InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
10th Circuit: Extended overdraft fees do not qualify as interest under the NBA
On April 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that extended overdraft fees do not legally qualify as interest under the National Bank Act (NBA). According to the opinion, after the plaintiff overdrew funds from his checking account, the bank covered the cost of the item and charged an initial overdraft fee. The bank later began imposing an extended overdraft fee each business day following the initial overdraft, ultimately assessing 36 separate overdraft fees. The plaintiff filed a putative class action, contending that the bank’s extended overdraft fees qualify as interest under the NBA, and that the amount charged (which he claimed translated to an effective annualized interest rate between 501 and 2,462 percent) violated the NBA’s anti-usury provisions because it exceeded Oklahoma’s maximum annualized interest rate of 6 percent. While the plaintiff recognized that the initial overdraft fee qualifies as a “deposit account service,” he argued that the extended overdraft fee “‘is an interest charge levied by [the bank] for the continued extension of credit made in covering a customer’s overdraft’ and therefore cannot be considered connected to the same banking services that [the bank] provides to its depositors.” The district court disagreed and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim after determining that the bank’s extended overdraft fees were fees for “deposit account services” and were not “interest” under the NBA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the appellate majority (an issue of first impression in the 10th Circuit) agreed that the fees qualify as non-interest account fees rather than interest charges under the NBA. The majority deferred to the OCC’s 2007 Interpretive Letter, which addressed the legality of a similar overdraft program fee structure. The letter “represents OCC’s reasonable interpretation of genuinely ambiguous regulations, and OCC’s determination that fees like [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are ‘non-interest charges’ is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulations it interprets,” the majority wrote. “As ‘non-interest charges’ under § 7.4002, [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are not subject to the NBA’s usury limits, and [plaintiff] fails to state a claim,” the majority added.
The dissenting judge countered that extended overdraft fees are interest, and that the OCC’s interpretation did not deserve deference because these fees “unambiguously” meet the definition of interest under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001(a). According to the dissenting judge, this regulation provides that “‘interest’ ... includes any payment compensating a creditor ... for an extension of credit,” and that as such, the “definition maps onto extended overdraft fees like [the bank’s]” and thus the plaintiff had stated a claim.
District Court dismisses bank from class action on out-of-network ATM fees
On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment and denied class certification in an action concerning out-of-network fees charged on purportedly invalid balance inquiries performed at out-of-network (OON) ATM machines. The defendant is a member of two cardholder networks, which permit account holders to access and use OON ATMs. In 2019, plaintiff account holders filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant violated several California state consumer protection laws and breached its deposit account agreements by systematically charging excessive fees. Plaintiffs further alleged the defendant assessed multiple fees if a consumer made a balance inquiry at the same time as a cash withdrawal. The defendant argued in its motion for summary judgment that the deposit agreement was unambiguous and that its assessment of the OON fees for balance inquiries is permitted under the agreement’s express terms. In agreeing with the defendant that no ambiguity existed in the language in the agreement regarding such fees, the court, among other things, also held that language in the agreement providing the defendant and ATM operators discretion to charge or waive fees for use of OON ATMs did not imply that the defendant relied on that contract term in bad faith. The court found that nothing about the use of the word “may” in the phrase “[w]e may also charge you a fee,” necessitates “the conclusion that the bank ‘abuses its power and takes advantage of contractual uncertainty by charging OON Fees when it knows, or should know, of the [alleged] systematic deception occurring at [OON] ATMs resulting in invalid balance inquiries.’”
In its motion, the defendant bank also maintained that the claims against it fail because the plaintiffs failed to follow express reporting and pre-dispute notification procedures outlined in their agreements, which require account holders to review their statements and notify the bank within 60 days of any problems or unauthorized transactions. The court declined to find that the pre-dispute procedures provided an alternative basis for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that it was not clear that plaintiffs’ obligation to provide defendant with notice of unauthorized transactions covered disputed OON ATM fees. The court explained that such fees may not be apparent on the plaintiffs’ billing statements and that “the notice provisions seem to relate to major issues such as fraud and unauthorized or stolen checks” rather than problematic fees.
FTC imposes “record-setting” fine on auto dealer alleging discriminatory junk fees
On April 1, the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General announced a proposed settlement with an Illinois-based multistate auto dealer group for allegedly adding junk fees for unwanted “add-on” products to consumers’ bills and discriminating against Black consumers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants are ordered to pay a $10 million penalty, of which $9.95 million will be used to provide monetary relief to consumers. According to the FTC, this is the highest penalty ever obtained against an auto dealer. The remaining balance of the penalty will be paid to the Illinois Attorney General Court Ordered and Voluntary Compliance Payment Projects Fund.
