InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies weigh in on availability of SPCPs under ECOA and Regulation B
On February 22, the CFPB, DOJ, FDIC, Fed, FHFA HUD, OCC, and NCUA released an interagency statement “to remind creditors of the ability under [ECOA] and Regulation B to establish special purpose credit programs [(SPCPs)].” The statement points creditors to the CFPB’s December 2020 Advisory Opinion on SPCPs, which clarified (i) the content that a for-profit organization must include in a written plan that establishes and administers a SPCP under Regulation B; and (ii) the type of research and data that may be appropriate to inform a for-profit organization’s determination that an SPCP is needed to benefit a specified class of persons. The statement highlights December 7, 2021 HUD guidance, which concluded that SPCPs “instituted in conformity with ECOA and Regulation B generally do not violate the FHA,” conveying that SPCPs may also be appropriate avenues to expand credit access in mortgage lending. This was reiterated in a post released by the CFPB, stating that the “[interagency] statement [on SPCPs] calls attention to these programs as one way to expand access to critical financial services, including mortgage lending.”
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.
Agencies emphasize illegality of appraisal discrimination
On February 4, CFPB Fair Lending Director Patrice Ficklin, along with senior staff from the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, HUD, FHFA, and DOJ, sent a joint letter to The Appraisal Foundation (TAF) emphasizing that discrimination prohibitions under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and ECOA extend to appraisals. The joint letter, sent in response to a request for comments on proposed changes to the 2023 Appraisal Standards Board Ethics Rule (Ethics Rule) and Advisory Opinion 16, noted that while provisions prohibit an appraiser from relying on “unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, marital status, familial status, age, receipt of public assistance income, disability, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value,’” the “provisions do not prohibit an appraiser from relying on ‘supported conclusions’ based on such characteristics and, therefore, suggest that such reliance may be permissible.” The letter noted that the federal ban on discrimination under the FHA and ECOA is not limited only to “unsupported” conclusions, and any discussions related to potential appraisal bias should be consistent with all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The joint letter encouraged TAF to present the nondiscrimination requirements as “an essential part of any guidance provided in the Ethics Rule or Advisory Opinion 16 to ensure compliance with fair housing and fair lending laws.”
In a blog post, Ficklin noted that despite the fact that federal law prohibits racial, religious, and other discrimination in home appraisals, there are still reports of appraisers making “value judgments on biased, unfounded assumptions about borrowers and the neighborhoods in which they live.” Additionally, Ficklin noted that the Bureau is carefully reviewing findings presented in a report funded by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's Appraisal Subcommittee, which raised serious concerns related to existing appraisal standards and provided recommendations with respect to fairness, equity, objectivity, and diversity in appraisals and the training and credentialing of appraisers.
NYDFS concerned with CFPB’s small business loan data collection proposal
On January 6, NYDFS issued a comment letter responding to the CFPB’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), “Small Business Lending Data Collection under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).” The NPRM—mandated under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act—would require a broad swath of lenders to collect data on loans they make to small businesses, including information about the loans themselves, the characteristics of the borrower, and demographic information regarding the borrower’s principal owners. This information would be reported annually to the Bureau, and eventually published by the Bureau on its website, with some potential modifications. According to the Bureau, the statute’s stated intent is to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.” (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.)
In its comment letter, NYDFS discussed its responsibilities for examining state-chartered banking institutions’ compliance with the New York Community Reinvestment Act (NYCRA), New York Banking Law § 28-b, which NYDFS noted largely mirrors the current federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Additionally, NYDFS stated that it examines regulated institutions for compliance with state fair lending requirements and agreed with the Bureau that “collecting critical information about minority- and women-owned businesses (MWOBs) to address fair lending concerns and allow financial institutions to identify gaps in the market” is an important goal. To that end, NYDFS is in the process of implementing its own MWOB data collection regulation under the NYCRA, which would require New York state-chartered banking institutions to start collecting MWOB-related data. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Due to similarities between the proposed regulation and the Bureau’s NPRM, and to avoid imposing an undue burden on institutions covered by both regulations, NYDFS’s proposed regulation includes language that would “permit, but not obligate, NYDFS to treat compliance with the CFPB’s rule implementing Section 1071 as compliance with the NYCRA’s MWOB-related data collection regulation.”
