InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York proposes state-level increase in consumer finance oversight
On January 8, the New York governor released a proposal that would, among other things, expand the entities subject to NYDFS’ enforcement authority and harmonize state regulator authority to bring actions against entities engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices with federal authority. Proposed within the 2020 State of the State agenda are several initiatives designed to increase the state’s oversight and enforcement of the financial services industry. Key measures include:
- Abusiveness claims. The proposal would make New York consumer protection law consistent with federal law by aligning the state’s UDAAP powers with those of the CFPB, thereby empowering state authorities to bring abusiveness claims under state law.
- Eliminate certain exemptions. The proposal would end exemptions from state oversight for certain, unspecified consumer financial products and services. “With the current federal administration reducing the number and breadth of enforcement actions brought by the CFPB, it is crucial that state consumer protection laws apply to all the same consumer products and services subject to Dodd-Frank,” the proposal states.
- Closing loopholes and creating a level playing field. Under the proposal, state-licensed cryptocurrency companies would be required to pay assessment fees similar to other financial services companies. Currently, only supervised entities licensed under the state’s insurance law or banking law are required to pay assessments to NYDFS to cover examination and oversight costs.
- Fines. In order to effectively deter illegal conduct, the proposal would amend the state’s insurance law to increase fines. Additionally, instead of the current Financial Services Law (FSL) penalty of $5,000 per violation, the governor proposes “capping penalties at the greater of $5,000, or two times the damages, or the economic gain attributed to the violation,” while also updating the FSL to provide “explicit authority for [NYDFS] to collect restitution and damages.”
- Debt collection. Debt collectors under the proposal would be required to be licensed by NYDFS, thus allowing the department to examine and investigate suspected abuses. Additionally, NYDFS’ new oversight authority would allow it to bring punitive administrative actions against debt collectors, which may result in significant fines or the loss of a license. The proposal would also codify the FTC’s rule prohibiting confessions of judgment in consumer loans.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposal would also, among other things, expand access to safe and affordable financial services through a collaborative initiative between the state’s Community Development Financial Institutions, NYDFS, and other state agencies designed to improve outreach and financial literacy education to the unbanked and underserved communities.
California governor proposes strengthening state consumer protection authority and increasing financial innovation
On January 10, the California governor submitted his proposal for California’s 2020-2021 state budget, which would, among other things, include the creation and administration of the California Consumer Protection Law (Law). The governor’s budget summary indicates that “[t]he federal government’s rollback of the CFPB leaves Californians vulnerable to predatory businesses and leaves companies without the clarity they need to innovate.” The proposed Law is intended to provide “consumers with more protection against unfair and deceptive practices when accessing financial services and products.” To create and administer the Law, the proposed budget contemplates the expansion of the Department of Business of Oversight’s (DBO) authority to “protect consumers” and “foster the responsible development of new financial products.” In light of the expanded role, the governor also proposed renaming the DBO to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The governor’s budget includes an allocation to the DBO of a $10.2 million Financial Protection Fund and 44 positions in 2020-2021, which would increase to $19.3 million and 90 positions in 2022-2023 for creating and implementing the Law.
According to the DBO’s website, the DBO currently “provides protection to consumers and services to businesses engaged in financial transactions” and “oversees the operations of state-licensed financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, money transmitters, issuers of payment instruments and travelers checks, and premium finance companies.” Under the governor’s budget proposal summary, in addition to the DBO’s current functions, the DBO will have greater authority to “pursue unlicensed financial service providers not currently subject to regulatory oversight such as debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, and financial technology (fintech) companies, among others.”
The budget proposal summary provides that the DBO’s new activities will include:
- Offering services to educate consumers (e.g., older Americans, students, military service members, and recent immigrants).
- Licensing and examining industries that are currently under-regulated.
- Analyzing market patterns and developments for evidence-based policies and enforcement.
- Enforcing against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
- Establishing a new Financial Technology Innovation Office, which will be tasked with proactively promoting “responsible development of new consumer financial products.”
- Providing legal support for the administration of the Law.
- Expanding administrative and IT staff to support the DBO’s increased authority.
The details of the Governor’s budget proposal have not yet been published.
CFPB files claims against debt relief companies
On January 9, the CFPB announced that it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a mortgage lender, a mortgage brokerage, and several student loan debt relief companies (collectively, “the defendants”), for allegedly violating the FCRA, TSR, and FDCPA. In the complaint, the CFPB alleges that the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products. The Bureau asserts that the reports of more than 7 million student loan borrowers were actually resold or provided to companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services.
