InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Noncash Payment Growth Highlighted in Sixth Federal Reserve Payments Study
On June 30, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued its sixth payments study entitled The Federal Reserve Payments Study 2016: Recent Developments in Consumer and Business Payment Choices. The study includes data on business and consumer noncash payments made in the United States in 2015. Among other things, the study details the differences between business and consumer payments in 2015 compared to those from 2000, general-purpose payment card use in 2015, and increases in use of alternative payment methods.
According to the report, the most popular noncash payment types among consumers were, in descending order: non-prepaid debit cards, general-purpose credit cards, checks, and finally, ACH debit transfers. For businesses, however, ACH credit transfers were the most popular, then checks, general-purpose credit cards, and non-prepaid debit cards. Consumers wrote fewer than half the number of checks in 2015 than they did in 2000 but almost doubled the number of noncash payments that they made. Businesses also cut check-writing by more than half but differed from consumers by more than doubling the number of ACH transfers that they initiated during the same period.
General-purpose or “network-branded” cards accounted for more than 65 percent of noncash payments in 2015. The data showed that 60 percent of these card accounts carried revolving debt, while 40 percent of accounts were paid in full each month.
Information on fraudulent payments also was collected and should be available in the third quarter of this year.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Focuses on State-Level Consumer Complaints
On June 27, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report, highlighting complaints from around the country. According to the Bureau, it has handled over 1.2 million complaints from 2011 through June 1 of this year. The report shows nationwide complaint statistics and statistics for service members and older consumers. In addition, the report breaks down statistics on the state level covering financial products and services, company responses to complaints, as well as number of complaints. The vast majority of consumers report high company response rates to complaints averaging in the high 90 percent range, although the volume of complaints is trending upward. The top five products receiving complaints across the country in descending order are: (i) debt collection; (ii) mortgages; (iii) credit reporting; (iv) credit cards; and (v) bank accounts or services.
15 State Attorneys General Clarify Data Breach Notification Laws
On June 5, 15 state attorneys general issued a joint letter to an e-commerce hosting company refuting the company’s assertion in its FAQ provided to online retailers that they are not obligated to notify customers of a data breach in situations where credit card CVV numbers were not disclosed. According to claims made by the attorneys general, the company erroneously stated that, pursuant to the identified states’ data breach notification laws, “there is no obligation to notify in those states . . . if your customers’ CVV data was not exposed.” The attorneys general argued that this is incorrect and stated, “[t]he CVV number does not have to be disclosed to trigger our states’ notification obligations.” The letter noted as an example, New York General Business Law § 899-aa(1)(b)(3), which stipulates that companies must provide notification of a data breach to affected customers when a credit or debit card number plus “any required security code, access code, or password” that would permit access to the account is obtained by an unauthorized party. The attorneys general stated that a CVV code is not a required access code because the card can be used without it. The company is required to provide clarification regarding its FAQ to affected client retailers.
CFPB’s CARD Act Request for Information Garners Consumer and Industry Comments
As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a notice and request for information seeking public comments regarding the consumer credit card market. The request, which closed for public comment on June 8, received 32 public comments from consumer education groups as well as retail industry groups.
The Financial Services Roundtable and the Consumer Bankers Association (the Associations). On June 8, the Associations—one representing integrated financial services companies, and the other representing retail banking and personal banking services—submitted a joint comment letter addressing a number of the issues in the CFPB’s request. The Associations put forth the following recommendations, among others, for consideration:
- “With respect to deferred interest products, we encourage the Bureau to rely on the existing, robust regulatory regime and to not take further action on these products”;
- “hold third-party comparison sites making representations about credit cards responsible for their interactions with consumers”;
- “streamline processes for consumers to elect to receive electronic disclosures”;
- “credit card rewards programs have successfully developed under an effective self-regulatory construct, and that consumers with variable interest rate products are generally aware of the current interest rate environment, negating the need for additional regulations in both regards”; and
- “strong debt collection rules are important for consumers and issuers alike, and burdensome restrictions on communications should be avoided”.
Consumer Action (CA). Also on June 8, the CA—advocating for underrepresented consumers—submitted a comment letter to the CFPB request for information suggesting that the Card Act has been mostly effective “to keep credit card issuers in check” but that “some practices . . . have worsened over time.” Specifically, among other things, the CA provided the following recommendations:
- “retailers and cards that offer deferred interest not be allowed to apply interest until the end of the deferral period, and that retroactive interest be prohibited, and that the interest charged when a deferred interest period ends be on a going forward basis only”;
- “the clause alerting applicants that the terms, rates, and fees ‘are subject to change at any time for any reason’ remains in some card notices . . . While technically legal, this one-sided contract that penalizes consumers who [do] not perfectly abide by account terms and conditions yet gives card issuers a pass on committing to its end of the contract remains an unfair business practice and should be prohibited by the Bureau “;
- “consider requiring more prominent disclosure of a financial link between comparison sites and card issuers”;
- “true secured cards are remarkably risk-free. One danger is when the issuer does not report payment history to credit bureaus. Most consumers want a secured card to build credit and failure on the part of the issuer to report to credit bureaus means the customer is captive to the secured issuer. Users should be educated beforehand as to the proper use of a secured card so they can see it as a tool to help them graduate to an unsecured card eventually. For example, they should be aware that cash advances carry very high interest rates and start accruing interest on transactions immediately”; and
- “we also strongly support the Bureau’s planned prohibition on class-action bans in arbitration clauses and hope to see the Bureau release a final rule shortly.”
