InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York FY 2024 budget proposes to end unfair overdraft practices
On February 1, the New York governor released the state’s FY 2024 budget proposal, which includes measures for ending certain bank overdraft and insufficient fee practices. Specifically, the proposed legislation would amend section 9-y of the banking law to grant authority to the NYDFS superintendent to promulgate regulations related to (i) supervised banking organizations’ transaction processing practices; (ii) the charges (including overdraft and insufficient funds fees) that banks may impose in connection with dishonored transactions; and (iii) associated disclosures provided to consumers regarding how transactions are processed and any associated fees. In an accompanying budget briefing book, the governor said the proposed measures are part of “nation-leading legislation that comprehensively addresses abusive bank fee practices, which tend to disproportionally harm low- and moderate-income New Yorkers.” Proposed actions include “stopping the opportunistic sequencing of transactions in a way designed to maximize fees charged to consumers, ending other unfair overdraft and non-sufficient funds fee practices, and ensuring clear disclosures and alerts of any permissible bank processing charges.”
CFPB releases regulatory agenda
Recently, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s fall 2022 regulatory agenda. Key rulemaking initiatives that the agency expects to initiate or continue include:
- Overdraft and NSF fees. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation Z with respect to special rules for determining whether overdraft fees are considered finance charges. According to the Bureau, the rules, which were created when Regulation Z was adopted in 1969, have remained largely unchanged despite the fact that the nature of overdraft services has significantly changed over the years. The Bureau is also considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November regarding non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees. The Bureau commented that while NSF fees have been a significant source of fee revenue for depository institutions, recently some institutions have voluntarily stopped charging such fees.
- FCRA rulemaking. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation V, which implements the FCRA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on January 3, the Bureau issued its annual report covering information gathered by the Bureau regarding certain consumer complaints on the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted that the Bureau “will be exploring new rules to ensure that [the CRAs] are following the law, rather than cutting corners to fuel their profit model.”
- Section 1033 rulemaking. Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank provides that covered entities, such as banks, must make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning consumer financial products or services that the consumer obtains from the covered entity. Over the past several years, the Bureau has engaged in a series of rulemaking steps to prescribe standards for this requirement, including the release of a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The outline presents items under consideration that “would specify rules requiring certain covered persons that are data providers to make consumer financial information available to a consumer directly and to those third parties the consumer authorizes to access such information on the consumer’s behalf, such as a data aggregator or data recipient (authorized third parties).” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau anticipates issuing a SBREFA report in February.
- Amendments to FIRREA concerning automated valuation models. The Bureau is participating in interagency rulemaking with the Fed, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by Dodd-Frank to FIRREA concerning appraisal automated valuation models (AVMs). The FIRREA amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for AVMs. The Bureau released a SBREFA outline and report in February and May 2022 respectively (covered by InfoBytes here), and estimates that the agencies will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in March.
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. The Bureau issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in March 2019 to extend TILA’s ability-to-repay requirements to PACE transactions. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau is working to develop a proposed rule to implement Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act Section 307 in April.
- Nonbank registration. The Bureau issued an NPRM in December to enhance market monitoring and risk-based supervision efforts by including all final public written orders and judgments (including any consent and stipulated orders and judgments) obtained or issued by any federal, state, or local government agency for violation of certain consumer protection laws related to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in a database of enforcement actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In a separate agenda item, the Bureau states that the NPRM would also require supervised nonbanks to register with the Bureau and provide information about their use of certain terms and conditions in standard-form contracts. The Bureau proposes “to collect information on standard terms used in contracts that are not subject to negotiating or that are not prominently advertised in marketing.”
- Credit card penalty fees. The Bureau issued an ANPRM last June to solicit information from credit card issuers, consumer groups, and the public regarding credit card late fees and late payments, and card issuers’ revenue and expenses. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the CARD Act rules inherited by the Bureau from the Fed, credit card late fees must be “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by the issuer as a result of a late payment. Calling the current credit card late fees “excessive,” the Bureau stated it intends to review the “immunity provision” to understand how banks that rely on this safe harbor set their fees and to examine whether banks are escaping enforcement scrutiny “if they set fees at a particular level, even if the fees were not necessary to deter a late payment and generated excess profits.” The Bureau is considering comments received on the ANPRM as it develops an NPRM that may be released this month.