According to the complaint, “using or obtaining prescreened lists to send solicitations marketing debt-relief services is not a permissible purpose under FCRA.” The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees before first “renegotiat[ing], settl[ing], reduc[ing], or otherwise alter[ing] the terms of at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other such valid contractual agreement executed by the customer,” and prior to “the customer ma[king] at least one payment pursuant to that settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other valid contractual agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector.” The CFPB further alleges that the defendants violated the TSR and the CFPA when they used telemarketing sales calls and direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, and falsely represented that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and change their servicer to the Department of Education.
The Bureau is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from committing future violations of the FCRA, TSR, and CFPA, as well as an award of damages and other monetary relief, civil money penalties, and “disgorgement of ill-gotten funds.”
District Court stays proceedings in structured settlement case pending outcome of Seila Law
On December 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion to stay in an action between the CFPB and parties of a structured-settlement company, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CFPB v. Seila Law. According to the court, a decision in Seila Law that the CFPB’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers under Article II may render the CFPB unable prosecute the case. A determination by the Court is expected later this year (previous InfoBytes coverage here).
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court allowed to move forward the Bureau’s UDAAP claim, which alleged the defendants employed abusive practices when purchasing structured settlements from consumers in exchange for lump-sum payments. The defendants asked the court to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of two cases: Seila Law and a case pending in the Maryland Court of Appeals involving a different structured settlement company (covered by InfoBytes here). The court determined that a stay is not appropriate based on the Maryland case since it is not known when the case may be decided. The court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that if the Maryland Court of Appeals upholds the settlement, the Bureau would be precluded from obtaining relief from the defendants. According to the court, “the extent to which the settlement is preclusive is unclear” and the provision that would preclude action by the Bureau is being disputed on appeal. However, the court concluded that a stay pending the outcome in Seila Law is warranted because “one of the Supreme Court’s paths in Seila Law may render the CFPB unable to prosecute this action; the stay would not be lengthy; and the interests of judicial efficiency and potential harm to the movants justify the stay.”
CFPB releases annual college credit card report
On December 31, 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 2018 showing that (i) the number of college card agreements in effect declined “both year-over-year as well as in comparison to 2009,” the first year data was collected; (ii) no new issuers submitted data to the Bureau for the first time since 2011, and two issuers left the market; 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.
CFPB releases TILA, EFTA, and CARD Act annual report
On December 18, the CFPB issued its mandated annual report to Congress covering activity in 2016 and 2017 pertaining to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The report describes enforcement actions brought by the Bureau and federal agencies related to TILA, EFTA, the CARD Act (and respective implementing Regulations Z and E), as well as data on required reimbursements to consumers. The report also includes a compliance assessment of TILA and EFTA violations. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) member agencies report that more institutions were cited for violations of Regulation Z than Regulation E during the 2016 and 2017 reporting periods, and that the most frequently reported Regulation Z violations include (i) failing to disclose, or to accurately disclose, the finance charge on closed-end credit; (ii) failing to disclose good faith estimates on disclosures for closed-end credit; and (iii) failing to provide consumers with specific loan cost information on closing disclosures. The most commonly cited Regulation E violations include (i) failing to comply with investigation and timeframe requirements when resolving errors in electronic fund transfers; and (ii) failing to provide applicable disclosures. In addition, the report recaps FFIEC outreach activities related to TILA and EFTA, such as workshops, blogs, and other outreach events.
Democratic Senators question Kraninger on student loan servicer oversight
On December 17, eight Senate Democrats wrote to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger urging the Bureau to fulfill its statutory obligations related to the oversight of student loan servicers who collect loans guaranteed by the federal government. In the letter, the Senators express concern over what they consider the Bureau’s “unacceptable” abandonment of its supervision and enforcement activities related to federal student loan servicers, and discuss the Department of Education’s termination of two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) in 2017 that previously permitted the sharing of information in connection with the oversight of federal student loans. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) According to the Senators, Kraninger’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in October (covered by InfoBytes here) reaffirmed the Bureau’s responsibility and ability to examine entities engaged in federal and private student loans. In addition, the Senators claim that Kraninger testified that the Bureau and the Department were “discussing how to move forward in an effective way” to ensure they were overseeing student loan servicers. However, the Senators note that “nearly two months later, the Bureau and Department still have not reestablished MOUs, and the Bureau still has not resumed examinations of federal student loan servicers.” In addition to calling on Kraninger to “take immediate steps, including seeking a court order” requiring the Department to provide access to borrower information so the Bureau can resume examinations of student loan servicers, the Senators request information concerning the MOUs as well as a timeline from the Bureau on when it will resume its examinations.
