InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC releases enforcement actions
On February 17, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included in the release is a formal agreement between OCC and an Alabama-based bank on January 31 in connection with alleged unsafe or unsound practices relating to strategic planning, loan portfolio management, and internal audits. The agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board on a quarterly basis; and (iii) develop, implement, and adhere to a written risk-based internal audit program.
FTC publishes ANPR on bogus money-making opportunities
On February 17, the FTC announced an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), which “launched a proceeding to challenge bogus money-making claims used to lure consumers, workers, and prospective entrepreneurs into risky business ventures that often turn into dead-end debt traps.” According to the FTC, a rule in this area would permit “the Commission to recover redress for defrauded consumers, and seek steep penalties against the multilevel marketers, for-profit colleges, ‘gig economy’ platforms, and other bad actors who prey on people’s hopes for economic advancement.” The FTC summarized recent actions against “coaching or mentoring schemes, multi-level marketing companies, work-from-home, e-commerce, or other business opportunity scams, chain referral schemes, gig companies and employers, job scams, and businesses purporting to offer educational opportunities,” but noted that “the recent Supreme Court decision in the AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act.” (Covered by InfoBytes here). The ANPR gives notice of a new possibility of rulemaking for false, misleading, and unsubstantiated earnings claims, and, if adopted, the FTC will have the ability to return money to consumers injured by deceptive income claims, while holding bad actors accountable with civil penalties. The ANPR also solicits public comment on: (i) whether earnings claims are prevalent among all or only some industries; (ii) how a rule addressing earnings claims should be drafted; (iii) the benefits to consumers from such a rule and the costs to businesses; and (iv) whether the potential rule should address disclaimers, lifestyle claims, or liability for agents’ claims.
Education Dept. to forgive $72 million of student loans after FTC action
On February 16, the FTC announced that the Department of Education (Department) will forgive $71.7 million in federal loans for approximately 1,800 former students deceived by a for-profit university. In 2016, the FTC sued university operators for allegedly advertising that 90 percent of graduates found jobs in their fields within six months of graduation, and that graduates had a 15 percent higher income on average than graduates of all other colleges or universities one year after graduation. The announcement expands on a prior FTC settlement, which required the university to pay $49.4 million in partial refunds to qualifying students and $50.6 million in debt relief. The forgiven debt included the full balance owned on all private unpaid student loans issued by the university to students as well as debts for items such as tuition, books, and lab fees. According to the Department’s announcement, these are the first approved borrower defense claims associated with a currently operating institution. The Department noted that it intends to recoup discharge costs from the university and anticipates an increase in the number of approved claims related to the university as it continues to review pending applications.
The Department stated in total it is cancelling $415 million in student loan debt under the borrower defense to repayment program, noting that several other actions will provide borrower defense discharges to nearly 14,000 borrowers attending other colleges and universities. “The Department remains committed to giving borrowers discharges when the evidence shows their college violated the law and standards,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. The Department further noted that it is working on new regulations to improve the borrower defense to repayment program, as well as other discharge programs to provide more protections for students and taxpayers. “This includes writing a new borrower defense regulation, proposing to re-establish a gainful employment regulation to hold career training programs accountable for unaffordable debt, and proposing to create financial triggers so that the Department has monetary protection against potential losses, including borrower defense liabilities,” the Department said in its announcement.
FTC hits investment scheme with $111 million judgment
On February 16, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection reached a settlement in an action taken against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection claimed that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law by marketing real estate events with false claims and using celebrity endorsements. The defendants allegedly promised consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “a minimum of three times” the price of the workshop within six months. Additionally, consumers who received refunds were allegedly required to sign agreements preventing them from speaking with the FTC, state attorneys general, and other regulators; submitting complaints to the Better Business Bureau; or posting negative reviews. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are, among other things, permanently banned from marketing or selling any real estate or business coaching programs, and are restrained from making misleading earnings claims or misrepresenting any material aspect of the performance or nature of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer. Additionally, the defendants are permanently banned from using contract terms to suppress customers’ ability to review their products or speak to law enforcement agencies, and may not release customer information in connection with any activity related to the subject matter of the order. The settlement also includes monetary judgments totaling more than $111 million.
FTC sues weight-loss companies alleging COPPA and FTC Act violations
On February 16, the FTC filed a complaint for permanent injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against an international weight loss service organization and its subsidy (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using unfair and deceptive practices to obtain personal information of underage users without parental consent. According to the complaint, the defendants violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act by collecting and keeping personal information from children under 13 without providing notice to or obtaining consent from their parents. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, failed to: (i) “provide through the App and website a clear, understandable, and complete direct notice to parents of [the] Defendants’ practices”; (ii) “make reasonable efforts, taking into account available technology, to ensure that parents receive the direct notice”; and (iii) “obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children.” The proposed settlement is pending court approval.
