InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS proposes check-cashing fee regulations
On June 15, NYDFS issued a proposed check cashing regulation following an emergency regulation announced in February that halted annual increases on check-cashing fees and locked the current maximum fee set last February at 2.27 percent (covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed regulation establishes a new fee methodology which evaluates the needs of licensees and consumers who use check cashing services. Two tiers of fees for licensed check cashers are recommended: (i) the maximum fee that a check casher may charge for a public assistance check issued by a federal or state government agency (including checks for Social Security, unemployment, retirement, veteran’s benefits, emergency relief, housing assistance, or tax refunds) is set at 1.5 percent; and (ii) the maximum fee a check casher is permitted to charge for all other checks, drafts, or money orders is $1 or 2.2 percent, whichever is greater. NYDFS added that starting January 31, 2027 (and annually every five years thereafter), licensed check cashers may request an increase in the maximum fees established. Comments on the proposed regulation will be accepted for 60 days.
District Court dismisses suit alleging improper inspection fees
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a defendant bank’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff’s inspection fee allegations are barred on collateral estoppel grounds. The plaintiff filed a class action suit claiming the defendant’s computer software orders property inspections after borrowers’ loans are in default and then charges borrowers for the improper inspection fees. According to the opinion, the defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2012 against the plaintiff in state court after she missed payments. The parties litigated the matter for several years in state court, and in 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to add class action claims related to the defendant’s inspection fee collection system. The state court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding the proposed claims to be without merit and futile. Final judgment of foreclosure was granted to the bank. Similar proceedings involving the same class action counterclaims occurred after the defendant requested that the judgment be vacated to add an additional lien holder as a defendant. The defendant again applied for entry of final judgment, but withdrew this application allegedly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ultimately the state court dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff filed an instant complaint in federal court.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff “should be collaterally estopped from bringing these claims because the New Jersey Superior Court ruled on the exact issues [plaintiff] raises here in the prior foreclosure action brought by [defendant] against [plaintiff] in state court, ultimately dismissing them with prejudice.” The plaintiff countered “that because the foreclosure action was dismissed without entry of judgment, collateral estoppel does not apply.” In agreeing with the defendant, the court stated that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies whenever an action is ‘sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect,” adding that the state court’s orders in the foreclosure action are “sufficiently firm as to warrant conclusive effect.” According to the court, “[t]hese decisions—particularly the second dismissal with prejudice—were clearly intended to be the final adjudication of the precise issues that [plaintiff] is now attempting to relitigate in the instant action.”
FTC secures TRO against credit repair scheme
On May 31, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Maryland granted a temporary restraining order against a credit repair operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices that scammed consumers out of more than $213 million. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation targeted consumers with low credit scores promising its products could remove all negative information from their credit reports and significantly increase credit scores. The operation allegedly violated the FTC Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, (i) making misrepresentations regarding its credit repair services; (ii) selling a product that purportedly sends rent payment information to credit bureaus even though “this information is not generally part of consumers’ credit score and many credit bureaus don’t accept this kind of information directly from consumers”; (iii) charging illegal advance fees; (iv) failing to provide consumers required information such as refund and cancellation policies; and (v) recruiting consumers to sell credit repair products to other consumers as part of a pyramid scheme even though few consumers ever received the promised earnings (and many consumers actually lost money as agents). Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other equitable relief.
District Court preliminarily approves $2 million debt collection settlement over garnishment issuance fees
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily approved a class action settlement resolving claims concerning a debt collection agency’s $45 garnishment “issuance fee.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant issued garnishments to debtors’ employers and banks through its in-house attorneys to collect revenue for outstanding debts. While Oregon law allows debt collectors to charge fees as a means of compensating for the expense of hiring attorneys who issue such garnishments, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s “$45 fee is an abuse of the cost recovery statute because using in-house attorneys relieves defendant from ever incurring such an expense.” The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FDCPA, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act. While the defendant denied any wrongdoing as part of the preliminarily approved settlement, it has agreed to pay $2 million to settle the claims. Class members, defined as more than 10,000 Oregonians allegedly injured by the $45 issuance fees between January 2018 and September 2019, will each receive “an amount three times greater than the actual damages caused originally by Defendant’s issuance fees.”