- Small business rulemaking. Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank amended ECOA to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses, and directed the Bureau to promulgate rules for this reporting. An NPRM was issued in August 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule later this month.
CFPB fines bank over auto loan, mortgage, and deposit account allegations
On December 20, the CFPB announced a consent order against a national bank for allegedly mismanaging auto loans, mortgages, and deposit accounts. According to the Bureau, the bank allegedly engaged in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in violation of the CFPA by, among other things: (i) incorrectly processing auto-loan payments; (ii) assessing borrowers erroneous fees and interest due to technology, audit, and compliance failures; (iii) incorrectly denying mortgage loan modification applications; (iv) failing to ensure that unearned Guaranteed Asset Protection fees were refunded to borrowers who paid off their loans; (v) incorrectly denying mortgage loan modification applications and miscalculated fees; and (vi) charging “surprise” overdraft fees on debit card transactions and ATM withdrawals because, according to the Bureau, consumers “believed that if they had enough money to cover the relevant transaction when it was authorized they would not incur an [o]verdraft fee.”
Under the terms of the consent order, the bank is required to pay redress totaling more than $2 billion to allegedly harmed customers. Specifically, the bank is ordered to pay approximately: (i) $1.3 billion in consumer redress for affected auto lending accounts; (ii) $500 million in consumer redress for affected deposit accounts, including $205 million for illegal surprise overdraft fees; and (iii) nearly $200 million in consumer redress for affected mortgage servicing accounts. Among other things, the bank is prohibited from charging overdraft fees for deposit accounts when the consumer had available funds at the time of a purchase or other debit transaction, but then subsequently had a negative balance once the transaction settled. The bank is also ordered to pay a $1.7 billion civil penalty to the Bureau. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra released a statement following the announcement saying the order does not provide immunity for any individuals nor does it release claims for any ongoing illegal acts or practices.
The bank issued a press release stating that “[c]urrent leadership has made significant progress to transform the bank,” and noting that “the CFPB recognized that since 2020, the company has accelerated corrective actions and remediation, including to address the matters covered by today’s settlement.”
Chopra testifies at congressional hearings
On December 14, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra testified at a hearing titled Consumers First: Semi-Annual Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau held by the House Financial Services Committee on the CFPB’s most recent semi-annual report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra’s prepared statement focused on: (i) the current state of the economy and household finance; (ii) promoting an open, competitive, and a decentralized market; and (iii) actions by Congress where bipartisan support is expected. Chopra also cited concerns regarding the accuracy of medical debt credit reporting and noted that the CFPB is continuing “to examine how medical debt burdens are impacting household balance sheets.”
House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised Chopra’s leadership in her opening statement, stating that the Bureau has combated “redlining, housing discrimination, illegal evictions, and foreclosures, and has worked tirelessly to root out appraisal bias.” However, Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-PA) argued that the Bureau’s “lack of transparency is of grave concern.” McHenry discussed the CFPB’s six compliance bulletins, five advisory opinions, five interpretive rules, and seven circulars published this year, which he considers to have fostered “uncertainty” within the financial services industry. McHenry also warned Chopra that he can expect “much more thorough” oversight next year when Republicans take control of the House and when McHenry becomes the chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
During the hearing, Chopra acknowledged that the Bureau's Section 1071 Rulemaking “is on track to issue a final rule by March 31, 2023”—a deadline established by court order in July as a result of a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, related to the collection of small business lending data (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra added that the Bureau wants to ensure it has “an implementation period that gives the smaller firms more time, and the ability to make sure it’s not duplicative with existing requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act.”
