InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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.
FTC seeks feedback on possible changes to Business Opportunity Rule
On November 17, the FTC announced it is soliciting public comments on possible modifications to the Business Opportunity Rule. According to the FTC’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), the Commission is seeking feedback on the rule’s effectiveness, whether it is necessary, and whether it should be expanded to cover other types of money-making opportunities, such as coaching or mentoring programs, e-commerce opportunities, or investment opportunities. The Business Opportunity Rule prohibits the use of deceptive statements when selling business opportunities, and requires sellers to make several key disclosures to potential buyers, including: (i) the seller’s identifying information; (ii) information supporting claims about possible earnings or profits; (iii) disclosures about whether the seller, its affiliates, or key personnel have been included in certain legal actions; (iv) information on whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy and any applicable policy terms; and (v) a list covering the past three years of consumers who have purchased the business opportunity. The FTC will also require sellers who conduct business in languages other than English to provide disclosures in the language in which the sale is conducted.
The ANPR also asks commenters to address whether business opportunity practices “disproportionately target or affect certain communities or groups, including but not limited to people living in lower-income communities, communities of color, or other historically underserved communities,” and requests feedback on suggested amendments to address any negative effects. Comments on the ANPR are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Treasury recommends closer supervision of fintech-bank partnerships
On November 16, the U.S. Treasury Department, in consultation with the White House Competition Council, released a report entitled Assessing Impacts of New Entrant Non-bank Firms on Competition in Consumer Finance Markets. The report is a product of President Biden’s July 2021 Executive Order, Promoting Competition in the American Economy, (covered by InfoBytes here), which, among other things, ordered Treasury to submit a report within 270 days on the effects on competition of large technology and other non-bank companies’ entry into the financial services space. Assessing Impacts of New Entrant Non-bank Firms on Competition in Consumer Finance Markets is the final report in a series of reports that assesses competition in various aspects of the economy. Among other things, the report found that while concentration among federally insured banks is increasing, new entrant non-bank firms, specifically “fintech” firms, are adding significantly to the number of firms and business models competing in consumer finance markets and appear to be contributing to competitive pressure. In addition to enabling new capabilities, fintech firms are also creating new risks to consumer protection and market integrity, according to the report. The report noted that non-bank firms could “pose risks by engaging in harmful regulatory arbitrage, conducting activities in a manner that inappropriately sidesteps safety and soundness and consumer protection law requirements applicable to an [insured depository institution].”
The report also noted that new entrant non-bank firms or their offerings may pose risks of reliability or fraud issues, in addition to data privacy risks and the potential for new forms of surveillance and discrimination. The report provided recommendations for regulators to encourage fair and responsible competition that benefits consumers and their financial well-being, including: (i) addressing market integrity and safety and soundness concerns by providing a clear and consistently applied supervisory framework for bank-fintech relationships; (ii) protecting consumers by robustly supervising bank-fintech lending relationships for compliance with consumer protection laws and their impact on consumers’ financial well-being; and (iii) encouraging consumer-beneficial innovation by supporting innovations in consumer credit underwriting designed to increase credit visibility, reduce bias, and prudently expand credit to underserved consumers.
FTC sues company for deceptive schemes
On November 16, the FTC announced an action against a company that markets and sells business opportunities for allegedly pitching deceptive moneymaking schemes promising big returns to consumers. Claims were also brought against the company owners. The FTC alleged in its complaint that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by selling business packages and business coaching through an internet retailer under various names that promised consumers they could “generate passive income on autopilot.” However, the FTC claimed the defendants charged consumers between $5,000 and $100,000 for the programs and used fake consumer reviews in their marketing and sales pitches. Few consumers ever made money from these schemes, the FTC said. Additionally, the defendants allegedly charged consumers thousands of dollars to participate in a cryptocurrency investment service, which defendants claimed could generate profits for consumers “while you sleep.” According to the FTC, the defendants harmed consumers by, among other things, (i) deceiving them about potential earnings; (ii) using fake testimonials; (iii) suppressing negative reviews and promising refunds to consumers if they removed their complaints; (iv) threatening to sue dissatisfied consumers and adding language to contracts to prevent consumers from leaving negative reviews; and (v) failing to provide required disclosures when selling their programs.