Chopra testifies at congressional hearings
On April 26, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra testified at a hearing held by the Senate Banking Committee on the CFPB’s most recent semi-annual report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra’s opening remarks focused on key efforts the agency is taking to meet objectives established by Congress, including (i) shifting enforcement resources away from investigating small firms and focusing instead on repeat offenders and large players engaged in large-scale harm; (ii) increasing transparency through the issuance of guidance documents, such as advisory opinions, compliance bulletins, policy statements, and other publications to help entities comply with federal consumer financial laws; (iii) rethinking its approach to regulations, including its work to develop several rules authorized in the CFPA, and placing “a higher premium on simplicity and ‘bright lines’ whenever possible”; (iv) engaging with the business community and meeting with state-based associations to speak directly with community banks and credit unions and engaging with a broad range of other businesses and associations that may be affected by the laws the Bureau administers; (v) promoting greater competition by “lowering barriers to entry and increasing the pool of firms competing for customers based on quality, price, and service”; and (vi) researching issues related to big tech’s influence on consumer payments.
In his opening statement, Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown (D-OH) praised Chopra’s recent efforts related to “junk fees” such as overdraft fees and non-sufficient fund fees, discrimination and bias in the appraisal process, reporting of medical collection debt by the credit reporting agencies, examination authority over non-banks and fintech companies, and crack-down on repeat offenders. However, Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) criticized Chopra’s actions and alleged “overreach.” Among other things, Toomey characterized the Bureau’s attempts “to supervise for disparate impact not only in lending, but in all consumer financial services and products” as “unauthorized stealth rulemaking” that “will create tremendous uncertainty among regulated entities.” Toomey also took issue with recent changes to the Bureau’s rules of adjudication, claiming it will “make it easier to engage in regulation by enforcement.”
During the hearing, committee members discussed topics related to collecting small business lending data, rural banking access, student loan servicing, and whether the Bureau should be subject to the congressional appropriations process. Republican committee members raised concerns over several issues, including significant revisions recently made to the Bureau’s unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) examination manual that state that any type of discrimination in connection with a consumer financial product or service could be an “unfair” practice (i.e., the CFPB can now bring “unfair” discrimination claims related to non-credit financial products). (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) characterized the new policy as a “wholesale rewrite” of the examination manual that will improperly expand the reach of disparate impact liability and challenged the lack of notice-and-comment for the changes to the UDAAP manual.
Conversely, Democratic committee members praised Chopra’s actions and encouraged him to continue pressuring banks to cut excessive overdraft fees and other “junk fees,” as well as strengthen enforcement against repeat offenders. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stressed that imposing fines that are less than the profits made from the misconduct will not be enough to persuade large banks to follow the law and asked Chopra to think about other steps regulators might consider to hold large repeat offenders accountable. She referenced her bill, the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, which is designed to hold big bank executives personally liable for the bank’s repeat violations of the law.
Chopra reiterated the Bureau’s priorities in his April 27 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. At the hearing, House committee members questioned Chopra on the Bureau’s plans to collect data on small business loans pursuant to Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, crack down on “junk fees,” and address fair lending concerns with automated valuation models and fraud in payment networks. During the hearing, Chopra told committee members that the Bureau plans to revisit and update older regulations such as the CARD Act to lower credit card fees. “We want to make sure that credit cards are a competitive market . . . [so] I am asking the staff to look at whether we should reopen the Card Act rules that were promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board over 10 years ago . . . to be able to look at some of these older rules we inherited, to determine whether there needs to be any changes,” Chopra said, adding that “late fees are an area that I expect to be one of the questions we solicit input on.”