According to the complaint, which brings claims under the FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, and comparable Illinois laws, eight of the defendant’s dealerships, along with the general manager of two of the Illinois dealerships, allegedly tacked on junk fees for unwanted “add-on” products such as service contracts, GAP insurance, and paint protection to consumers’ purchase contracts at the end of the negotiation process, often without consumers’ consent. In other instances, consumers were told that the add-ons were free or were required to purchase or finance their vehicle. The complaint further alleges that defendants discriminated against Black consumers by charging them higher interest rates or more for add-on products than similarly situated non-Latino white consumers. As result, Black consumers allegedly paid, on average, $190 more in interest and $99 more for add-on products.
FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a joint statement noting that they “would have also supported a count alleging a violation of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices.” Khan and Slaughter elaborated on reasons why the FTC “should evaluate under its unfairness authority any discrimination that is found to be based on disparate treatment or have a disparate impact,” pointing out that (i) discrimination based on protected status can cause substantial injury to consumers; (ii) “injuries stemming from disparate treatment or impact are unavoidable because affected consumers cannot change their status or otherwise influence the unfair practices”; and (iii) “injuries stemming from disparate treatment or impact are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.”
House subcommittee discusses eliminating overdraft fees
On March 31, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions held a hearing titled, The End of Overdraft Fees? Examining the Movement to Eliminate the Fees Costing Consumers Billions, to discuss efforts to reduce or eliminate overdraft fees. Subcommittee Chair Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) opened the hearing by noting that “consumers in the United States pay around $10 to $12 billion in overdraft fees and nonsufficient fund fees,” with just 9 percent of consumers representing up to 80 percent of these fees. He also noted that these “types of fees impact people of color at a disproportionate rate,” and that “[s]tudies have found banks with branches in predominantly black neighborhoods charge more for overdraft on average, and black customers are overrepresented in those who report paying more than $100 in fees in the past year.” Some subcommittee Democrats appeared supportive of measures to address the alleged growing reliance by banks and credit unions on revenues from overdraft fees to make up for interest lost in the current low-rate environment. In contrast, certain subcommittee Republicans appeared skeptical of government efforts to limit financial institutions’ ability to provide overdraft services, questioning the impact such efforts would have on smaller financial institutions like community banks and credit unions. The committee memorandum and hearing focused on the evolving trends related to overdraft programs and fees and their impact on consumers, including the following:
- Overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fee Data and Trends. The subcommittee quoted a study that found that “federal regulators have required banks and credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets to report revenue collected specifically from overdraft and NSF fees, totaling between $11 billion and $12 billion annually,” since 2015. According to the subcommittee, “the true fee total is likely higher since smaller depository institutions are exempt from the reporting requirement.”
- Impact on Consumers. The subcommittee quoted a report that said “consumers face challenges with unclear or confusing overdraft policies or are charged fees simply because of a delay in when their paycheck deposits are made available or when other transactions are settled in their account.” According to the report, consumers “incur overdraft fees despite carefully attempting to avoid them and often believing they have. One practice, in particular, has garnered increased attention recently: charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized when the consumer had sufficient funds in the account but then settled, often a few days later, when the account no longer had sufficient funds.”
- Proposals and Challenges to Improving Consumer Protections when Consumers Overdraft. The subcommittee pointed out that initiatives to improve overdraft fees and NSF fees would “focus on enhancing disclosures and information about overdraft provided to consumers; capping the number of fees a consumer may be charged in a defined period of time; reducing the cost of each fee, or encouraging or incentivizing financial institutions to offer small-dollar loans with streamlined underwriting and affordable interest rates or repayment plans to provide an alternative for consumers who typically rely on overdraft.” The subcommittee also said another possible improvement in the market would result from adopting a faster payments network, such as the FedNow Service. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed announced in August 2020 its intention to implement the FedNow Service—a “round-the-clock real-time payment and settlement service”—through a phased approach with a target launch date sometime in 2023 or 2024.
One witness, a senior policy analyst from a Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, expressed his support for reducing or eliminating overdraft fees, stating that “[o]verdraft fees, by their nature, impact consumers when they can least afford an additional [c]ost.” The witness quoted a study that found “[l]ow- to moderate-income households are nearly twice as likely as higher-income households to overdraw an account.” Calling overdrafts “a penalty for being poor or financially insecure,” another witness, a consumer policy counsel at a civil rights nonprofit, expressed that “overdraft fees are a penalty for being poor or financially insecure.” Quoting a study finding that approximately “80 percent of overdraft fee revenue to banks comes from 9 percent of accounts,” the witness stated that the “median account balance of this group is less than $350.” In contrast, another witness, a law professor at George Mason University, stated in the hearing that “exasperation is not a substitute for sound economic analysis," He stressed that “this is an area in which unintended consequences of bans on overdraft protection, substantive limits, price controls and the like could have some serious unintended consequences.” He further warned of possible negative consequences should policymakers eliminate overdraft programs, cautioning that new restrictions on overdrafts may have many negative implications for consumers, including “higher bank fees, higher minimum monthly deposits . . . and a loss of access to free checking.”
