InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB sets 2023 FCRA asset threshold
On November 22, the CFPB announced the annual adjustment to the maximum amount that consumer reporting agencies are permitted to charge consumers for making a file disclosure to a consumer under the FCRA. According to the rule, the ceiling on allowable charges under Section 612(f) of the FCRA will increase to $14.50, which is a $1.00 increase from the ceiling on allowable charges for 2022. The rule is effective January 1, 2023.
FTC, CFPB weigh in on servicemembers’ right to sue under the MLA
On November 22, the FTC and CFPB (agencies) announced the filing of a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit seeking the reversal of a district court’s decision that denied servicemembers the right to sue to invalidate a contract that allegedly violated the Military Lending Act (MLA). (See corresponding CFPB blog post here.) The agencies countered that the plain text of the MLA allows servicemembers to enforce their rights in court. Specifically, the agencies argued that Congress made it clear that when a lender extends a loan to a servicemember that fails to comply with the MLA, the loan is rendered void in its entirety. Moreover, Congress amended the MLA to unambiguously provide servicemembers certain legal rights, including an express private right of action and “the right to rescind and seek restitution on a contract void under the criteria of the statute.”
The case involves an active-duty servicemember and his spouse who financed the purchase of a timeshare from the defendants. Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendants, made a down payment, and agreed to pay the remaining balance in monthly installments carrying an interest rate of 16.99 percent, in addition to annual assessments and club dues. None of the loan documents provided to the plaintiffs discussed the military annual percentage rate, nor did the defendants make any supplemental oral disclosures. Additionally, the agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause (the MLA prohibits creditors from requiring servicemembers to submit to arbitration) and purportedly waived plaintiffs’ right to pursue a class action and their right to a jury trial. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging the agreement violated the MLA on several grounds, and sought an order declaring the agreement void. Plaintiffs also sought recission of the agreement, restitution, statutory, actual, and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring defendants to comply with the MLA going forward.
Defendants moved to dismiss, countering “that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered any concrete injury and, even if they had, whatever injury they suffered was not traceable to the alleged MLA violations.” Defendants also argued that the loan was exempt under the MLA’s exemption for residential mortgages, and claimed that the MLA does not authorize statutory damages, nor did the plaintiffs state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief. Further, defendants stated the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing, agreeing with the magistrate judge that, among other things, plaintiffs “failed to allege ‘that the inclusion of the arbitration provision impacted [their] decision to accept the contract,’ and that they could not ‘seek[] relief based on a mere technicality that has not impacted them in any way.’”
Disagreeing with the district court’s ruling, the agencies argued that plaintiffs have a legal right to challenge the contract in court because (i) they made a down payment on an illegal and void loan; (ii) the injuries are traceable to the challenged conduct since “their monetary losses are the product of the illegal and void loan"; and (iii) their injuries “are redressable by an order of the court awarding restitution for the amounts that plaintiffs have already paid on the loan, and by a declaration confirming that the loan is void and that the plaintiffs have no obligation to make additional payments going forward.” The agencies asserted that courts have recognized that economic injury is exactly the sort of injury that courts have the power to redress.
Moreover, the agencies pointed out that the district court’s ruling “risks substantially curtailing private enforcement of the MLA and limiting servicemembers’ ability to vindicate their rights under the statute. It does so by reading the MLA’s voiding provision out of the statute and reading into the statute an atextual materiality requirement. But it may be very difficult, if not impossible, for servicemembers to demonstrate that certain MLA violations had a direct effect on their decision to procure a financial product or caused them to pay money they would not otherwise have paid.”
DOJ, DOE announce process for discharging federal student loans in bankruptcy
On November 17, the DOJ, in coordination with the Department of Education (DOE), announced a new process for handling cases involving individuals seeking to discharge their federal student loans in bankruptcy. According to the DOJ, the process will leverage DOE data and a new borrower-completed attestation form to assist the government in assessing a borrower’s discharge request. The DOJ also noted that the process “will help ensure consistent treatment of the discharge of federal student loans, reduce the burden on borrowers of pursuing such proceedings and make it easier to identify cases where discharge is appropriate,” and “help borrowers who did not think they could get relief through bankruptcy more easily identify whether they meet the criteria to seek a discharge.” The DOJ and the DOE will review the information provided, apply the factors that courts consider relevant to the undue-hardship inquiry, and determine whether to recommend that the bankruptcy judge discharge the borrower’s student loan debt. The DOJ also distributed guidance outlining the new process to all U.S. Attorneys.