Two specific issues were raised in response to the Bureau’s NPRM. First, NYDFS expressed concerns about the NPRM’s silence as to whether the Bureau intends to share more detailed data with state regulators to help states identify fair lending violations and enforce anti-discrimination laws, even if this information is not made available to the public. NYDFS urged the Bureau to include specific language stating it “may share all data submitted by financial institutions with state regulators in accordance with information sharing agreements between the CFPB and the state regulators.” Second, NYDFS asked the Bureau to reconsider its proposal to require data collection only for MWOBs with a threshold of $5 million or less in gross annual revenue. In particular, NYDFS warned of the risk of “dissimilarity in data collected by lenders for submission to the CFPB and the NYDFS” as NYDFS’s proposed regulation “requires evaluation of MWOB lending without respect to size.” NYDFS stressed that this dissimilarity “may prevent the NYDFS from deeming compliance with the CFPB regulation sufficient to comply with the NYDFS regulation.”
Agencies file amicus brief on use of term “applicant” in ECOA
On December 16, the CFPB filed a joint amicus brief with the DOJ, Federal Reserve Board, and the FTC arguing that the term “applicant” as used in ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B, includes both those seeking credit as well as persons who have sought and have received credit (i.e., current borrowers). (See also a Bureau blog post discussing the brief.) The amicus brief is in support of a plaintiff in an action where the plaintiff consumer sued a national bank for closing his credit card account without providing an explanation for the adverse action as required by ECOA. The case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after a district court determined that ECOA protections only apply “during the process of requesting credit and do not protect those with existing credit accounts.”
The central issue identified in the brief revolves around whether ECOA applies beyond persons seeking credit to persons who have already received credit. The brief focused on this issue by analyzing (i) ECOA’s text, history and purpose; (ii) the application of Regulation B; and (iii) alleged incorrect interpretations in the underlying defendant’s arguments. In looking at the text of ECOA, the brief asserted that ECOA applies to “applicants” without regard to how their credit is resolved because ECOA defines “applicant” as “any person who applies to a creditor directly for an extension, renewal, or continuation of credit, or applies to a creditor indirectly by use of an existing credit plan for an amount exceeding a previously established credit limit.” In further analyzing the statutory text, the brief further explained that ECOA also gives consumers the right to adverse action notices, which include the “revocation of credit” as well as a “change in the terms of an existing credit arrangement”—actions, the brief stated, “that can be taken only with respect to persons who have already received credit.” The brief also stated that legislative history shows it was Congress’s intent to reach discrimination “in any aspect of a credit transaction.”
In looking at the context of Regulation B, the brief asserted, among other things, that ECOA’s protections continue to apply after an applicant receives credit, explaining that Regulation B “did so by defining ‘applicant’ to include, ‘[w]ith respect to any creditor[,] … any person to whom credit is or has been extended by that creditor.’” Moreover, the brief asserted, ECOA provides a private right of action, which allows aggrieved applicants to file suits for alleged ECOA/Regulation B violations. In this instance, the term “applicant” cannot be meant to refer only to consumers with pending credit applications because otherwise a consumer whose application was denied on a prohibited basis would have no private right of action recourse. These references, the brief emphasized, “further confirm that the term “applicant” is not limited to those currently applying for credit.”
CFPB reaches settlement with online lender
On December 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the stipulated final judgment and order against a California-based online lender (defendant) for alleged violations of fair lending regulations and a 2016 consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defendant (the third action taken against the defendant by the CFPB) for allegedly violating the terms of a 2016 consent order related to false claims about its lending program. The 2016 consent order alleged that the defendant engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting, among other things, the fees it charged, the loan products that were available to consumers, and whether the loans would be reported to credit reporting companies, in violation of the CFPA, TILA, and Regulation Z (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the September 8 complaint, the defendants continued with much of the same illegal and deceptive marketing that was prohibited by the 2016 consent order. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the terms of the 2016 consent order and various laws by: (i) deceiving consumers about the benefits of repeat borrowing; and (ii) failing to provide timely and accurate adverse-action notices, which is in violation of ECOA and Regulation B.
The settlement prohibits the defendant from: (i) making new loans; (ii) collecting on outstanding loans to harmed consumers; (iii) selling consumer information; and (iv) making misrepresentations when providing loans or collecting debt or helping others that are doing so. The order also imposes a $100,000 civil money penalty based on the defendant’s inability to pay.
