InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC rule seeks to thwart misrepresentations about deposit insurance
On May 17, the FDIC approved a final rule implementing its authority to prohibit any person or organization from making misrepresentations about FDIC deposit insurance or misusing the FDIC’s name or logo. According to the FDIC, the final rule responds to the “increasing number of instances where individuals or entities have misused the FDIC’s name or logo, or have made false or misleading representations about deposit insurance.” To promote transparency on the FDIC’s processes for investigating and enforcing potential breaches of prohibitions under Section 18(a)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the final rule clarifies the agency’s procedures for identifying, investigating, and where necessary, taking formal and informal action to address potential violations, and establishes a primary point-of-contact for receiving complaints and inquiries about potential misrepresentations regarding deposit insurance. The final rule takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In response, the CFPB released Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-02 to provide that covered firms are likely in violation of the CFPA’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices “if they misuse the name or logo of the FDIC or engage in false advertising or make material misrepresentations to the public about deposit insurance, regardless of whether such conduct (including the misrepresentation of insured status) is engaged in knowingly.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the newly introduced circulars serve as policy statements for other agencies with consumer financial protection responsibilities. Specifically, the Bureau warned that (i) “[m]isrepresenting the FDIC logo or name will typically be a material misrepresentation”; (ii) claiming “financial products or services are ‘regulated’ by the FDIC or ‘insured’ or ‘eligible for’ FDIC insurance are likely deceptive if those claims expressly or implicitly indicate that the product or service is FDIC-insured when that is not in fact the case” (e.g. emerging financial products and services including digital assets and crypto-assets); and (iii) misusing the FDIC’s name or logo creates harm for firms that engage in honest advertising and marketing. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, as an FDIC board member, announced the Bureau’s support for the final rule. “Misrepresentation claims about deposit insurance are particularly relevant today,” Chopra noted. “FDIC staff has noted an uptick in potential violations in recent years. We are especially concerned about potential misconduct involving novel technologies, including so-called stablecoins and other crypto-assets. While new technologies may yield significant benefits for households, workers, and small businesses, they nonetheless pose risks to consumers who may be baited by misrepresentations or false advertisements about deposit insurance.”
Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu specifically called out the timeliness of the final rule in light of changes in the marketplace, technological developments, and rapidly evolving consumer behaviors. The final rule “is especially important in light of the growth of nonbank crypto firms and fintechs and their relationships with banks,” Hsu stated. “The potential for consumer confusion about the status of cash held at these firms is high and this final rule will help provide clarity.”
CFPB seeks consistent enforcement of consumer financial law
On May 16, the CFPB launched a new system for providing transparent guidance on how the agency intends to administer and enforce federal consumer financial laws. Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-01 discusses the broad variety of agencies responsible for enforcing federal consumer financial law, including the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, and 18 other “enumerated consumer laws” (some of which provide for private enforcement). The circulars will serve as policy statements under the Administrative Procedure Act for other agencies with consumer financial protection responsibilities such as the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and NCUA. Because other federal agencies, including the DOJ, the FTC, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture, also have certain enforcement responsibilities, the Bureau stressed the importance of ensuring entities subject to the jurisdiction of multiple agencies receive consistent expectations regardless of a company’s status. Specifically, the circulars “will provide background information about applicable law, articulate considerations relevant to the CFPB’s exercise of its authorities, and advise other parties with authority to enforce federal consumer financial law.” The Bureau announced it has identified several issues that would benefit from clear and consistent enforcement and strongly encouraged other agencies to reach out to the Bureau with suggestions for new circulars. Circulars will be authorized by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and published on the Bureau’s website and in the Federal Register. The Bureau also welcomes feedback on any issued circulars.