Under the terms of the proposed stipulated order, the defendants will be prohibited from making deceptive earnings claims and misleading consumers about the nature of their products, including the likelihood of profits. Defendants must also stop engaging in behavior that interferes with consumer reviews and complaints. The defendants will also be required to pay $2.6 million in monetary relief. The proposed order includes nearly $53 million in total monetary judgment, which is partially suspended due to defendants’ inability to pay.
Yellen cites crypto market risks
On November 16, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen issued a statement addressing recent crypto market developments. “The recent failure of a major cryptocurrency exchange and the unfortunate impact that has resulted for holders and investors of crypto assets demonstrate the need for more effective oversight of cryptocurrency markets,” Yellen said, stressing that existing regulations must be rigorously enforced against those who operate in the crypto-asset space. Acknowledging recent actions taken by federal regulators to address crypto risks in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Digital Assets (covered by InfoBytes here), Yellen cautioned that it is imperative for the federal government, including Congress, to move quickly to address regulatory gaps in this space. She warned that while spillovers from recent events in the crypto markets “have been limited,” the interconnections between the traditional financial system and the crypto markets “could raise broader financial stability concerns.”
Senate Banking grills regulators on crypto
On November 15, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing entitled “Oversight of Financial Regulators: A Strong Banking and Credit Union System for Main Street” to hear from federal financial regulators about growing risks related to bank mergers, bailouts, climate change, crypto assets, and cyberattacks, among other topics. Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) opened the hearing by emphasizing that Congress “must stay vigilant and empower regulators with the tools to combat these growing risks,” and said that banks and credit unions must be able to partner with third parties in a manner that enables competition but without risking consumer money. He also warned that big tech companies and shadow banks should not be allowed to “play by different rules because of special loopholes.” In his opening statement, Ranking Member Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA) challenged the regulators to “not stray beyond their mandates into politically contentious issues or establish unnecessary new regulatory burdens,” pointing to the participation of the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC in the Network for the Greening the Financial System as an example of politicizing financial regulation.
Testifying at the hearing were the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr, NCUA Chair Todd M. Harper, acting FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, and acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu. Cryptocurrency concerns were a primary focus during the hearing, where Toomey asked the regulators why they still have not provided public clarity on banks’ involvement in crypto activities, such as providing custody services or issuing stablecoins.
Pointing to a major cryptocurrency exchange’s recent major collapse, Toomey pressed Hsu on whether the OCC “discourages banks from providing custody services” for crypto assets. Toomey speculated, “it seems to me if people had access to custody services provided by a wide range of institutions, including regulated financial institutions, they might be able to sleep more comfortably knowing that those assets are unlikely to be used for some completely inappropriate purpose.” Answering that the OCC discourages banks from engaging in activities that are not safe, sound, and fair, Hsu acknowledged that there are underlying fundamental issues and questions about what it means to control crypto through a custody “which have not been fully worked out.” Toomey emphasized that part of the obligation rests on the OCC to provide clarity on how banks could provide these services in a safe, sound, and fair manner, and stressed that currently these activities are operating in a space outside the regulatory perimeter. Barr agreed that it would be useful for the Fed to provide guidance to banks on how to safely custody crypto assets and said it is something he plans to work on with his colleagues.
Toomy further noted that Congress’s failure “to pass legislation in this space and the failure of regulators to provide clear guidance has created ambiguity that has driven developers and entrepreneurs overseas where regulations are often lax at best.” Senator Bill Haggerty (R-TN) cautioned that lawmakers should not resort to a “heavy-handed” regulatory response to the cryptocurrency exchange’s collapse. “No amount of poorly considered, knee-jerk over-regulation here in the U.S. would have prevented a foreign-domiciled company like [the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange] from doing what it did,” Haggerty said. “The fact of the matter is that crypto, much like all of finance, isn’t beholden to a specific country or a specific legal system, and by not acting and by failing to provide legal clarity here in the United States, Congress only incentivizes activity to migrate outside of our country’s borders,” Haggerty stated, adding that it is “important to recognize that whatever happened with a bad actor running a centralized exchange and defrauding customers” has “nothing to do with the technology underpinning crypto itself.” When asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) which regulator was responsible for watching the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange, Gruenberg said “I think in the first instance, you’d probably want to engage with the market regulators, the SEC and the CFTC, to talk about the activities and the authorities in this area.”