Additionally, some House Republicans were critical of recent efforts taken by the CFPB in this space and the elimination of overdrafts by several banks. During the hearing, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) criticized the CFPB’s inquiry into junk fees (covered by InfoBytes here), arguing that, “t[h]ere is no legal authority for the CFPB to define the term ‘junk fee’ . . . and even less authority for the CFPB to act as a price setter in the consumer financial market.” Luetkemeyer added that “the CFPB is manufacturing a crisis about hidden fees for financial products and services when they are the very people that made up the disclosure regime,” and called the effort “another attempt by the CFPB to denigrate legally operating businesses by any means possible.”
FINRA fines firm $2.3 million for misusing customer funds and charging unreasonable fees
On March 22, a decision was entered in a disciplinary proceeding between FINRA’s Department of Enforcement and a securities firm over whether the firm engaged in unauthorized trading and misused customer funds in response to mounting financial challenges in 2018. FINRA’s extended hearing panel alleged that the firm, in light of declining profits, informed customers that it would stop carrying retail accounts and levied “unreasonable and unnecessary” fees in a discriminatory manner on retail customers who did not close their accounts—including a $5,000 monthly account fee—without providing proper notice. According to the panel, the monthly fee was applied in a discriminatory manner, wherein the fee was waived for profitable accounts and certain customers. Other customers were required to pay a portion or all of the monthly fee in order to regain possession of other holdings. Moreover, the panel claimed that in most instances, “customers were not even aware of the $5,000 monthly account fee, let alone that the firm was taking their cash and securities to cover it.”
The firm argued that the monthly fee should be considered reasonable because it resulted from an “arm’s-length agreement” between the firm and its customers, but the panel rejected the firm’s defense, pointing out that customers did not agree to the fee “as part of a contract freely negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated parties with equal bargaining power.” The panel further asserted that, among other things, the firm also allegedly charged customers unfair prices in securities transactions, moved securities from customer accounts to firm accounts without authorization, and executed an unauthorized capital withdrawal disguised as a payment.
In issuing its decision, the panel found no mitigating factors but identified several aggravating factors, including that the firm “continued a disturbing pattern of misconduct” after a temporary cease and desist order was issued. The firm is ordered to pay more than $2.3 million in restitution and must permanently cease and desist from converting or misusing customer funds or securities, effecting unauthorized transactions in customer accounts, charging unreasonable or discriminatory fees, or causing harm to investors, among others. The panel cautioned that it was “highly likely” that the firm’s misconduct would recur if it remained a FINRA member firm and stressed that expulsion was “the only alternative for protecting the investing public.” The firm denied all allegations.
CFPB releases report on credit card late fees
On March 29, the CFPB released a report analyzing credit card late fees. Using three data sources to study the consumer impact of and industry reliance on late fees, the report found that credit card issuers charged approximately $12 billion in 2020. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires that late fees be “reasonable and proportional,” and its implementing regulation (Regulation Z) sets a “safe harbor” for certain fee amounts, which are adjusted by the CFPB annually for inflation. The report described that these limits have increased to $30 for the first late payment and $41 for a subsequent late payment within 6 billing cycles. The Bureau noted that Congress transferred provisional authority to the CFPB, who “expects many major card issuers to hike fees further, based on inflation, given the existing reliance on the immunity provisions in the marketplace.” Other significant findings of the report include, among other things, that: (i) the average deep subprime account was charged $138 in late fees in 2019, compared with $11 for the average superprime account; (ii) credit card accounts held by consumers living in the United States’ poorest neighborhoods paid approximately twice as much on average in total late fees than those living in the richest areas in 2019; (iii) late fee volume decreased when stimulus checks arrived in 2020 and 2021, particularly in households with lower credit scores; and (iv) “[l]ate fees account for a greater share of charges for issuers who service a higher percentage of subprime accounts at almost 20 percent of total interest and fees.”