CFPB aims to protect consumers at the local level
On November 18, the CFPB released a blog describing how CFPB complaint data can help cities and counties protect the public. According to the Bureau, one of the major ways it regulates consumer financial products and services and protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices is through collecting, monitoring, and responding to consumer complaints. The complaints the Bureau receives help inform its policy and regulatory priorities and enforcement activities, according to the blog. The Bureau further noted that consumer complaints “can shine a light on trends and practices that could cause another financial calamity and once again inflict long-term havoc on consumers’ financial wellbeing.” The Bureau said it intends to increase the impact of its complaint data by sharing it with cities and counties to protect consumers at the local level, which will be "a win-win for consumers and the CFPB” because it “helps protect as many consumers as possible from predatory lending, barriers to credit, and other consumer harms.” For its initial engagement, the Bureau chose cities and counties that were best positioned to benefit from the CFPB’s complaint data, including “[l]ocal governments with civil or criminal prosecutorial authority to monitor and enforce their own consumer protection laws as well as force-multiply enforcement of federal consumer financial protection laws such as those available under the Consumer Financial Protection Act”; and “[l]ocal governments with, or that are working to create, financial empowerment offices and developing financial empowerment strategies to improve financial stability for low- and moderate-income households.”
The Bureau explained that after completing the review process, it onboarded the local governments to the CFPB’s Government Portal, which provides local, state, and federal government agencies access to more granular information about consumers’ complaints and companies’ responses through a secure interface. Onboarding to the Government Portal, which required the cities and counties to sign a confidentiality and data access agreement with strict personal data protection requirements, enables the cities and counties to, among other things: (i) view in real-time what consumers are experiencing in the financial marketplace and how companies are responding; (ii) download complaints to examine and enforce rules protecting consumers; and (iii) compare problems constituents are facing to other localities and nationwide. Through the Government Portal, local governments can directly submit constituents’ complaints and get responses from the companies. The Bureau noted that the complaint data can also help local government officials identify what gaps exist, and what fixes are needed, which therefore helps in its mission to foster increased consumer awareness and eventual empowerment.
Supreme Court to fast-track review of student debt relief program
On December 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here). In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the Biden administration’s application to vacate, pending oral argument. The Supreme Court said it will treat the Biden administration’s application as a “petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment,” and announced a briefing schedule will be established to allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session to resolve the legality of the program.
The Biden administration filed its application last month asking the Supreme Court to vacate, or at minimum narrow, the 8th Circuit’s injunction. Among other things, the Biden administration claimed that the 8th Circuit failed to “analyze the merits of the respondents’ claims, much less determine they are likely to succeed” when it granted an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal filed by state attorney generals from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 8th Circuit determined that “the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary’s debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose,” and pointed to the fact that the collection of student loan payments and the accrual of interest have both been suspended.
The appellate court’s “erroneous injunction leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations,” the Biden administration said, adding that if the Supreme Court “declines to vacate the injunction, it may wish to construe this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and set the case for expedited briefing and argument this Term to avoid prolonging this uncertainty for the millions of affected borrowers.”
In its application, the Biden administration argued that the universal injunction was overbroad. The application further argued that the 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 of Education was acting within the bounds of the HEROES Act when he put together the debt relief plan, the application contended. “The COVID-19 pandemic is a ‘national emergency declared by the President of the United States,’” the application said. “Both the Trump and Biden Administrations previously invoked the HEROES Act to categorically suspend payments and interest accrual on all Department-held loans in light of the pandemic.” The application further argued that the states “have not disputed that those actions were lawful,” and that the Secretary of Education “reasonably ‘deem[ed]’ relief ‘necessary to ensure’ that a subset of these affected individuals—namely, those with lower incomes—‘are not placed in a worse position’ in relation to their student-loan obligations ‘because of their status as affected individuals.’”
Meanwhile, on December 1, the 5th Circuit denied the Department of Education’s (DOE) opposed motion for stay pending appeal, following a ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas related to whether the agency’s student debt relief plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court determined that while the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, the court stressed that the HEROES Act “does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program,” and, moreover, does not mention loan forgiveness.
Earlier, on November 22, the Department of Education (DOE) extended the pause on student loan repayments, interest, and collections in an effort to alleviate uncertainty for borrowers. Saying “it would be deeply unfair to ask borrowers to pay a debt that they wouldn’t have to pay,” the DOE stated that payments will resume 60 days after it is allowed to implement the debt relief plan or the litigation is resolved, explaining that this will give the Supreme Court time to resolve the case during its current term. However, if the debt relief plan has not been implemented and litigation has not been resolved by June 30, 2023, borrowers’ payments will resume 60 days after that, the DOE explained.