CFPB releases TRID guidance for construction loans
On December 18, the CFPB published two guides to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) compliance for construction-only and construction-permanent loans. The Bureau notes that under Regulation Z, “a creditor may treat a construction-permanent loan as either one, combined transaction or as two or more separate transactions.” Disclosure options are (i) one, combined loan estimate along with one, combined closing disclosure; or (ii) two or more loan estimates and two or more closing disclosures for each phase of the construction-permanent loan. Appendix D in both the Combined Guide and the Separate Guide provides methods that may be used for estimating construction phase financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau previously released FAQs in May concerning the application of TRID to construction loans.
CFPB releases annual HMDA and TILA adjustments
On December 18, the CFPB announced final rules adjusting the asset-size thresholds under HMDA (Regulation C) and TILA (Regulation Z). Both rules take effect on January 1, 2020.
Under HMDA, institutions with assets below certain dollar thresholds are exempt from the collection and reporting requirements. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $46 million to $47 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $47 million or less as of December 31, from collecting and reporting HMDA data in 2020.
TILA exempts certain entities from the requirement to establish escrow accounts when originating higher-priced mortgage loans (HPMLs), including entities with assets below the asset-size threshold established by the CFPB. The final rule increases this asset-size exemption threshold from $2.167 billion to $2.202 billion, thereby exempting creditors with assets of $2.202 billion or less as of December 31, from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for HPMLs in 2020.
Lawsuit says Prepaid Accounts Rule is “arbitrary and capricious”
On December 11, a payments company filed a lawsuit against the CFPB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the Bureau’s Prepaid Account Rule (Rule), which took effect April 1 and provides protections for prepaid account consumers, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority and is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The company further asserts that the Rule violates its First Amendment rights by requiring it to make confusing disclosures that contain categories not relevant to the company’s products. According to the complaint, the Rule mandates that the company send “short form” fee disclosures to customers that include references to fees for ATM balance inquiries, customer service, electronic withdrawal, international transactions, and other categories, and “prohibits [the company] from including explanatory phrases within the disclosure box to describe the nature of these fee categories.” These disclosures, the company asserts, have confused many customers who mistakenly believe the company charges fees to access funds stored as a balance with the company, to make a purchase with a merchant, or to send money to friends or family in the U.S. The company also claims that the Bureau erroneously lumped it into the same category as providers of general purpose reloadable cards (GPR cards), and argues that the Rule ignores how prepaid cards fundamentally differ from digital wallets, which has resulted in several unintended consequences.
The company asserts that the Rule is unlawful and invalid under the APA and the Constitution for three principal reasons:
- The Rule contravenes the Bureau’s statutory authority by (i) establishing a mandatory and misleading disclosure regime that is not authorized by federal law; and (ii) “impos[ing] a 30-day ban on consumers linking certain credit cards to their prepaid account—a prohibition the law nowhere authorizes the Bureau to impose.”
- Even if the Bureau possesses the statutory authority it claims to have, the rulemaking process was “fundamentally flawed” due to its one-size-fits-all Rule that misunderstands the different characteristics of digital wallets compared to GPR cards. By treating digital wallets as if they are GPR cards, the Rule violates the APA’s reasoned decision-making requirement. Additionally, the Rule is marked by “an insufficient cost-benefit analysis that failed to properly weigh the limited benefits consumers might derive from the Rule against the costs” stemming from the Rule’s changes.
- The Rule violates the First Amendment by failing to satisfy the heightened standard that a law or regulation “directly advances a substantial government interest” because it requires the company to makes certain disclosures that are irrelevant to its digital wallet product. Moreover, the Rule’s disclosure obligations “functionally impair the speech in which [the company] might otherwise engage” by mandating that it provide confusing and misleading disclosures about the nature of its offerings.
The complaint asks that the Rule be vacated and declared arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with the law, and unconstitutional, and additionally seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.