InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases report on credit card late fees
On March 29, the CFPB released a report analyzing credit card late fees. Using three data sources to study the consumer impact of and industry reliance on late fees, the report found that credit card issuers charged approximately $12 billion in 2020. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires that late fees be “reasonable and proportional,” and its implementing regulation (Regulation Z) sets a “safe harbor” for certain fee amounts, which are adjusted by the CFPB annually for inflation. The report described that these limits have increased to $30 for the first late payment and $41 for a subsequent late payment within 6 billing cycles. The Bureau noted that Congress transferred provisional authority to the CFPB, who “expects many major card issuers to hike fees further, based on inflation, given the existing reliance on the immunity provisions in the marketplace.” Other significant findings of the report include, among other things, that: (i) the average deep subprime account was charged $138 in late fees in 2019, compared with $11 for the average superprime account; (ii) credit card accounts held by consumers living in the United States’ poorest neighborhoods paid approximately twice as much on average in total late fees than those living in the richest areas in 2019; (iii) late fee volume decreased when stimulus checks arrived in 2020 and 2021, particularly in households with lower credit scores; and (iv) “[l]ate fees account for a greater share of charges for issuers who service a higher percentage of subprime accounts at almost 20 percent of total interest and fees.”
FTC sues sales organization in business opportunity scam
On March 15, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against an independent sales organization and its owners (collectively, “respondents”) for allegedly opening merchant accounts for fictitious companies on behalf of a business opportunity scam previously sued by the FTC in 2013. According to the complaint, the scammers promoted business opportunities to consumers that falsely promised they would earn thousands of dollars. From its previous 2013 lawsuit, the FTC obtained judgments and settlements of over $7.3 million (covered by InfoBytes here). The complaint alleged that respondents violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by helping the scammers launder millions of dollars of consumers’ credit card payments from 2012 to 2013 and ignoring warning signs that the merchants were fake. The FTC claimed that the respondents, among other things, (i) opened merchant accounts based on “vague” business descriptions; (ii) ignored the fact that for most of the merchants, the principals or business owners had poor credit ratings, which should have raised questions about the financial health of the merchants; (iii) neglected to obtain merchants’ marketing materials or follow up on signs that the merchants were engaged in telemarketing; and (iv) ignored inconsistencies related to the bank accounts listed on several of the merchants’ applications. The FTC further claimed that the respondents created 43 different merchant accounts for fictitious companies on behalf of the scam and even provided advice to the organizers of the scam on how to spread out the transactions among different accounts to evade detection.
Under the terms of the proposed consent order (which is subject to public comment and final FTC approval), the respondents would be prohibited from engaging in credit card laundering, as well as any other tactics to evade fraud and risk monitoring programs. The respondents would also be banned from providing payment processing services to any merchant that is, or is likely to be, engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct, and to any merchant that is flagged as high-risk by credit-card industry monitoring programs. Furthermore, the respondents would be required to screen potential merchants and monitor the sales activity and marketing practices of current merchants engaged in certain activities that could harm consumers. The FTC noted that it is unable to obtain a monetary judgment due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, which held that the FTC does not have statutory authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
CFPB examines credit card rates and fees
On January 19, the CFPB released a blog on credit card interest and fees. The Bureau noted that credit card debt is rising, and that “from 2015 to 2019, the average assessed interest rate on credit cards increased by more than 20%.” The blog pointed out that the Bureau is examining ways to ensure that there is robust and fair competition in the credit card market. According to the blog, the Bureau “will focus on ensuring a more fair, transparent, and competitive credit card market” by (i) uncovering unfair, anticompetitive practices; (ii) making it easier for consumers to compare, switch, or refinance credit cards; and (iii) scrutinizing junk fees. The Bureau also noted that it is “looking to use a long-dormant authority to help spur better credit card shopping and switching by proposing rules that give consumers more control of their financial data,” and “considering options that will help Americans with credit cards escape high rates and lousy service.”
District Court: Debt collectors may rely on information supplied by credit card issuer
On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action over an alleged disputed debt, ruling that defendants are allowed to rely on information supplied by a credit card issuer that a “debt owned has been verified and is owed.” The plaintiff opened a credit card in 2015 and stopped making payments on the card in June 2018. After she stopped making payments, the plaintiff sent notices of dispute to the credit card issuer contesting, among other things, whether the issuer owned the account, and received correspondence back from the issuer with information about where disputes about the debt should be directed. The issuer also explained that based on an investigation into her account, the issuer believed the account to be valid. Several months later, the defendants sent a demand letter on behalf of the issuer to the plaintiff using the address associated with the account, and later filed a collection lawsuit in state court seeking judgment to recover the unpaid balance.
The plaintiff sued, accusing the defendants of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA when they initiated the collections action. Among other claims, the plaintiff argued that she never received the demand letter. She also contended that the defendants should have known about the disputes. The court, however, agreed with the magistrate judge’s final orders and judgment, which ruled that it is not a requirement of the FDCPA for the defendants to confirm that a notice was received as a condition of filing the state court action. According to the court, the plaintiff identified no evidence that mail sent to the address used by the defendants was returned as undeliverable. The court also agreed that the plaintiff’s notices of dispute “did not challenge that she opened the account or was responsible for the charges,” and that the defendants submitted bank statements showing that the plaintiff made payments on the account.