District Court sends overdraft fee suit to arbitration
On November 16, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration regarding claims that consumers are charged significant overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees on bank accounts linked to discount cards issued by the gas-discount company. According to the plaintiff’s putative class action suit, the defendant advertises fuel discounts through a mobile app and payment card system while claiming that its service acts “like a debit card” by “‘effortlessly deduct[ing]’ funds from linked checking accounts at the time of purchase[.].” While these payments and discounts are represented as being “automatically applied,” the plaintiff alleged that paying with the discount card results in significant processing delays. These delays, the plaintiff contended, cause users to run the risk of having insufficient fees in their checking accounts before the payment is processed, thus resulting in overdraft fees. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant does not verify whether a consumer has sufficient funds in the checking account before payments are withdrawn. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, or in the alternative, moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that during the sign-up process, the plaintiff was presented with terms and conditions that explicitly require users to arbitrate any disputes, claims, or controversies. Moreover, the defendant argued that users cannot sign up for the program unless they first check a button that says “I agree” with the terms of use. While the parties agreed that the plaintiff was presented at a minimum a hyperlink to the terms and conditions, they disputed whether the sign-up process required the plaintiff to affirmatively assent to them. According to the plaintiff, there was no such checkbox button when he signed up for the program.
The court disagreed, ruling that the plaintiff had notice of and agreed to terms and conditions that included an arbitration clause and class action waiver. According to the court, the defendant adequately showed that the checkbox button was part of the process when the plaintiff signed up and that the defendant obtained his affirmative asset to the agreement. Further, the plaintiff failed to support his claim with any specific evidence that the checkbox button may not have been there during the sign-up process, the court maintained.
CFPB seeks to enhance public data on auto lending
On November 17, the CFPB announced it is seeking public comment on its proposal to develop a new data set to monitor the auto loan market. According to the Bureau, more than 100 million Americans have an auto loan, and currently there is approximately $1.5 trillion in outstanding auto loan debt, making it the third-largest consumer credit category. The Bureau explained that financial markets and policymakers have access to mortgage data that has given insight into patterns in lending and risk. But, despite its size, there is less known about the auto lending market. Over the past two years, car prices have risen significantly, which has resulted in higher loan amounts and monthly payments. The Bureau noted that these loan size increases are “beginning to have an impact on consumers and households. Recent data show an increase in auto loan delinquencies, particularly for low-income consumers and those with subprime credit scores.” According to the Bureau, the available data permits market participants to identify and measure certain trends but is insufficiently granular to fully explore the cause of those trends. The Bureau also noted that many auto loans are made to consumers with subprime or deep subprime credit scores from lenders that do not furnish data on those loans to credit reporting agencies. Specifically, for its request, the Bureau is “seeking to build a new data set that will allow for a more robust understanding of market trends,” which may include, among other things, “collecting retrospective data from a sample of lenders that represent a cross-section of the auto lending market.” Comments are due by December 19.
CFPB issues fall supervisory highlights
On November 15, the CFPB released its fall 2022 Supervisory Highlights, which summarizes its supervisory and enforcement actions between January and June 2022 in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, and payday lending. Highlights of the findings include:
- Auto Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances of servicers engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices connected to add-on product charges, loan modifications, double billing, use of devices that interfered with driving, collection tactics, and payment allocation. For instance, examiners identified occurrences where consumers paid off their loans early, but servicers failed to ensure consumers received refunds for unearned fees related to add-on products.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in credit reporting companies’ (CRCs) compliance with FCRA dispute investigation requirements and furnishers’ compliance with FCRA and Regulation V accuracy and dispute investigation requirements. Examples include: (i) NCRCs that failed to report the outcome of complaint reviews to the Bureau; (ii) furnishers that failed to send updated information to CRCs following a determination that the information reported was not complete or accurate; and (iii) furnishers’ policies and procedures that contained deficiencies related to the accuracy and integrity of furnished information.
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices due to human errors and system weaknesses; and (iii) provide explanations to consumers after determining that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted. Examiners also identified Regulation Z violations where credit card issuers improperly mixed original factors and acquisition factors when reevaluating accounts subject to a rate increase, and identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors engaged in conduct that harassed, oppressed, or abused the person with whom they were communicating. The report findings also discussed instances where debt collectors communicated with a person other than the consumer about the consumer’s debt when the person had a name similar or identical to the consumer, in violation of the FDCPA.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed how it conducted prioritized assessments to evaluate how financial institutions handled pandemic relief benefits deposited into consumer accounts. Examiners identified unfairness risks at multiple institutions due to policies and procedures that may have resulted in, among other things, (i) garnishing protected economic impact payments funds in violation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021; or (ii) failing to apply the appropriate state exemptions to certain consumers’ deposit accounts after receiving garnishment notice.