Agencies issue revised interagency flood insurance Q&As
On May 11, the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, NCUA, and the Farm Credit Administration (the agencies) jointly issued revised, reorganized, and expanded interagency questions and answers (Q&As) regarding federal flood insurance laws. The revised Q&As supersede versions published in 2009 and 2011, and consolidate Q&As proposed by the agencies in 2020 and 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here). Reflecting significant changes to flood insurance requirements made by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, as well as regulations issued by the agencies to implement these laws, the revised Q&As consist of 144 Q&As (including 24 private flood insurance Q&As) covering a range of topics, including the escrow of flood insurance premiums, the detached structure exemption to the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement, force placement procedures, and the acceptance of flood insurance policies issued by private insurers. The agencies also made non-substantive revisions to certain Q&As to provide more direct responses to questions asked, additional clarity, or make technical corrections. In response to concerns raised by several commenters, the agencies confirmed that they are providing the interagency Q&As “as guidance only,” and clarified that “all the Q&As apply to all policies, whether [National Flood Insurance Program] or a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurance company, unless otherwise noted in the Q&A.” Additionally, the agencies noted “that they are working individually and on an interagency basis to address financial risks associated with climate change consistent with the [a]gencies’ regulatory and supervisory authorities,” and therefore “decline to make changes to any of the Q&As in response to climate risk change.
The same day, the agencies issued Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards; Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance. The interagency questions and answers replace the 2009 and 2011 publications and consolidate Q&As proposed by the agencies in July 2020 and in March 2021. This bulletin rescinds: (i) OCC Bulletin 2009-26, Flood Disaster Protection Act: Revised Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance; (ii) OCC Bulletin 2011-42, Flood Disaster Protection Act: Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance’ (iii) OCC Bulletin 2020-69, Flood Disaster Protection Act: Proposed Revisions to Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance; (iv) OCC Bulletin 2020-78, Flood Disaster Protection Act: Agencies Extend Comment Period on Proposed Revisions to Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance; and (v) OCC Bulletin 2021-13, Flood Disaster Protection Act: Proposed Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Private Flood Insurance.
CFPB: ECOA protection extends past application process
On May 9, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion to affirm its interpretation that ECOA bars lenders from discriminating against customers after they have applied for and received credit, not just during the application process. The Bureau’s opinion and analysis interprets ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B, as applying to the “approval, denial, renewal, continuation, or revocation of any open-end consumer credit account,” and is consistent with the agency’s joint amicus brief filed last December with the DOJ, Federal Reserve Board, and FTC, which argued that the term “applicant” as used in ECOA/Regulation B, includes both those seeking credit, as well as persons who have sought and have received credit (i.e., current borrowers). (Covered by InfoBytes here.) This has been the agency’s “longstanding position,” the Bureau stressed, noting it was the view of federal agencies prior to the Bureau’s creation as well.
However, “[d]espite this well-established interpretation, the Bureau is aware that some creditors fail to acknowledge that ECOA and Regulation B plainly apply to circumstances that take place after an extension of credit has been granted, including a revocation of credit or an unfavorable change in the terms of a credit arrangement,” the advisory opinion stated, explaining that ECOA prohibits creditors from lowering a borrower’s available line of credit or subjecting a borrower to more aggressive collections practices on a prohibited basis, such as race or national origin. “In addition, the Bureau is aware that some creditors fail to provide applicants with required notifications that include a statement of the specific reasons for the adverse action taken or disclose an applicant’s right to such a statement.” Creditors are required to provide “adverse action notices” when denying a loan, the Bureau wrote, adding that these notices are required when the terms of an existing loan are modified or terminated. “This interpretation of ECOA, therefore, forecloses a potential loophole that could effectively swallow much of the Act. Such a loophole would be plainly inconsistent with ECOA,” the advisory opinion stressed. While the Bureau acknowledged that “a few other district court decisions have interpreted ‘applicant’ to include only persons actively seeking credit,” the agency stressed that the district courts “read ‘applicant’ in isolation instead of reading this statutory term in context, as required by the Supreme Court,” and that “no court of appeals has endorsed these district courts’ narrow reading.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau finalized its Advisory Opinions Policy in 2020. Under the policy, entities seeking to comply with existing regulatory requirements are permitted to request an advisory opinion in the form of an interpretive rule from the Bureau (published in the Federal Register for increased transparency) to address areas of uncertainty.
Special Alert: Breaking down the proposed CRA overhaul
The federal banking agencies last week announced their highly anticipated proposal to revamp and modernize regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act. The proposal may significantly impact the compliance obligations of large banks, which the proposal generally defines as those with assets greater than $2 billion, while granting smaller banks the option of continuing to comply under the existing framework. The proposal aims to bring to a close the CRA reform process that began more than a decade ago, and was marked most recently by the OCC’s decision to pull back its 2020 regulatory overhaul (as covered by InfoBytes here).