Courts order VoIP providers to give information to FTC
On February 14, the FTC announced that two federal courts in California ordered two Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers to produce information that the agency is seeking as part of a continuing investigation into possible illegal robocalls. According to the first order, the VoIP service provider is required to comply with a CID as part of an FTC investigation. According to the FTC, “[a]lthough the CID directed [the respondent] to produce selected information and documents by the end of February 2021, the company produced only a small fraction of the required information, even after receiving an extension of the response deadline from Commission staff.” The FTC filed a petition in federal court seeking to compel compliance with the CID when further efforts to cooperate with the respondent were “unsuccessful.” The assigned magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in December 2021, finding “that the FTC is entitled to enforcement of the remainder of the CID,” and recommending that the district judge enter an order requiring the respondent to comply. The court accepted that recommendation, and issued an order compelling the respondent’s compliance with the CID. The second VoIP service provider was likewise ordered to turn over information required under an FTC CID, issued to in January 2021. After failing to respond to the CID, the FTC filed suit to enforce compliance and claimed that “neither the company nor its principals had responded to the CID, which ‘materially impeded the FTC’s investigation.’” According to the FTC, the court granted the FTC’s petition, and in response, the respondent turned over the required information.
Appeals Court to consider whether CFPA covers trusts
On February 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware stayed a 2017 CFPB enforcement action against a collection of Delaware statutory trusts and their debt collector after determining there may be room for reasonable disagreement related to questions of “covered persons” and “timeliness.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last December the court ruled that the CFPB could proceed with the enforcement action, which alleged, among other things, that the defendants filed lawsuits against consumers for private student loan debt that they could not prove was owed or that was outside the applicable statute of limitations. The court concluded that the suit was still valid and did not need ratification in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law v. CFPB (which determined that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau—covered by a Buckley Special Alert), upending its previous dismissal of the case, which had held that the Bureau lacked enforcement authority to bring the action when its structure was unconstitutional. At the time, the court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that, as trusts, they are not “covered persons” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). While the defendants argued that they used subservicers to collect debt and therefore did not “engage in” providing services listed in the CFPA, the court stated that the trusts were still “engaged” in their business and the alleged misconduct even though they contracted it out.
However, the court now certified two questions for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The first question centers on whether the defendants qualify as “covered persons” subject to the Bureau’s enforcement authority. The court concluded that another court may rule differently on this “novel” issue. “I was the first judge to decide whether the Bureau may bring enforcement actions against creditors like the Trusts who contract out debt collection and loan servicing,” the judge wrote, noting that the judge previously assigned to the case had also “expressed ‘some doubt’ that the Trusts are covered persons.” The second question addresses the Bureau’s efforts to continue the case after Seila. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed because the initial filing was invalid due to the director’s unconstitutional insulation and was not ratified within the statute of limitations. In December the court had held that the Bureau did not need to ratify the suit because—pointing to the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here)—“‘an unconstitutional removal restriction does not invalidate agency action so long as the agency head was properly appointed[,]’” and therefore the agency’s actions are not void and do not need to be ratified, unless a plaintiff can show that “the agency action would not have been taken but for the President’s inability to remove the agency head.” The court now acknowledged, however, that Collins “is a very recent Supreme Court decision” whose scope is still being “hashed out” in lower courts, which therefore “suggests that there is room for reasonable disagreement and thus supports an interlocutory appeal here.”
SEC, states reach $100 million settlement over crypto lending product
On February 14, the SEC and state regulators reached a $100 million settlement with a New Jersey-based financial services company in parallel actions to resolve allegations that the company failed to register the offers and sales of its retail credit lending product—marking the SEC’s “first-of-its-kind action” taken with respect to crypto lending platforms. According to the SEC, the company offered a product whereby retail investors lent crypto assets to the company “in exchange for the company’s promise to provide a variable monthly interest payment.” Among other things, the SEC found that because the company’s product are securities under applicable law, the company was required to register its offers and sales of the product or qualify for an exemption—both of which the company failed to do. The company also allegedly violated the Securities Act by making misleading statements on its website concerning its collateral practices and the level of risk in its loan portfolio and lending activity. Additionally, the company allegedly violated the Investment Company Act by engaging in interstate commerce while failing to register as an investment company with the SEC. While the company neither admitted nor denied the findings, it agreed to pay $50 million to the SEC and another $50 million to 32 states to settle similar charges. The company also agreed to cease engaging in unregistered offers and sales of its product, and will stop offering or selling its product in the U.S. Additionally, the company’s parent company stated its intention to register the offer and sale of a new lending product under the Securities Act.
Fed announces enforcement action against Illinois bank
On February 10, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against an Illinois-based bank. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly violated the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The order assesses a $253,500 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
DOJ announces $31,000 FCA settlement for duplicative PPP loans
On February 11, the DOJ announced a $31,000 settlement with an IT services company to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by obtaining more than one Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan in 2020. According to the settlement agreement, in April 2020 the company received two SBA-guaranteed PPP loans through two different banks. The company agreed to repay the duplicative PPP loan in full to its lender, relieving the SBA of liability. The settlement press release also noted that the settlement with the company resolved a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the FCA, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the U.S. for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery.