InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB holds hearing on medical billing and collections
On July 11, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra delivered prepared remarks at a public hearing on medical billing and collections. Chopra commented on the prevalence of medical debt in the country, which affects over 100 million Americans, while $433.2 billion of the national GDP is sourced from consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses. Specifically, the CFPB hearing addressed the effects of medical payment products, including special-purpose credit cards and installment loans used to cover the cost of medical treatment, which Chopra claimed can leave patients “worse off.” The Bureau highlighted the predatory nature of such medical credit cards, which typically have a higher interest rate than other cards and are often presented to consumers by their providers. According to Chopra, the Bureau recently launched a public inquiry (covered by InfoBytes here) to answer questions related to these products.
During the expert panel discussion, multiple panelists raised issues regarding the federal requirements for hospital financial assistance programs that exist in exchange for tax benefits. Panelists criticized the complicated processes patients must follow for such programs and compared it to the simple and fast online application process for medical credit cards. Panelists also highlighted the need to include stronger, clearer federal requirements for hospital financial assistance programs, such as setting standards on income and setting minimums or floors, so consumers can access such services more easily. Panelists commonly noted that state requirements for hospital financial assistance programs are more robust than the federal requirements. In response to Chopra’s question on what the panelists wish to see from the Bureau regarding regulation, one panelist asked for a ban on deferred interest, noting the “special regulatory authority” the Bureau has. Another panelist requested that the agency ban medical credit cards from being offered in a medical setting, citing her communication with clients who claim they feel “pressured” to sign the paperwork in that setting. Additionally, another panelist requested that the Bureau prohibit the reporting of medical debt on credit reports—mentioning Colorado’s headway in being the first state to ban such reporting and noting the Bureau’s potential to ban it at a federal level. The panelists each applauded the agency’s efforts to bolster regulations on medical payment products.
States endorse CFPB’s policy statement on abusive conduct
On July 6, the California attorney announced that he had joined a coalition of state attorneys general in submitting a comment letter endorsing the CFPB’s recently issued policy statement on abusive conduct in consumer financial markets. The multi-state coalition comprises Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In April, the Bureau issued a policy statement containing an “analytical framework” for identifying abusive conduct prohibited under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, in which it broadly defined abusive conduct as anything that obscures, withholds, de-emphasizes, renders confusing, or hides information about the key features of a product or service. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
In their letter, the state attorneys general emphasized the importance of preventing abusive conduct in consumer financial markets and highlighted the partnership between states and the Bureau in achieving this goal. The states also commended the Bureau for providing a clear, analytical framework for what constitutes abusive acts or practices and expressed appreciation for the agency’s use of real enforcement actions as examples of illegal abusive conduct. The multi-state coalition applauded the flexibility and guidance provided by the policy statement and complimented the Bureau for acknowledging the realities of modern consumer markets by clarifying that both acts and omissions can hinder consumers’ understanding of terms and conditions, including the use of fine print or complex language that limits comprehension.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of FCRA claims against subservicer
On July 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant data furnisher in an FCRA case, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant provided “patently incorrect or materially misleading information” to a credit reporting agency (CRA). Defendant was the subservicer for plaintiff’s mortgage and was responsible for accepting and tracking payments and providing payment data to the CRAs. After plaintiff failed to make her monthly payments, she resolved the delinquency through a short sale of her home. Several years later, plaintiff noticed that the closed mortgage account appeared on her credit reports as delinquent. She disputed the information to several CRAs. To confirm the accuracy of its records on plaintiff’s mortgage, one of the CRAs sent the defendant data furnisher four automated consumer dispute verification (ACDV) forms. In the ACDV responses, the defendant amended or verified several contested data points, including the pay rate and account history. The CRA reported this amended data to indicate on plaintiff’s credit report that she was currently delinquent on the mortgage with missed payments in the months following the short sale. After plaintiff applied for and was denied a new mortgage based on the credit report, plaintiff sued the defendant data furnisher for alleged violations of the FCRA, alleging that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed data and provided false and misleading information to CRAs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that plaintiff failed to make a threshold showing that the defendant’s data was incomplete or inaccurate.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit disagreed with plaintiff that “completeness or accuracy” under the FCRA “must be judged based, not on the ACDV response the data furnisher provided, but on the credit report generated from it.” The court reasoned that the text of the statute “says nothing about a credit report, let alone a duty of a data furnisher with respect to credit reports produced using its amended data. To the contrary, the statute sets out the data furnisher’s duties to investigate disputes, correct incomplete or inaccurate information, and report results from an investigation” to the CRA. Holding that “context can play a large role in determining completeness or accuracy” in this situation, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the data provided by the defendant to the CRA was “not materially misleading” and that “no reasonable jury could find” that the data meant that plaintiff was currently delinquent on her debt, particularly because of strong “contextual evidence”—specifically, that the disputed data appeared directly beside a status code showing that the account was closed. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the data furnisher.