During the hearing, Republican committee members inquired about the agency’s creation and use of the term “junk fees” to describe, among other things, legal fees that banks charge for financial products and services. According to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) “there is no such word in financial services lexicon,” and the Bureau is “making up a word and then using it to go out and enforce something that doesn’t exist.” Republican committee members also inquired about the Bureau’s recent updates to its UDAAP exam manual. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in March, the CFPB announced significant revisions to its UDAAP exam manual, in particular highlighting the CFPB’s view that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service. Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) commented that “this is not interpretive guidance,” and said Chopra is “trying to change the law.”
Chopra reiterated the Bureau’s priorities in his December 15 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. During the hearing, Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) noted that Republican lawmakers proposed legislation to subject the CFPB to appropriations and to change the CFPB's single-director structure to a commission. Chopra was also questioned by Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) who raised concerns regarding the Bureau’s “overreach and pursuit of a politicized agenda.” He further argued that “the Dodd-Frank Act exempted the CFPB from appropriations,” and “empowers the CFPB to simply take funds from the Fed, which is itself also not subject to appropriation, thereby doubly insulating the CFPB from any congressional control.” Other topics discussed during the hearing included, among other things, military lending, credit cards, and overdraft fees.
District Court approves $4.24 million overdraft settlement
On December 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval to a $4.24 million class action settlement resolving allegations related to a defendant bank’s overdraft fee practices. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract claims related to the defendant’s practice of charging overdraft fees on checks and automated clearing house transactions that were paid by the defendant despite customer accounts having insufficient funds. The overdraft fees were allegedly charged after the transaction was resubmitted by a merchant or third party after having previously been returned unpaid by the defendant for insufficient funds. The parties reached a settlement in which the defendant will pay $4.24 million into a settlement fund to provide relief to class members (defined as all current and former consumer checking account holders who were charged at least one retry overdraft fee). The settlement also include $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees. A service award for the class representative was denied, however, with the court explaining that the law in its circuit makes “clear that incentive awards ‘that compensate a class representative for [her] time and rewards her for bringing a lawsuit’ are prohibited.”
District Court says consumer not provided meaningful opportunity to opt-out of arbitration provision
On December 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a defendant bank’s motion to compel arbitration in an action alleging the bank’s policy on overdraft fees caused customers to pay fees on accounts that were allegedly “never actually overdrawn.” Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant seeking monetary damages from the defendant’s assessment and collection of these fees, and the defendant moved to compel arbitration. The court considered, among other things, whether 2014 and 2021 versions of the bank’s deposit account agreements constituted a request for the plaintiff to enter into a new agreement, in addition to whether “the extent to which a party subject to an agreement containing an arbitration provision with an optout clause . . . has a continuing obligation or opportunity to opt-out of arbitration each time the contract is amended or whether the party is bound by their assent to or rejection of arbitration at the first instance the opt-out procedure is offered.”
The court noted that the plaintiff’s account, which was opened in 2004, was governed by a 2002 version of an agreement that did not contain any dispute resolution provisions, nor did it require mandatory arbitration. However, the agreement did include a change of terms provision that stated customers “could be ‘bound by these changes, with or without notice.’” The agreement was amended in 2008 to include an arbitration provision and contained an opt-out clause allowing customers to reject the arbitration provision within 45 days of opening an account. In 2014, the defendant sent a notice to customers about further modifications made to initial account disclosures. The 2014 notice stated that customers could opt out of the entire amended agreement, which contained the arbitration clause, if they closed their account within 60 days. If they chose not to close the account, customers would be deemed to have accepted the amended agreement. A 2021 amendment agreement also included the arbitration provision. The defendant argued that the plaintiff is subject to the arbitration provision because he could have opted out as early as 2008 but chose not to and continued to use his account after receiving the 2014 notice.
The court disagreed, stating that the plaintiff would still have been obligated to arbitrate disputes under a survival clause in the 2008 contract, which said that the arbitration clause “shall survive the closure of your deposit account.” The court found that the 2014 notice did not provide the plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to opt out of arbitration. Moreover, because the plaintiff was unable to opt out under the 2008 agreement, “no contract to arbitrate was formed, and [the plaintiff] was not required to opt out again when [the defendant] amended the contract in or about January 2014 or thereafter.” “The lack of notice and absolute lack of opportunity for [the plaintiff] to opt out render the 2008 [agreement] unconscionable under New York law, which seeks to ‘ensure that the more powerful party’ — here, [the defendant] — ‘cannot ‘surprise’ the other party with some overly oppressive term,’ like an arbitration provision with an opt-out procedure that could never be exercised,” the court wrote.