CFPB compares banks’ overdraft practices
On February 10, the CFPB published a blog post providing research on banks’ overdraft fees, which highlighted the Bureau’s “ongoing and growing concern about the impact of bank overdraft fees on families.” The Bureau noted that in 2019, overdraft and non-sufficient fund fees (NSF) fees cost Americans approximately $15.5 billion, and though these fees decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic, “they’ve still cost people billions during this crisis—and were climbing through the third quarter of 2021.” According to the blog post, banks have been announcing changes to their overdraft programs, which include, among other things: (i) eliminating NSF fees charged when transactions bounce; (ii) decreasing overdraft fees; (iii) reducing the daily number of overdraft/NSF fees the bank can charge; (iv) providing or increasing the amount that an account can go negative prior to charging an overdraft fee; and (v) providing a grace period for bringing an account back to positive prior to charging an overdraft fee. The Bureau noted in an earlier blog post that “these changes represent an encouraging step by some banks in the right direction.” Additionally, the Bureau released a table giving a “snapshot” of large banks’ overdraft and NSF practices. The Bureau’s work on overdraft/NSF fees is part of a CFPB initiative, in which the Bureau says it “will strive to strengthen competition in consumer finance by using its authorities to reduce these kinds of junk fees.” The Bureau has issued a request for comment 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, which the Bureau has characterized as being “exploitative” and not being subject to competitive processes that ensure fair pricing. Bureau research found that certain fees often hide a product’s true cost and can undermine a competitive market. (Covered by InfoBytes here). The comment period opened February 4 and closes on March 31.
NYDFS locks maximum check-cashing fee at 2.27 percent
On February 14, NYDFS issued an emergency regulation halting annual increases on check-cashing fees and locking the current maximum fee set last February at 2.27 percent. “As our world evolves, so must our approach to regulation, which is why for the first time in Department history, we are reexamining the methodology used to determine the maximum check cashing fee,” Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris stated. “[NYDFS] has a responsibility to take a hard look at the impacts of financial products and services on New Yorkers, especially members of underserved communities.” NYDFS noted that the emergency regulation underscores its concerns over the fixed methodology used to determine annual check-cashing fees, which is based on the Consumer Price Index and is not, according to the Department, “necessarily a reliable or accurate indicator of the costs of operating within a specific sector of business, such as financial services.” NYDFS stated that it intends to promulgate a proposed regulation for a new fee methodology and will seek public comments before a final regulation is issued. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until a final regulation is adopted.
Chopra highlights consumer protection topics
On February 10, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra answered questions during a Washington Post Live session on several consumer protection topics. Citing auto lending as a top concern for the Bureau, Chopra noted that it is important for consumers to be able to shop around, refinance loans, and navigate a competitive market. He also discussed recent Bureau initiatives related to junk fees and overdraft/insufficient funds fees, and said the Bureau intends to sharpen its supervisory scrutiny in these spaces. Chopra stated that, as part of a fair and competitive market consumers want to know when they are being charged these fees, noting that financial institutions have started to transition away from dependency on these types of fees and instead implement programs that will allow a bank to determine what shortfall they will allow on an individual consumer basis. He added that the Bureau may eventually see if rulemaking will increase competition and upfront pricing.
Chopra also discussed the role agencies play in the future regulation of cryptocurrency. He noted that while most of the cryptocurrency market is currently related to speculative trading, this could change if one of the big tech payment platforms decides to expand its services to cryptocurrency. Chopra highlighted several concerns, including how payment data from these systems will be used, how money will be transacted, and how consumers will report fraud. He stated that the Bureau is closely monitoring this space and any regulation will be an interagency effort. While Chopra also discussed the need for transparency with respect to how big tech companies are tracking, monetizing, and harvesting consumer data, he stated it is too early to tell whether there is a need for rulemaking in this area. Chopra also discussed topics related to the buy-now-pay-later industry and student lending, and stated that the Bureau is monitoring both areas carefully.
CFPB seeks input on “junk fees”
On January 26, the CFPB announced an initiative requesting 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 and that are allegedly not subject to competitive processes that ensure fair pricing. Bureau research found that back-end fees often hide a product’s true cost and can undermine a competitive market. The agency cited statistics showing that in 2019, major credit card companies charged more than $14 billion annually in punitive late fees, and that banks’ revenue from overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees exceeded $15 billion during this same time period. In a measure to reduce these “junk fees” the Bureau’s request for information (RFI) seeks input on (i) fees charged to consumers that they believed were covered by a product or service’s baseline price; (ii) unexpected fees charged for a product or service; (iii) fees that seemed high for the purported service; and (iv) fees that were unclear. The RFI also asks for examples of companies or markets that obtain significant revenue from these types of fees and seeks to explore, among other things, whether consumers understand fee structures disclosures and what “oversight and/or policy tools should be used to address the escalation of excessive fees or fees that shift revenue away from the front-end price[.]” The Bureau also asks small businesses, non-profit organizations, legal aid attorneys, academics and researchers, state and local government officials, and financial institutions, including small banks and credit unions, to submit feedback as well. The comment period opened February 4 and closes on March 31.
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra added that information gathered from the RFI will be used to (i) “issue new rules and guidance to spur competition and transparency” (the Bureau also intends to review some of the rules inherited from the Federal Reserve Board); (ii) identify reasons why financial institutions allegedly do not compete on certain types of fees and features; and (iii) create new rules to provide consumers more control over their data and more opportunities to move their money.