District Court granted final approval of a $5.7 million class action overdraft fee settlement
On April 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a $5.7 million class action settlement resolving allegations related to overdraft fees applied to certain bank account transactions. According to plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the bank was sued in 2020 for allegedly unfairly assessing and collecting overdraft fees on “Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions” (APPSN fees) as well as NSF fees. The bank denied the allegations and moved to dismiss, contending that the relevant account agreements are unambiguous, and that even if there were, “extrinsic evidence resolves the ambiguity in its favor on the whether the fees at issue are permitted.” In August 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement. Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the bank will make a $4.25 million cash payment and will “forgive, waive, and agree not to collect an additional” $1.5 million in uncollected overdraft fees. Class members, defined as all current and former bank customers with consumer checking accounts who were charged a relevant fee between December 4, 2013, and November 30, 2021, will automatically receive their pro rata share of the settlement fund without having to prove they were harmed from the bank’s practices. There are no claim forms, and class members will be determined through the bank’s checking account data. A formula will be used to calculate each class member’s distribution. Under the terms of the settlement approximately $2.9 million will go towards customers who were charged APPSN fees, while roughly $1.3 million will be allocated for customers who were charged retry NSF fees.
NYDFS encourages banks to expand access to low-cost banking services
On April 15, NYDFS issued guidance determining that offering a “Bank On” certified deposit accounts would satisfy a New York Basic Banking services law that requires institutions to offer low-cost banking services to consumers. According to NYDFS, Bank On accounts (which offer services that eliminate several fees, including overdraft, account activation, closure, dormancy, inactivity, and low balance fees) may be offered as an alternative to existing basic banking accounts. Following an assessment of the New York banking industry to determine the receptiveness and operational viability of offering Bank On accounts, NYDFS concluded that “all New York State regulated banking institutions, as defined under Section 14-f.9(a) of the New York Banking Law . . ., will be deemed to satisfy the Basic Banking requirements under the New York Banking Law and the General Regulations of the Superintendent, by offering Bank On accounts as an alternative to Basic Banking accounts.” Banking institutions may offer Bank On accounts instead of Basic Banking accounts without the need to submit a separate application to the NYDFS for approval. However, because the national standards for Bank On accounts are subject to change without input from NYDFS, institutions that offer the accounts should keep up to date on the national standards.
The guidance follows an announcement from New York Governor Kathy Hochul stating that the “COVID-19 pandemic has shown how important it is for every New Yorker to have financial security.” Stressing that “access to low-cost banking services is critical to managing and securing their financial needs,” Hochul stated that “[t]hese new accounts will help hard working individuals in underserved communities get the affordable, accessible banking options they need and is a crucial step towards ensuring a more inclusive economy for all.”
NYDFS encourages banks to expand access to low-cost banking services
On April 15, NYDFS issued guidance determining that offering a “Bank On” certified deposit accounts would satisfy a New York Basic Banking services law that requires institutions to offer low-cost banking services to consumers. According to NYDFS, Bank On accounts (which offer services that eliminate several fees, including overdraft, account activation, closure, dormancy, inactivity, and low balance fees) may be offered as an alternative to existing basic banking accounts. Following an assessment of the New York banking industry to determine the receptiveness and operational viability of offering Bank On accounts, NYDFS concluded that “all New York State regulated banking institutions, as defined under Section 14-f.9(a) of the New York Banking Law . . ., will be deemed to satisfy the Basic Banking requirements under the New York Banking Law and the General Regulations of the Superintendent, by offering Bank On accounts as an alternative to Basic Banking accounts.” Banking institutions may offer Bank On accounts instead of Basic Banking accounts without the need to submit a separate application to the NYDFS for approval. However, because the national standards for Bank On accounts are subject to change without input from NYDFS, institutions that offer the accounts should keep up to date on the national standards.
The guidance follows an announcement from New York Governor Kathy Hochul stating that the “COVID-19 pandemic has shown how important it is for every New Yorker to have financial security.” Stressing that “access to low-cost banking services is critical to managing and securing their financial needs,” Hochul stated that “[t]hese new accounts will help hard working individuals in underserved communities get the affordable, accessible banking options they need and is a crucial step towards ensuring a more inclusive economy for all.”