Agencies overhaul CRA requirements
On May 5, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC (collectively, “agencies”) issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on new regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to update how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. According to the NPRM, the “CRA encourages banks to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with a bank’s safe and sound operations, by requiring the Federal banking regulatory agencies to examine banks’ records of meeting the credit needs of their entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.” The agencies are, among other things, proposing to:
- Expand access to credit, investment, and banking services in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities to promote community engagement and financial inclusion. The proposal would also evaluate bank lending to small businesses and farms with gross annual revenues of $250,000 or less to maintain focus on the borrowers with the greatest need;
- Adapt changes to update CRA assessment areas to include activities associated with online and mobile banking, branchless banking, and hybrid models;
- Use a retail lending volume screen and metric-based performance ranges to evaluate a bank’s retail lending volumes. CRA evaluations of retail lending and community development financing will include public benchmarks for greater clarity and consistency. The proposal would also clarify eligible CRA activities, such as affordable housing, that are focused on LMI, underserved, and rural communities;
- Tailor CRA evaluations and data collection to recognize differences in bank size and business models. Smaller banks would continue to be evaluated under the existing CRA framework with the option of being evaluated under aspects of the proposed framework; and
- Maintain a unified approach across agencies and incorporate stakeholder feedback.
The agencies also released a Fact Sheet describing key elements of the proposal. Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Michael J. Hsu, called the issuance of the joint NPRM an “important milestone” in bringing the three federal banking agencies back together to develop a uniform approach for addressing inequalities in credit access and other financial services. Fed Governor Lael Brainard pointed out that “[t]he last major revisions to the CRA regulations were made in 1995.” “The CRA is one of our most important tools to improve financial inclusion in communities across America, so it is critical to get reform right,” she stressed. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, who voted in favor of the NPRM as an FDIC board member, said the proposal “better effectuates Congressional directives intended to ensure that the needs of historically underserved individuals and communities are adequately met,” but reminded policymakers that it is also important “to consider whether nonbank mortgage lenders should also be required to better meet the needs of the communities they serve.” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen similarly applauded the release of the NPRM. Comments on the NPRM are due August 5.
A Buckley Special Alert is forthcoming.
FinCEN to issue second beneficial ownership NPRM later this year
On April 28, FinCEN acting Director Himamauli Das informed the House Financial Services Committee during a hearing on the oversight of the agency that FinCEN is currently developing a second notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) this year proposing “regulations governing access to beneficial ownership information by law enforcement, national security agencies, financial institutions and others.” The NPRM will be published this year and follows a previous proposal to implement the beneficial ownership information reporting provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which addresses who must report beneficial ownership information, when to report it, and what information must be provided (covered by InfoBytes here). In his written testimony, Das stated the agency also plans to issue a third and final proposal revising the Customer Due Diligence (CDD) regulation for financial institutions “no later than one year after the effective date of the final reporting rule,” as required by the statute. “The CTA directs that the revisions should bring the CDD regulation into conformance with the beneficial ownership rules under the CTA and reduce unnecessary or duplicative requirements, among other things,” Das said. “We are considering all options as we develop the Access Rule NPRM, and look forward to receiving public comments on our proposal when it is issued.” Das also noted that FinCEN is currently developing the beneficial ownership database, which will allow users to search and access certain beneficial ownership information. However, Das warned that limited resources “have presented significant challenges to meeting the implementation requirements of [FinCEN’s] expanded mandate under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, including the CTA’s beneficial ownership requirements . . . we are missing deadlines, and we will likely continue to do so.”
FTC proposes TSR amendments to extend robocall protections
On April 28, the FTC proposed rulemakings to extend protections for small businesses against telemarketing business-to-business schemes and strengthen safeguards to protect consumers from other telemarking scams. Both the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) stem from the FTC’s regulatory review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and address public comments received as part of the review.