CFPB Encourages Alternatives to Deferred Interest Promotional Offers to Provide Transparency to Consumers
On June 8, the CFPB reported that it sent letters encouraging top retail credit card companies to consider consumer financing promotions that are more transparent than the often-used deferred-interest credit card. These deferred-interest cards offer no interest on the promotional balance, but only if it is paid off by the end of the promotional period. If any promotional balance remains when the promotional period ends, consumers are charged retroactive interest on the entire promotional balance from the time of purchase.
The CFPB suggests that a zero percent introductory interest rate is a better option for consumers who are sometimes confused by the retroactive interest in the deferred-interest products. Unlike with deferred interest, under 0% interest promotions, consumers are not assessed interest retroactively if the promotional balance is not paid in full by the end of the promotional period. As previously reported in InfoBytes, some consumers may have difficulty understanding the different credit terms when comparing deferred-interest promotions to zero interest promotions. According to the letters, because deferred-interest programs may be more difficult to understand than zero interest promotions, they require credit card companies to have robust compliance management systems and third party oversight measures to ensure consumers are fully informed of the true costs of the promotional financing.
In a blog post from June 8, the CFPB explains the differences between zero interest promotions and deferred-interest promotions, and offers examples of each promotion.
Connecticut Law Expands Credit Card Fraud Statutes, Addresses Penalties for Rent Collections on Foreclosed Property
On June 6, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act No. 17-26, which expands the statutes on credit card fraud to cover crimes involving debit cards—including payroll and ATM cards—and outlines larceny penalties for collecting rent on foreclosed property. Paper and electronic checks or drafts are excluded from the definition of debit card under revised measure. Additionally, the law specifies changes pertaining to how “notice of a card’s revocation must be sent for purposes of these crimes and expands certain credit card crimes to cover falsely loading payment cards (credit or debit cards) into digital wallets.” Regarding larceny penalties, the law provides that a “previous mortgagor of real property against whom a final judgment of foreclosure has been entered” cannot continue to collect rent after the final judgment if there is no lawful right to do so. Penalties vary from a class C misdemeanor to a class B felony depending on the amount involved. The law takes effect October 1.
Texas Bans Credit Card Surcharges
On May 27, Texas passed legislation that bans surcharges on credit card transactions. Existing Texas law prohibits businesses from increasing the price charged for goods or services for buyers who pay with a debit card or stored value card. With the passage of S.B. 560 , the prohibition on such surcharges will now extend to credit card transactions as well. The law takes effect September 1, 2017. Any person who violates the law can incur a civil penalty of up to $500 for each incident.
Filipino National Sentenced for Running $9 Million Cybercrime Ring
On June 8, a U.S. District Court Judge sentenced a Filipino national to over five years in prison and two years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud last year. The defendant operated a $9 million international cybercrime operation that utilized stolen credit and debit accounts to process unauthorized financial transactions, according to an investigation led by the District of New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office. To obtain credit and debit card account information, the defendant engaged in computer hacking and ATM skimming, whereby millions of dollars were “monetized” through a “global network of ‘cashers’” who encoded the data onto counterfeit cards and then used the cards to withdraw money and make purchases.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Highlights Complaints from Older Consumers
On May 31, the CFPB released Vol. 23 of its Monthly Complaint Report. This month’s report highlights complaints from “older consumers” defined as those who voluntarily report their age as 62 or older. Since it began accepting complaints, the Bureau has received over 1 million complaints—more than 100,000 from older consumers. The report focuses on these complaints, with some of the most common in 2017 including:
- Reverse mortgage servicing issues, which are unique to this group of consumers. Many of the complaints surround older consumers attempting to stay in their home after the death of the borrowing spouse, occasionally ending in foreclosure;
- Financial scams and identity theft issues are often difficult to recover from—especially for consumers on fixed-incomes;
- Credit card issues such as introductory offers may cause confusion for older consumers in understanding credit terms and conditions or the difference between zero interest and deferred interest. Additionally, many older consumers struggle with billing disputes, unwanted subscription services and credit monitoring; and
- Escrow issues, especially when the consumer is trying to benefit from tax relief programs.
The graph shown in a blog on the Bureau’s website compares complaints from consumers 62 and older with complaints from consumers under 62. Although both groups of consumers reported complaints for many of the same products, the graph shows that mortgages, debt collection and credit cards, in that order, are the top three products for those 62 and older—whereas debt collection, mortgages and credit reporting are the top three for those under 62. Additionally, the report reveals that almost a quarter of all complaints from older consumers came from residents of California, Texas, and Florida.
Supreme Court Remands Texas Credit Card Surcharge Case
On April 3, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case challenging a Texas law that bars retailers from imposing credit card surcharges, and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit in light of its ruling last week in Expressions Hair Design, that a similar statute in New York regulated merchants’ First Amendment rights. In Rowell, a landscaping business, a computer networking company, a self-storage facility, and an event design and production company sought to challenge a Texas law allowing merchants to charge different prices to customers who pay with cash and customers who pay with a credit card, but barring merchants from describing the price difference as a surcharge for credit cards, leaving them to describe it instead as a discount for using cash. The Fifth Circuit held that the Texas law did not violate the retailers’ free speech rights, aligning it with the Second Circuit in its September 2015 ruling in the Expressions Hair Design litigation against New York State.
As previously reported on InfoBytes, the Supreme Court last week in the Expressions case unanimously rejected the Second Circuit’s conclusion that the New York credit card law regulates conduct alone, rather than speech. As explained in the Supreme Court’s opinion, the law at issue “is not like a typical price regulation,” which regulates a seller’s conduct by dictating how much to charge for an item. Rather, the Court explained, the law regulates “how sellers may communicate their prices.” (emphasis added). The Supreme Court, however, did not address the question of whether the law unconstitutionally restricts speech.