District Court grants final approval of $10 million class action settlement
On April 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval to a $10 million class action settlement resolving allegations that a defendant bank breached its payment card processing servicing contracts with merchants by imposing excessive fees without contractually required notice. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was “unjustly enriched by imposing early termination fees that constituted unlawful penalties.” The settlement class includes over 200,000 merchants that entered into a payment card processing servicing contract with the defendant and who paid at least one of the fees underlying the litigation from October 2011 to the settlement date. Those fees include annual fees, early termination fees, and paper statement fees. According to the memorandum in support of the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, the deal would provide $10 million in cash to the settlement class, and attorneys representing the class can seek up to one-third of that fund in attorneys’ fees. In addition, each of the three class representatives will be granted $10,000 service awards, per the motion.
States urge CFPB to prohibit mortgage servicers from charging convenience fees
On April 11, a coalition of state attorneys general, led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, announced that they are urging the CFPB to prohibit mortgage servicers from charging convenience fees, which the AGs also referred to as “junk fees” or “pay-to-pay” fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB announced an initiative to reduce “exploitative” fees charged by banks and financial companies and requested comments from the public on fees that are associated with consumers’ bank accounts, prepaid or credit card accounts, mortgages, loans, payment transfers, and other financial products that are allegedly not subject to competitive processes that ensure fair pricing. In the letter, the AGs expressed their support for the Bureau’s request for information on the various fees imposed on consumers generally, but called attention to a specific type of fees imposed by mortgage servicers – the “pay-to-pay fees” – which, notwithstanding that consumers can pay using numerous free mechanisms, the AGs find to be “unfair and abusive” to consumers. The AGs called the fees “particularly insidious in the mortgage industry” because, unlike other markets in which such fees are imposed, “homeowners have no choice in their mortgage servicer.” Because of the nature of the secondary mortgage market, homeowners’ expectations of entering into a long-term relationship with their originating institution are misplaced and they cannot know in advance or determine which company will service their loans – even if they choose to refinance. The AGs also warned that the choice to make payments by an alternative method with no fee (such as online or by check instead of over the phone) may be illusory in the face of pending payment posting deadlines and threatened late fees. In such scenarios, the AGs asserted that the convenience fee operates as an alternative late fee “cheaper, but with a shorter grace period, and in contravention to the contractual terms in most mortgages that outline the specific amount and timing” of late fees. The AGs also took umbrage to mortgage servicers charging fees for the very service they are expected to perform, stating that “[t]he most basic function of a mortgage servicer is to accept payments. The concept that a servicer ought to be able to impose an additional charge for performing its core function is fundamentally flawed.”
Ultimately, the AGs suggested that the Bureau prohibit mortgage servicers from imposing convenience fees on consumers, but, alternatively, the AGs encouraged the Bureau to prohibit servicers from charging convenience fees that exceed the actual cost of processing a borrower’s payment. Furthermore, the AGs requested that the Bureau require servicers to fully document their costs supporting the imposition of convenience fees.
The same day, a group of AGs from 16 Republican-led states released a letter, arguing that more federal oversight would be “duplicative or unwarranted,” given that states already regulate many fees for consumer financial products and services. According to the letter, the AGs noted that “state legislatures and regulators have carefully weighed consumer protection interests and the open and transparent operation of markets in a manner intended to deliver the maximum benefit to the interests of their states,” and argued that they “are much better positioned to understand and assess the diverse interests of their states.” In addition, the letter argued that the Bureau has “limited authority to regulate” fees in consumer financial services markets. The AGs mentioned that the Bureau “may seek to use its authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices to regulate fees,” but considered it “unclear” “that fees disclosed in accordance with state or federal law, in some cases authorized by state law, and agreed to by a consumer in writing constitute ‘unfair, deceptive or abusive’ fees, notwithstanding the CFPB’s characterization of some fees as ‘not meaningfully avoidable or negotiable” at the time they are assessed.’” The letter further characterized the Bureau’s approach as “uncooperative,” “top-down,” and “an unfounded expansion of its authority” that may infringe upon state law.