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
Chopra, Hsu encourage use of special purpose credit programs
On December 6, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra released a statement regarding HUD’s guidance, also issued that day, clarifying that special purpose credit programs that conform with ECOA and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, generally do not violate the Federal Housing Act. According to HUD’s memorandum, the two statutes are complementary and “intended to harmoniously coexist.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion addressing Regulation B as it applies to certain aspects of special purpose credit programs. In his statement, Chopra encouraged creditors “to explore the opportunities available through special purpose credit programs,” which “provide targeted means by which creditors can better serve communities who have been historically shut out or otherwise disadvantaged.”
Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu also issued a statement encouraging banks and federal savings associations to “explore the opportunities available through special purpose credit programs.” Taking advantage of the special purpose credit program provisions of ECOA and Regulation B “can be a significant step in addressing the racial and ethnic homeownership and wealth gaps that persist in the United States,” Hsu stated.
FDIC releases September enforcement actions
On October 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in September. During the month, the FDIC made public six orders consisting of “one Consent Order, two terminations of Consent Orders, one Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Order Terminating Decision and Order to Cease and Desist, and one Order of Termination of Insurance.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Nebraska-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “[m]ade, 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,” and also allegedly “[f]ailed 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 $24,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order to a Utah-based bank, which requires the bank to take measures to correct current alleged violations (and prevent future violations) of TILA, RESPA, E-Sign Act, ECOA, CRA, and TISA, as well as the statutes’ implementing regulations. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, develop a sound risk-based compliance program and implement an effective training program to ensure compliance.
DOJ, CFPB, and OCC announce aggressive redlining initiative; take action against national bank for alleged lending discrimination
On October 22, the DOJ, in collaboration with the CFPB and the OCC, announced a new initiative to combat redlining and lending discrimination. The Combatting Redlining Initiative will be led by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section in partnership with U.S. Attorney’s offices, and will, among other things, (i) “ensure that fair lending enforcement is informed by local expertise on housing markets and the credit needs of local communities of color”; (ii) “[e]xpand the department’s analyses of potential redlining to both depository and non-depository institutions” (the DOJ noted that non-depository lenders now make the majority of mortgages in the U.S.); (iii) strengthen financial regulator partnerships to ensure fair lending violations are identified and referred to the DOJ; and (iv) increase fair lending coordination with state attorneys general to identify potential violations. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the initiative will “address[] modern-day redlining by making far more robust use of our fair lending authorities,” and marks the DOJ’s “most aggressive, coordinated effort to address redlining.” Garland noted that several redlining investigations are currently ongoing and more are expected to be opened in the upcoming months.
In his remarks, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra also warned that the Bureau will be “closely watching for digital redlining, disguised through so-called ‘neutral algorithms, that may reinforce the biases that have long existed.’” He added that “the speed with which banks and lenders are turning lending and advertising decisions over to algorithms is concerning,” and cautioned against assuming that algorithms will be bias free.
In conjunction with the announcement of the multi-agency initiative, the DOJ, CFPB, and OCC, took action against a national bank for alleged redlining practices. According to the complaint, the bank violated the Fair Housing Act, ECOA, and the CFPA by deliberately engaging in conduct that discouraged consumers in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis metropolitan area from seeking credit. The bank also allegedly established a limited number of branches in majority-Black and Hispanic communities, and did not provide mortgage-lending services to walk-in customers in these neighborhoods. The complaint further alleged, among other things, that the bank’s fair lending policies and procedures did not adequately ensure equal access to credit to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and that internal governance and oversight committees to oversee fair lending were not established until after the OCC initiated a fair lending examination of the bank.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the bank will be required to pay a $5 million civil money penalty. The bank will also have to invest $3.85 million through a loan subsidy program to increase access to credit, and provide $400,000 to develop community partnerships to increase access to residential mortgage credit. The loan subsidy program will go towards closing cost assistance, down payment assistance, and payment of mortgage insurance premiums. Additionally, the bank must increase branches and outreach efforts in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, devote at least $200,000 in targeted advertising annually to generate applications for mortgages in these neighborhoods, and take remedial efforts to improve its fair lending compliance.