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- 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) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
CFPB releases report on consumer credit disputes
On November 2, the CFPB released a report on credit report disputes that outlined the demographic characteristics of disputers and the outcomes for accounts with dispute flags. The report highlighted that consumers in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, as well as younger consumers and those with low credit scores, are far more likely to have disputes on their credit reports. The post—part of a series documenting trends in consumer credit outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic (the first covered by InfoBytes here)—used data on auto loan, student loan, and credit card accounts opened between 2012 and 2019. Among other things, the report found that majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods continue to face significant challenges with credit records; for example, in almost every credit category outlined in the report, consumers residing in majority Black areas were more than twice as likely to have disputes on their credit reports compared to consumers residing in majority white areas. For auto loans, consumers in majority Black areas were more than three times as likely to have disputes appear on their credit reports compared to majority white areas. The report also noted that approximately 40 percent of student loans with dispute flags are deleted within four years of the dispute, although this represents less than 0.2 percent of all student loans opened between 2012 and 2019.
According to Director Rohit Chopra, “[e]rror-ridden credit reports are far too prevalent and may be undermining an equitable recovery.” The report noted that “an important subject for future research is whether these patterns are driven by differences across groups and credit types in the type or frequency of the underlying issues that result in a dispute flag, or whether they are driven by furnishers’ practices for reporting dispute flags or responding to disputes.” Additionally, the Bureau said in its press release that it “is committed to further researching the root causes of credit information disputes, as well as investigating the reasons for the demographic disparities found in the report.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the FTC and the North Carolina Department of Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of the consumer plaintiffs in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., arguing that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities cannot use Section 230 liability protections to shield themselves from credit reporting violations.
CFPB adjusts annual dollar threshold for Regulation Z, CLA
On October 25, the CFPB announced the annual dollar threshold adjustments that govern the application of Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act). The final rule revises the dollar amounts, where appropriate, for provisions implementing TILA and amendments to TILA, including under the CARD Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and Dodd-Frank. Each year the thresholds must be readjusted based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which took effect June 1. Effective January 1, 2022, the threshold that triggers requirements to disclose minimum interest charges for open-end consumer credit plans under TILA will remain unchanged at $1.00. The adjusted dollar amount for a safe harbor for a first violation penalty fee will increase to $30 in 2022, and the adjusted dollar amount for a safe harbor for a subsequent violation penalty fee will increase to $41 for open-end consumer credit plans under the CARD Act amendments to TILA. With respect to HOEPA, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages in 2022 will be $22,969, whereas the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages will be $1,148. The final rule also specifies 2022 pricing thresholds for the spread between a qualified mortgage’s annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate, and identifies points and fees limits for all categories of qualified mortgages.
Additionally, the Bureau and the Federal Reserve Board finalized the annual dollar threshold adjustment that governs the application of the Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M), as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The exemption threshold for 2022, based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, will increase from $58,300 to $61,000.
CFPB releases consumer credit card report
On September 29, the CFPB released its fifth biennial report on the state of the credit card market as required by Section 502 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. The 2021 report covers the credit card market for the 2019-2020 period, and revisits similar baseline indicators and in-depth topics to examine market changes and track market developments and trends. Specifically, the report updates the deferred interest analysis last conducted in the 2017 Report. The report also analyzes the latest research on consumer card use, cost, and availability, among other things, finding that “[f]rom a 2019 peak of $926 billion, credit card debt fell to $811 billion by the second quarter of 2020, the largest six-month decline on record, before reaching $825 billion by the end of the year.” The report also highlights indicators related to consumer credit card activity during the pandemic, including (i) more than 25 million consumer credit card accounts represented approximately $68 billion in outstanding credit card debt entered relief programs in 2020; (ii) application volume for credit cards sharply declined in 2020 from its peak in 2019; (iii) late payment and default rates were at a historic low; (iv) consumers with below prime scores saw the greatest constriction in available credit card line; and (v) digital engagement is increasing across all age groups.
CFPB requests comments on credit card data collections
On September 21, the CFPB published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register seeking input on revisions to an existing, currently approved information collection, related to reporting terms of credit card plans and consumer and college credit card agreements. The notice relates to credit card data collected by the Bureau as required under TILA regarding agreements between issuers and consumers under a credit card account for open-end consumer credit plans, as well as “any college credit card agreements to which the issuer is a party and certain additional information regarding those agreements.” The data collections will enable the Bureau to provide “a centralized and searchable repository for consumer and college credit card agreements and information regarding the arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education.” Comments must be received by October 21.
CFPB releases annual college credit card report
On September 9, the CFPB released its annual report to Congress on college credit card agreements. The report was prepared pursuant to the CARD Act, which requires card issuers to submit to the CFPB the terms and conditions of any agreements they make with colleges, as well as certain organizations affiliated with colleges. The CFPB cited data from 2019 and 2020 showing that (i) the number of college card agreements in effect continued to decline; (ii) the total volume of payments by issuers declined; and (iii) agreements with alumni associations continue to dominate the market based on most metrics. The complete set of credit card agreement data collected by the Bureau can be accessed here.