District Court sends overdraft fee suit to arbitration
On November 16, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration regarding claims that consumers are charged significant overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees on bank accounts linked to discount cards issued by the gas-discount company. According to the plaintiff’s putative class action suit, the defendant advertises fuel discounts through a mobile app and payment card system while claiming that its service acts “like a debit card” by “‘effortlessly deduct[ing]’ funds from linked checking accounts at the time of purchase[.].” While these payments and discounts are represented as being “automatically applied,” the plaintiff alleged that paying with the discount card results in significant processing delays. These delays, the plaintiff contended, cause users to run the risk of having insufficient fees in their checking accounts before the payment is processed, thus resulting in overdraft fees. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant does not verify whether a consumer has sufficient funds in the checking account before payments are withdrawn. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, or in the alternative, moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that during the sign-up process, the plaintiff was presented with terms and conditions that explicitly require users to arbitrate any disputes, claims, or controversies. Moreover, the defendant argued that users cannot sign up for the program unless they first check a button that says “I agree” with the terms of use. While the parties agreed that the plaintiff was presented at a minimum a hyperlink to the terms and conditions, they disputed whether the sign-up process required the plaintiff to affirmatively assent to them. According to the plaintiff, there was no such checkbox button when he signed up for the program.
The court disagreed, ruling that the plaintiff had notice of and agreed to terms and conditions that included an arbitration clause and class action waiver. According to the court, the defendant adequately showed that the checkbox button was part of the process when the plaintiff signed up and that the defendant obtained his affirmative asset to the agreement. Further, the plaintiff failed to support his claim with any specific evidence that the checkbox button may not have been there during the sign-up process, the court maintained.
CFPB issues guidance on “junk fees”
On October 26, President Biden discussed guidance issued by the CFPB to help banks avoid charging illegal “junk fees” on deposit accounts. The Bureau’s Circular 2022-06 noted that overdraft fees can be considered an “unfair” practice and violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) even if such fees are in compliance with other laws and regulations. Specifically, the Circular noted that “overdraft fees assessed by financial institutions on transactions that a consumer would not reasonably anticipate are likely unfair.” The guidance further stated that unanticipated overdraft fees are likely to impose substantial injury on consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid and that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The Bureau’s compliance bulletin on surprise depositor fees explained that a returned deposited item is a check that a consumer deposits into their checking account that is returned to the consumer because the check could not be processed against the check originator’s account. The bulletin stated that “blanket policies of charging returned deposited item fees to consumers for all returned transactions irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account are likely unfair under the [CFPA].” The Bureau further explained that indiscriminately charging depositor fees, regardless of circumstances, are likely illegal and noted that the bulletin is intended to put regulated entities on notice regarding how the agency plans to exercise its enforcement and supervisory authorities in the context of deposit fees. The bulletin urged financial institutions to charge depositor fees only in situations where a depositor could have avoided the fee, such as when a depositor repeatedly deposits bad checks from the same originator. The Bureau emphasized the guidance as part of its Junk Fee Initiative, noting that since it launched the initiative in January 2022, the CFPB has taken action to constrain “pay-to-pay” fees (covered by InfoBytes here), and has announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting information from credit card issuers, consumer groups, and the public regarding late payments, credit card late fees, and card issuers’ revenue and expenses (covered by InfoBytes here).