District Court orders individual to pay $148 million in student debt-relief scam
On July 7, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment and order against an individual defendant accused of operating and controlling a deceptive student loan debt relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the student loan debt relief operation for allegedly deceiving thousands of student loan borrowers. The Bureau and the states alleged that since at least 2015, the debt relief operation violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), FDCPA, and various state laws by charging and collecting over $95 million in illegal advance fees from student loan borrowers. In addition, the Bureau and the states claimed that the debt relief operation engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the purpose and application of the fees they charged and the nature and benefits of their services. Specifically, the debt relief operation allegedly failed to inform borrowers that, among other things, (i) they would request that the loans be placed in forbearance and interest would continue to accrue during the forbearance period, thereby increasing the borrowers’ overall loan balances; and (ii) it was their practice to submit false information about the borrowers to student loan servicers to try to qualify borrowers for lower monthly payments. The individual defendant was accused of owning, controlling, and managing the student loan debt relief operation, materially participating in the operation’s affairs, and providing substantial assistance or support while knowing or consciously avoiding knowledge that the operation was engaging in illegal conduct.
The individual defendant was held liable, jointly and severally, in the amount of approximately $95,057,757, for the purpose of providing redress to affected borrowers. Because the individual defendant was found to have recklessly violated the TSR and the CFPA, the court also imposed second-tier civil monetary penalties of $147,985,000 to the Bureau, of which $5,000 will be paid to each state. The final judgment also imposes various forms of injunctive relief, including permanent bans on engaging in consumer financial products or services and violating the TSR, CFPA, and similar laws in Minnesota, North Carolina, and California. The individual defendant is also prohibited from disclosing, using, or benefiting from customer information obtained in connection with the offering or providing of the debt relief services, and may not “attempt to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment from any consumer who purchased or agreed to purchase” a debt relief service from any of the defendants.
Nevada requires licenses for EWA providers
The Nevada governor recently signed SB 290 (the “Act”) outlining several requirements for providers of earned wage access (EWA) products. EWA products allow individuals to access their earned income before receiving their regular paycheck. To operate such services in Nevada, providers must obtain a license from the Nevada Commissioner of Financial Institutions. The licensing requirements apply to both “employer-integrated” services, where the provider receives verified data directly from the employer or the employer’s payroll service to deliver unpaid wages, and “direct-to-consumer” services where the provider delivers unpaid wages after verifying the earned income based on data not obtained from the employer or their payroll service. Notably, the Act specifies that EWA products are not loans or money transmissions under Nevada law and are not subject to existing laws governing these products. The Act outlines application and fee requirements (licenses will be issued via the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry) and requires licensed EWA providers to submit annual reports to the commissioner by April 15 of each year.
Providers of EWA products are also subject to certain prohibitions, which include: (i) sharing any fees, voluntary tips, gratuities, or other donations with an employer; (ii) the use of credit reports or credit scores to determine eligibility for an EWA service; (iii) the imposition of late fees or penalties for nonpayment by users; (iv) the reporting of a user’s nonpayment to a consumer reporting agency or a debt collector; (v) coercion of users to make payments through civil action; and (vi) restrictions on using a third-party collector or debt buyer to pursue collections from a user.
