to earn significant profits. However, the CFTC stated that the owner was not actually a successful trader and had an overall losing trading record. Additionally, the respondents distributed client testimonials and training videos without providing disclosures required under CFTC regulations. As a result, ten participants lost roughly $410,000 in a managed account trading pool, while approximately 1,600 customers lost at least $945,000 through fraudulent solicitations for binary options signals, trainings, and strategy course offerings. While the respondents did not admit or deny any of the allegations, they agreed to pay $409,965 in restitution, $896,673 in disgorgement, and a $1,306,638 civil monetary penalty. Additionally, the respondents must cease and desist from any further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act or CFTC regulations. The order also permanently bans the respondents from trading on, or trading subject to, the rules of any CFTC-registered entity, and from engaging in any activities requiring CFTC registration. Respondents are also prohibited from, directly or indirectly, entering into any transactions involving commodity interests.
FTC provides 2021 ECOA summary to CFPB
On February 23, the FTC announced it recently provided the CFPB with its annual summary of activities related to ECOA enforcement, focusing specifically on the Commission’s activities with respect to Regulation B. The summary discussed, among other things, the following FTC enforcement, research, and policy development initiatives:
- The FTC filed a joint amicus curiae brief with the CFPB, DOJ, and Federal Reserve Board in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last December asserting that the term “applicant,” as used in ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B, includes both those currently seeking credit as well as persons who have sought and have received credit (i.e., current borrowers). (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Last October, the FTC released a staff report, Serving Communities of Color, that discusses the Commission’s enforcement and outreach efforts related to the impact of fraud on majority Black and Latino communities. One of the studies examined disparities related to payment methods received from consumers who live in communities of color compared to consumers who live in majority White communities. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- The FTC’s Military Task Force continued to work on military consumer protection issues, including military consumers’ “rights to various types of notifications as applicants for credit, including for adverse action, and information about the anti-discrimination provisions, in the ECOA and Regulation B.”
- The FTC continued to participate in the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, along with the CFPB, DOJ, HUD, and federal banking regulatory agencies. The Commission also continued its participation in the Interagency Fair Lending Methodologies Working Group to “coordinate and share information on analytical methodologies used in enforcement of and supervision for compliance with fair lending laws, including the ECOA, among others.”
The summary also highlighted FTC ECOA enforcement actions, business and consumer education efforts on fair lending issues, as well as blog posts discussing discrimination and potential bias affecting protected classes and the risks of using artificial intelligence in automated decision-making.
CFPB releases comment letter on FTC enforcement action
On February 18, the CFPB released a comment letter in response to the FTC’s request for comments on its proposed order with a business credit reporting agency alleging that the respondent engaged in deceptive and unfair practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here). In commending the FTC, the CFPB noted that “there are troubling conflicts of interest when the purveyor of credit reports also sells ancillary services.” The CFPB also discussed that the FCRA “may not have contemplated the serious challenges that small businesses face with respect to business credit reports and associated services such as the provision of credit scores,” and that small business “may not benefit” from the FCRA. The Bureau noted that “[b]usiness credit reporting companies should not be able to unfairly harm a small business’s and their owner’s or operator’s financing opportunities.” In supporting “greater remedial authorities for the FTC to be more in line with other civil law enforcement agencies,” the comment letter argued that “[s]tronger authorities for the FTC may help to remediate this full range of harms,” and that the Bureau “stands ready to work with the FTC and other federal and state law enforcement partners to examine whether there are other unlawful practices related to small business credit reporting by other providers.” According to the CFPB, the Bureau will be working with the FTC “to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly when it comes to accessing loans.” The CFPB also noted that it is “working on a rule to shine more light on small business lending, by gathering more data about whether and how small businesses are able to access credit,” and will provide regulators the opportunity “to understand the landscape of credit availability to small businesses that for too long have had to rely on opaque business credit reporting agencies as gatekeepers of financing,” according to the comment letter.
SEC announces $6.3 million FCPA settlement with largest South Korean telecommunications company
On February 17, the SEC announced that South Korea’s largest telecommunications company agreed to pay $6.3 million to settle the SEC’s claims that the company violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA. According to the SEC, the company “lacked sufficient internal accounting controls over expenses, including executive bonuses and purchases of gift cards, which enabled managers and executives to generate slush funds.” This allegedly allowed company employees to provide improper benefits and payments to government officials in Korea and Vietnam and to seek business from government customers.
With respect to the company’s conduct in Korea, the SEC alleged that from “at least 2009 through 2017, high-level [company executives] maintained slush funds, comprised of both off-the-books accounts and physical stashes of cash, in order to provide items of value to government officials, among others.” These slush funds were then allegedly used for gifts and entertainment, as well as illegal political contributions to Korean government officials who had the ability to influence company business. The SEC also stated that between 2015 and 2016, the company allegedly made more than $1.6 million in payments to three organizations at the request of high-level government officials. All these payments were recorded as either charitable donations or sponsorships, and the company took no measures to determine whether the payments were legitimate donations, the SEC said.
Concerning the company’s conduct in Vietnam, the SEC alleged that between 2014 and 2018, company employees “internally discussed providing money to third parties connected to government officials in Vietnam in order to obtain contracts for two projects.” The company allegedly arranged with a construction company to pay roughly $95,000 to a high-level official in 2014 in order to obtain a contract, and then later allegedly falsely booked a $200,000 payment to the construction company as “[s]upport/consulting for performance of the business (completed).” During this time, the SEC claimed the company “lacked sufficient internal accounting controls regarding third parties and no relevant compliance policies regarding due diligence,” and allegedly “took no meaningful steps in response to allegations of improper payments in connection with the contracts.”
Without admitting or denying wrongdoing, the company consented to a cease and desist order, and agreed to pay approximately $3.5 million in civil penalties and $2.8 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The company and 14 executives were indicted by South Korean authorities in November 2021 for criminal violations related to political contributions.
FCC proposes record $45 million fine against robocaller
On February 18, the FCC released a proposed $45 million fine against a lead generator accused of conducting an illegal robocall campaign that made false claims about the Covid-19 pandemic to induce consumers into purchasing health insurance. This is the FCC’s largest ever proposed robocall fine to date. According to the FCC, the lead generator violated the TCPA by placing 514,467 robocalls to cellphones and landlines without subscribers’ prior express consent or an emergency purpose. The Florida-based lead generator allegedly purchased lists of phone numbers from third-party vendors and acquired phone numbers from consumers seeking health insurance quotes online, “without clearly disclosing that, by providing contact information, the consumers would be subject to robocalls.” It then left prerecorded voice messages marketing insurance plans sold by companies that had hired the lead generator. Many of these robocalls, the FTC claimed, were also unlawfully made to consumers on the Do Not Call Registry. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel issued a statement announcing that, in addition to the record fine, the Commission also established a new partnership with 16 state attorneys general in order to share information and resources to mitigate robocalls.