The regulators also discussed efforts to mitigate cybersecurity risks and strengthen information security within the banking industry. Hsu stressed during the hearing that “the greatest risk is the risk of complacency,” while noting in his prepared remarks that the OCC is aware of the risks associated with cybersecurity and has “encouraged banks to stay abreast of new technology and threats.” Barr pointed to the importance of operational resilience in his prepared remarks, noting that “technology-based failures, cyber incidents, pandemics, and natural disasters,” combined with the growing reliance on third-party service providers, expose banks to a range of operational risks that are often challenging to anticipate. Harper commented in his prepared remarks that the NCUA continues to provide guidance for credit unions to reinforce their ability to withstand potential cyberattacks, and recommends that credit unions report cyber incidents to the NCUA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. In his prepared remarks, Gruenberg pointed to recent examination findings revealing that banks that have dedicated resources for implementing appropriate controls are better at defending against cyberattacks, and said the FDIC is “piloting technical examination aids that will help [] examiners focus on the controls [] found to be most effective in defending against these attacks.”
The House Financial Services Committee also held a hearing later in the week that focused on similar topics with the regulators. Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) also announced that the committee will hold a hearing in December to investigate the aforementioned cryptocurrency exchange’s collapse and understand the broader consequences the collapse may have on the digital asset ecosystem.
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.
NY Fed to participate in proof-of-concept shared ledger project
On November 15, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that the New York Innovation Center (NYIC) will participate in a proof-of-concept project to explore the feasibility of an interoperable network of central bank wholesale digital money and commercial bank digital money operating on a shared multi-entity distributed ledger. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NYIC was launched in 2021 to advance the partnership with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub. The NYIC is intended to, among other things: (i) identify and develop insights on financial technology trends associated to central banks; (ii) examine the development of public goods to increase the global financial system function; and (iii) “advance and support expertise in the area of central bank innovation.” According to the recent announcement, the U.S. proof-of-concept project is exploring the concept of a regulated liability network and will “test the technical feasibility, legal viability, and business applicability of distributed ledger technology to settle the liabilities of regulated financial institutions through the transfer of central bank liabilities.” The New York Fed noted that the NYIC will coordinate with private sector organizations to provide a public contribution to the body of knowledge on the application of new technology to the regulated financial system as part of the 12-week project. The New York Fed also noted that the project will be conducted in a test environment, and the results of the pilot project will be released to the public.
FTC extends compliance on some Safeguards provisions
On November 15, the FTC announced that covered financial institutions now have until June 9, 2023, to comply with certain updated Safeguards Rule requirements. The Commission issued this extension based on reports, including a letter from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, that a shortage of qualified personnel to implement financial institutions’ information security programs and supply chain issues could delay security system upgrades.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2021, the FTC issued a final rule updating the Safeguards Rule to strengthen data security protections for consumer financial information following widespread data breaches and cyberattacks. Among other things, the final rule added specific criteria financial institutions and other entities, such as mortgage brokers, motor vehicle dealers, and payday lenders, must undertake when conducting a risk assessment and implementing an information security program. Among other requirements, these include implementing provisions related to access controls, data inventory and classification, authentication, encryption, disposal procedures, and incident response. The final rule also added measures to ensure employee training and service provider oversight are effective and expanded the definition of “financial institution” to include “entities engaged in activities that the Federal Reserve Board determines to be incidental to financial activities.” Included in the definition are “finders” (i.e. companies that bring together buyers and sellers of products or services that fall within the scope of the Safeguards Rule). While many provisions of the Safeguards Rule became effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, certain other provisions, including requirements applicable to covered financial institutions, were set to take effect December 9, 2022.