Additionally, EWA providers must, among other things, (i) implement policies and procedures to respond to questions and complaints raised by users (responses must be provided within 10-business days of receipt); (ii) disclose to the user his or her rights, as well as all related fees, prior to entering an agreement; (iii) allow users to cancel their EWA agreements at any time without being charged a fee; (iv) conspicuously disclose that any tips, gratuities, or donations paid by the user do not directly benefit any specific employee of the EWA provider or any other person (providers must also allow users to select $0 as an amount for such a tip); (v) comply with the EFTA when seeking payment of outstanding proceeds, fees, or other payments from a user’s depository account; and (vi) reimburse users for any overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees incurred as a result of the provider attempting to collect payment on a date earlier than disclosed to the user or in an amount different from what was disclosed.
On or before September 30, the commissioner is required to prescribe application requirements. EWA providers who were engaged in the offering of EWA services as of January 1, 2023, may continue to provide services until December 31, 2024, if the provider submits an application for licensure by January 1, 2024, and otherwise complies with the Act’s provisions. The Act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and on July 1, 2024, for all other purposes.
Connecticut implements measures for auto-renewals
On June 28, the Connecticut governor signed HB 5314 (the “Act”), enacting measures relating to automatic renewal offers and consumer agreements. The Act, among other things, includes newly defined terms such as “automatic renewal provision.” The Act stipulates that any business that enters into a consumer agreement that contains an automatic renewal or continuous services provision must provide various consumer notices and enable any consumer who enters into such an agreement online to terminate online. Notices include a description of the actions the consumer must take to terminate, and if disclosed electronically, a link or other electronic means. Also, to be disclosed before renewal, in any consumer agreement containing an automatic renewal provision, must be the amount of the recurring charge and the amount of the change if the charges are subject to change (if such change in amount is known by the business). The business must further disclose the length of the term for such an agreement, unless the consumer chooses the length of the term, as well as any minimum purchase obligations and contact information for the business. The business must also establish a means for communication with consumers, such as email, toll-free phone number, or website if the agreement is contracted online. The Act also stipulates the nature of the disclosures for consumers before entering such an agreement, before the business makes a material change to the terms of the agreement, and before a consumer enters an agreement that offers a gift or free trial period. Additionally, the Act provides that no person doing business can impose any charge or fee for providing bills to consumers in paper form.
The Act is effective October 1.
CFPB launches medical-debt inquiry with HHS and Treasury
On July 7, the CFPB, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Treasury Department announced they are looking into high-cost specialty financial products such as medical credit cards and installment loans used by patients to pay for health care. These products, the agencies explained, were once primarily used to pay for medical treatments not traditionally covered by health insurance but may now be more widely used even when medical care may be covered by insurance or financial assistance. The agencies released a request for information (RFI) seeking feedback on a range of topics, including costs associated with medical payment products, how prevalent the products are, health care providers’ incentives to offer these products to patients, and whether patients fully understand the risks and consequences associated with medical payment products.
Specifically, the agencies are soliciting comments “on whether these products may allow health care providers to operate outside of a broad range of patient and consumer protections.” Feedback is also requested on whether use of these products is contributing to health care cost inflation, displacing hospitals’ provision of financial assistance, causing patients to pay inaccurate or inflated medical bills, increasing the amount patients must pay due to financing costs, or otherwise contributing to consumer harm, including through downstream credit reporting and debt collection practices. The agencies also want to know if using these products is creating disparities across different demographic groups, as well as policy options to protect consumers from harm.
The agencies commented that the RFI will assist in their understanding of consumer harms and financial challenges caused by specialty medical payment products and will serve to guide next steps, including future Bureau actions focusing on credit origination, debt collection, and credit reporting practices of the financial companies that originate and service these products.
Comments on the RFI are due within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Additionally, the Bureau is hosting a hearing on July 11 to address medical billing and collection concerns with a focus on medical payment products.