- Mortgage Origination. Bureau examiners identified Regulation Z violations and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. An example of this is when the settlement service had been performed and the loan originator knew the actual costs of those service, but entered a cost that was completely unrelated to the actual charges that the loan originator knew had been incurred, resulting in information being entered that was not consistent with the best information reasonably available. The Bureau also found that the waiver language in some loan security agreements was misleading, and that a reasonable consumer could understand the provision to waive their right to bring a class action on any claim in federal court.
- Mortgage Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances where servicers engaged in abusive acts or practices by charging sizable fees for phone payments when consumers were unaware of those fees. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices and Regulation X policy and procedure violations regarding failure to provide consumers with CARES Act forbearances.
- Payday Lending. Examiners found lenders failed to maintain records of call recordings necessary to demonstrate full compliance with conduct provisions in consent orders generally prohibiting certain misrepresentations.
CFPB highlights tenant background check problems
On November 15, the CFPB issued two reports discussing issues related to the tenant background check industry. The Consumer Snapshot: Tenant Background Checks bulletin outlines difficulties that prospective renters encounter in connection with a landlord’s use of a tenant screening report, based on complaints submitted to the CFPB and CFPB-commissioned qualitative research. The Tenant Background Checks Market Report is based on data from industry research, legal cases, academic research, the CFPB’s market monitoring, and other third-party sources, and focuses on publicly available information from a sample of 17 tenant screening companies that offer services to landlords across the U.S. According to the Bureau, the reports describe how errors in these background checks contribute to rising costs and barriers to quality rental housing. The Bureau’s analysis of over 24,000 complaints highlights renter challenges associated with the industry’s failure to remove wrong, old, or misleading information or to conduct adequate investigations of disputed information.
Highlights of Consumer Snapshot: Tenant Background Checks include:
- More than 17,200 of the approximately 26,700 complaints related to tenant screening received by the Bureau from January 2019 through September 2022 were related to incorrect information appearing on a prospective renter's report.
- Renters who submitted complaints about tenant screening reports described difficulties finding stable and secure housing due to negative information that was inaccurate, misleading, or obsolete.
- The experiences of most applicants who encountered inaccurate or misleading information about evictions and rental debt in their reports indicate that the presence of eviction records has a high likelihood of leading to outright denials of rental housing.
- Inaccuracies in criminal records may have an outsized impact on Native American, Black, and Hispanic communities as they are disproportionally represented in the criminal justice system.
Highlights of the Tenant Background Checks Market Report include:
- The coverage of rental payment history in the consumer reporting system is estimated to range between 1.7 percent to 2.3 percent of U.S. renters.
- Approximately 68 percent of renters pay application fees when applying for rental housing, which are often used to cover the cost of tenant screening.
- Market incentives generally value comprehensiveness of derogatory information at the expense of accurate information.
- There may be a significant possibly that tenant screening reports overstate the risk of renting to any given applicant.
District Court denies dismissal of RESPA "dual-tracking" suit
On November 1, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio declined to grant summary judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer defendant in a Regulation X, RESPA, and Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (RMLA) suit against the mortgage servicer and a law firm (collectively, “defendants”). The case concerned a loan modification that plaintiff had allegedly sought from defendants, for which the defendant mortgage servicer ultimately denied, and the defendant law firm initiated a foreclosure action. The defendant mortgage servicer challenged the count in the complaint alleging that the defendant mortgage servicer’s moving for summary judgment in the state foreclosure action violated Regulation X and RESPA’s prohibition on dual tracking. Dual tracking “occurs when a lender ‘actively pursues foreclosure while simultaneously considering the borrower for loss mitigation options.’” The defendant mortgage servicer argued that the prohibition on moving for summary judgment found in Regulation X did not apply because the plaintiff rejected the loan modification. The defendant mortgage servicer based this argument on the fact that it did not receive the plaintiff’s executed modification by a certain date. Because of this, the defendant mortgage servicer argued that it was permitted to move forward with a foreclosure judgment, and its decision to reverse the denial of the modification was at its discretion and not subject to the requirements of 12 C.F.R.1024.41(g).
The court found, however, that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff returned the loan modification agreement by the designated date. The court continued, “[the defendant mortgage servicer’s] explanation regarding all three of the exceptions found at §41(g) subsections (1) through (3) each expressly depend upon the factual assertion that [the plaintiff] did not return a signed modification agreement and thereby rejected same. Inasmuch as there is evidence that [the plaintiff] did so, the court cannot conclude that [the defendant mortgage servicer] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding the exceptions in §41(g) of Regulation X.” Among other things, the court also found that the defendant mortgage servicer “failed to act with reasonable care and diligence, in good faith, to safeguard and account for money tendered by [the plaintiff].” The court concluded by finding that the plaintiff sufficiently identified plausible damages as a result of a RESPA violation, further permitting her claims to stand.