CFPB discusses impact of overdraft fees on seniors
On October 19, the CFPB released an issue brief, Overdraft Fees and Economically Insecure Older Adults, examining the economic effects of overdraft fees on economically insecure older adults. The Bureau noted that older adults of color, older women, LGBTQ+ older adults, and retirees are more likely to be economically insecure and may face greater challenges with overdraft fees. The brief also found that older adults pay fees for overdraft services less frequently than other age groups but stated that the economically insecure could be “particularly impacted” because “they are often unable to adjust their carefully managed budgets” when they incur fees. Among other things, the brief provided recommendations to financial institutions for implementing age-friendly banking practices, such as offering view-only account access and/or convenience accounts for financial caregivers. The brief also noted that financial institutions should provide customer service to respond to consumers’ concerns about bank fees in person, by phone, and online. The Bureau stated that it will “track the impact of overdraft fees on older adults” through analysis of consumer complaints, among other things.
Seven largest U.S. banks answer committee questions on overdraft fees and P2P fraud
On September 22, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing entitled “Annual Oversight of the Nation’s Largest Banks” where chief executive officers from the seven largest U.S. retail banks testified on bank activities related to topics including peer-to-peer (P2P) payment networks; mortgage practices; overdraft fees; forced arbitration; and environmental, social, and governance agendas. Among other things, senators pushed the CEOs to take more aggressive action to eliminate overdraft fees and compensate P2P payment fraud victims.
- Overdraft fees. Democratic senators stressed that charges still fall too heavily on low-income and minority customers, with Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) saying that there is “no reasonable explanation to continue to charge overdraft fees on working families.” The CEOs discussed their respective efforts to relax overdraft policies to reduce fees, with one CEO noting that “there are a lot of occasions where if [overdraft protection] is not used, [customers] would be charged a higher fee on the other side.” These fees, he noted, “can often reduce the cost on the other side and stop them from going to payday lenders.” Another CEO added that he believes “giving people a choice and letting them opt in or out is the proper thing to do.” One bank CEO noted that his bank offers two accounts with no fees and provides customers the opportunity to choose in the moment if they want to return or pay for an item.
- P2P platforms. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asked the CEOs if they would give customers their money back if they are defrauded on a certain P2P platform and complain to the bank. The CEOs emphasized that their banks currently reimburse customers for fraud and “unauthorized transactions” and are taking measures to reduce the incidence of fraud, including educating consumers on how to detect scams. “There’s a tremendous amount that we can do as owners of the network to drive down the ability for thieves to take advantage of the network,” one CEO said when asked if banks believe it is their responsibility to make a consumer whole again. “That is what we're working on. That’s what we have to do.” Another CEO pointed out that other P2P platforms have “15 times the number of disputes” coming into the bank than the highlighted platform. One CEO also stressed that banks need to work through partnerships with law enforcement and regulatory agencies “to actually catch the criminals who are perpetuating this fraud against our customers.”
The previous day, the same CEOs discussed similar topics during the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing entitled “Holding Megabanks Accountable: Oversight of America’s Largest Consumer Facing Banks.” Several proposed bills containing provisions that would impact the banks if enacted were also discussed, including those that would (i) improve dispute procedures and disclosures related to reinvestigations of consumer reports (see H.R. 4120); (ii) amend and modernize bank merger laws (see H.R. 5419); and (iii) amend Community Reinvestment Act provisions to improve the assessment process for financial institutions (see H.R. 8833).
During the hearing (see committee memorandum here), committee members questioned the CEOs on a broad range of topics related to consumer protection compliance, enforcement, diversity initiatives, capital standards, emerging technologies and cybersecurity, merchant category codes for firearm purchases, and banking deserts. The CEOs addressed ways their banks have engaged in “responsible growth” and spoke on measures they have taken to bolster customer relations, including modifying overdraft practices. They also noted they are working on improving data protection and cybersecurity. In discussing P2P digital payment services, one CEO emphasized that “scams are growing daily” and regulators and legislators need to respond. He added that “[i]t’s not enough that we apportion blame after the fact. We need to stop fraud and scams before they occur. Secure [P2P] networks, real-time payments, and potentially FedNow allow for direct authentication with a host bank. They also allow members of the network to identify [] and police against scam accounts. This is not the case with nonbank networks. These networks are not held to the same security standards as banks.” He stated that banks “have zero visibility into where the money went, zero capability to recover the money, and zero capability to close the bad account.”