The NPR proposes to amend TSR recordkeeping requirements to require telemarketers to retain seven new categories of information related to their telemarketing activities, including records concerning each unique prerecorded message, records sufficient to show the established business relationship between a seller and a consumer, records of the service providers used by a telemarketer to deliver outbound calls, and records of the FTC’s Do Not Call Registry that were used to ensure compliance with this rule. Additionally, the NPR seeks comments on whether the FTC should amend the TSR to prohibit material misrepresentations and false or misleading statements in business-to-business telemarketing transactions to prevent harm caused by deceptive telemarketing, and proposes adding a definition of “previous donor” related to charitable donation solicitations.
The ANPRM seeks comments on a range of issues related to whether calls related to tech-support scams should be covered by the TSR, whether telemarketers should be required to provide consumers with a simple click-to-cancel process when they sign up for subscription plans, and whether the TSR should stop treating telemarketing calls made to businesses differently from those made to consumers. According to the FTC, robocalls made to businesses are generally exempt from certain TSR provisions.
Comments on both proposed rulemakings are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
NYDFS encourages virtual currency licensees to use blockchain analytics tools for sanctions and AML compliance
On April 28, NYDFS announced new guidance on virtual currency entities that are establishing the use of blockchain analytics tools. NYDFS explained that virtual currency activities can involve, among other things, different sources, destinations, and types of funds flows than are found in more traditional, fiat-currency contexts. Such characteristics of virtual currencies can create compliance challenges, but also can present new possibilities for new technology-driven control measures. In the guidance, NYDFS outlined expectations for New York State-regulated virtual currency companies, including: (i) establishing control measures that may leverage blockchain analytics; (ii) augmenting due diligence controls; (iii) conducting transaction monitoring of on-chain activity; and (iv) conducting sanctions screening of on-chain activity. NYDFS also emphasized "the importance of risk-based policies, processes, and procedures to identify transaction activity involving virtual currency addresses or other identifying information associated with sanctioned individuals and entities listed on the SDN List, or located in sanctioned jurisdictions."
As previously covered by InfoBytes, NYDFS issued a framework outlining industry best practices for state-regulated property/casualty insurers writing cyber insurance, which provided guidance for effectively managing cyber insurance risk. The framework is the first guidance released by a U.S. regulator on cyberinsurance. NYDFS noted it has “engaged with external stakeholders to inform this new guidance and continues to conduct significant outreach to state, federal and international regulators; industry; and other experts in the field to ensure New York maintains a robust regulatory regime and remains a destination for virtual currency companies to operate.”
CFPB invokes dormant authority to examine nonbanks
On April 25, the CFPB announced it was invoking a “dormant authority” under the Dodd-Frank Act to conduct supervisory examinations of fintech firms and other nonbank financial services providers based upon a determination of risk. “This authority gives us critical agility to move as quickly as the market, allowing us to conduct examinations of financial companies posing risks to consumers and stop harm before it spreads,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra explained. The Bureau has direct supervisory authority over banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, certain nonbanks regardless of size that offer or provide consumer financial products or services, and the service providers for such entities. With this announcement, the Bureau now plans to use a provision under Section 1024 of Dodd-Frank that allows it to examine nonbank financial entities, upon notice and an opportunity to respond, if it has “reasonable cause” to determine that consumer harm is possible.
In tandem with the announcement, the Bureau also issued a request for public comment on an updated version of a procedural rule that implements its statutory authority to supervise nonbanks “whose activities the CFPB has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers,” including potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The statute requires that the Bureau “base such reasonable cause determinations on complaints collected by the CFPB, or on information from other sources,” which the Bureau stated may include “judicial opinions and administrative decisions, . . . whistleblower complaints, state partners, federal partners, or news reports.” “Given the rapid growth of consumer offerings by nonbanks, the CFPB is now utilizing a dormant authority to hold nonbanks to the same standards that banks are held to,” Chopra stated.
Among other things, the new rule establishes a disclosure mechanism intended to increase transparency of the Bureau’s risk-determination process. Specifically, the new rule will exempt final decisions and orders by the CFPB director from being considered confidential supervisory information, allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on their website. Subject companies will be given an opportunity seven days after a final decision is issued to provide input on what information, if any, should be publicly released. According to the Bureau, there “is a public interest in transparency when it comes to these potentially significant rulings by the Director as head of the agency. Also, if a decision or order is publicly released, it would be available as a precedent in future proceedings.”
The procedural rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register and has a 30-day comment period.