Highlights from the CFPB’s 2022 fair lending report
On June 29, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2022 to fulfill its fair lending mandate. Much of the Bureau’s work in 2022 was directed towards unlawful discrimination in the home appraisal industry and addressing redlining. According to the report, the CFPB also honed its efforts on factors that influence fair access to credit which included insight into factors affecting consumers’ credit profiles. The report highlights one fair lending enforcement action from 2022, where the CFPB and DOJ filed a joint complaint and proposed consent order against a company for allegedly violating ECOA, Regulation B, and the CFPA by discouraging prospective applicants from applying for credit. Notably, the Bureau notes that under section 704 of ECOA, it must refer any cases with instances of a creditor being believed to have engaged in a “pattern or practice of lending discrimination” to the DOJ. According to the report, the FDIC, NCUA, Federal Reserve Board, and CFPB collectively made 23 such referrals to the DOJ in 2022, a 91 percent increase from 2020. Five of the 23 matters were sent by the CFPB, four of which involved alleged racial discrimination in redlining, and one involving alleged discrimination in underwriting based on receipt of public assistance income. The report also discusses the CFPB’s risk-based prioritization process that resulted in initiatives concerning small business lending, policies and procedures on exclusions in underwriting, and the use of artificial intelligence. Moving forward, the Bureau will continue its collaborative approach with other agencies and prioritize areas such as combating bias in home appraisals, redlining, and the use of advanced technologies in financial services. Additionally, the report states that by focusing on restorative outcomes, comprehensive remedies, and equal economic opportunities, the CFPB aims to create a fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory credit market for consumers.
New Hampshire amends rules for interest on escrow accounts
On June 20, New Hampshire enacted HB 520 (the “Act”) to amend provisions relating to escrow accounts maintained by licensed nondepository mortgage bankers, brokers, and servicers. The Act amends guidelines surrounding interest payments to escrow accounts maintained for the payment of taxes or insurance premiums related to loans on single family homes in New Hampshire and property secured by real estate mortgages. For both (single family homes and property) accounts, payments must be at a rate no less than the National Deposit Rate for Savings Accounts. Further, interest payments during the six-month period beginning on April 1 of each year, must be no less than the FDIC published rate in January of the same year, whereas interest payments during the six-month period beginning on October 1 of each year, must be no less than the FDIC published rate in July of the same year.
The Act was effective upon its passage.
Supreme Court blocks student debt relief program
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the Department of Education’s (DOE) student loan debt relief program (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here) that would have provided between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt cancellation to certain qualifying federal student loan borrowers making under $125,000 a year.
The Biden administration appealed an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibited the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Arguing that the universal injunction was overbroad, the administration contended that the six states lack standing because the debt relief plan “does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way.” Moreover, the secretary was acting within the bounds of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) when he put together the debt relief plan, the administration claimed.
In considering whether the secretary has authority under the HEROES Act “to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers,” the Court majority (opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined) held that at least one state, Missouri, had Article III standing to challenge the program because it would cost the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a nonprofit government corporation created by the state to participate in the student loan market, roughly $44 million a year in fees. “The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” the Court wrote.
The Court also ruled in favor of the respondents on the merits, noting that the text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. While the statute allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to student financial assistance programs under the Education Act in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency, it does not permit the Secretary to rewrite that statute, the Court explained, adding that the “modifications” challenged in this case create a “novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” As such, the Court concluded that “the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the [s]ecretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”
In dissent, three of the justices argued that the majority’s overreach applies to standing as well as to the merits. The states have no personal stake in the loan forgiveness program, the justices argued, calling them “classic ideological plaintiffs.” While the HEROES Act bounds the secretary’s authority, “within that bounded area, Congress gave discretion to the [s]ecretary” by providing that he “could ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision’ applying to federal student-loan programs, including provisions relating to loan repayment and forgiveness. And in so doing, he could replace the old provisions with new ‘terms and conditions,”’ the justices wrote, adding that the secretary could provide whatever relief needed that he deemed most appropriate.
The Court also handed down a decision in Department of Education v. Brown, ruling that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of the case as the respondents lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish that any injury they may have suffered from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the program. Respondents in this case are individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan. The respondents challenged whether the student debt relief program violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures as they were not given the opportunity to provide feedback. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
President Biden expressed his disappointment following the rulings, but announced new actions are forthcoming to provide debt relief to student borrowers. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The first is a rulemaking initiative “aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible, using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act.” The administration also announced an income-driven repayment plan—the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan—which will, among other things, cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half (from 10 to 5 percent of discretionary income) and forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments rather than 20 years for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less.