InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases 2021 HMDA filing instructions
On August 21, the CFPB released the Filing Instructions Guide for HMDA data collected in 2021 that must be reported in 2022. The guide states that there are no significant changes to the submission process and that the required data fields to be collected and reported have not changed. Instructions for quarterly reporting can be found in the Supplemental Quarterly Reporting Guide, which was issued the same day. As outlined in a statement issued in March (covered by InfoBytes here), institutions are reminded that as of March 26, 2020, and until further notice, the Bureau does not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an enforcement action against any institution for failure to report its HMDA data quarterly. However, entities should continue collecting and recording HMDA data in anticipation of making annual submissions.
CFPB settles with two mortgage companies over misleading VA loan advertisements
On August 26, the CFPB announced a settlement with a mortgage company to resolve allegations that the company, which is licensed as a mortgage broker or lender in approximately 11 states, sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements to servicemembers and veterans for its VA-guaranteed loans in violation of the CFPA, Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. According to the Bureau, among other things, the mortgage company (i) advertised credit terms that the lenders were not actually prepared to offer; (ii) failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose payment terms; (iii) made numerous “misrepresentations about the existence, nature, or amount of cash available to the consumer in connection with the mortgage credit product”; and (iv) misrepresented the consumer’s repayment obligations by failing to state the amount of each payment that would apply over the term of the loan or failing to clearly and conspicuously state that actual payment obligations would be greater. In addition to a $260,000 civil money penalty, the consent order requires the company to enhance its compliance functions, designate a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws, and comply with certain enhanced disclosure requirements. Additionally, the company is prohibited from making similar misrepresentations in the future.
Earlier on August 21, the CFPB also announced a settlement with a mortgage company to resolve allegations that the company sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements to servicemembers and veterans for its VA-guaranteed loans in violation of the CFPA, Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. According to the Bureau, among other things, the mortgage company (i) advertised credit terms that the lenders were not actually prepared to offer; (ii) described variable-rate loans as “fixed,” when in fact the rates were adjustable; (iii) falsely stated or implied that consumers with “FICO scores as low as 500” would qualify for advertised rates; and (iv) gave the false impression the lenders were affiliated with the government. In addition to a $150,000 civil money penalty, the consent order prohibits the company from making similar misrepresentations and requires the company to designate a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws.
The latest enforcement actions are part of the Bureau’s “sweep of investigations” related to deceptive VA-mortgage advertisements. In July, the Bureau issued consent orders with two other mortgage lenders for similar violations, covered by InfoBytes here.
CFPB reaches $122 million settlement with national bank to resolve overdraft violations
On August 20, the CFPB announced a settlement with a national bank, resolving allegations that the bank violated the EFTA, CFPA, and FCRA through the marketing and sale of its optional overdraft service. According to the consent order, the bank violated the EFTA and Regulation E by enrolling customers who orally consented to the bank’s optional overdraft program without first providing the customers with written notice, and subsequently charged those customers overdraft fees. The bank also allegedly engaged in abusive practices by, among other things, (i) requiring new customers to sign its optional overdraft notice with the “enrolled” option pre-checked without first providing written notice or, in certain instances, without mentioning the optional overdraft service to the customer at all; (ii) enrolling new customers in the optional overdraft service without requesting their oral enrollment decision; and (iii) deliberately obscuring, or attempting to obscure, the overdraft notice “to prevent a new customer’s review of their pre-marked ‘enrolled’ status” in the optional overdraft service. The CFPB also asserted the bank engaged in deceptive practices by marketing the optional overdraft service as a “free” service or benefit, downplaying the associated fees and disclosures, and by suggesting that the overdraft service was a “‘feature’ or ‘package’ that ‘comes with’ all new consumer-checking accounts, rather than as an option that new customers must opt in to.” However, the bank actually charged customers $35 for each overdraft transaction paid through the service, the CFPB alleged.
With respect to the alleged FCRA and Regulation V furnishing violations, the CFPB claimed the bank failed to establish and implement policies and procedures concerning the accuracy and integrity of the consumer-account information it furnished to two nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (NSCRAs). The bank also allegedly failed to implement policies or procedures for investigating customer disputes related to the furnished information, failed to timely investigate certain indirect customer disputes concerning its furnishing to one of the NSCRAs, and instructed customers who called to dispute furnished information to contact the NSCRA instead of submitting a direct dispute to the bank.
Under the terms of the consent order, the bank is required to provide approximately $97 million in restitution to roughly 1.42 million consumers and pay a $25 million civil money penalty. The bank has also agreed to (i) correct its optional overdraft service enrollment practices; (ii) stop using pre-marked overdraft notices to obtain affirmative consent from customers; (iii) provide current customers who have remained enrolled in the optional overdraft service with enrollment status details and instructions on how to unenroll from the service; and (iv) establish policies and procedures designed to ensure its furnishing practices comply with the FCRA.
Special Alert: CFPB proposes new Qualified Mortgage definition for Seasoned QMs
On August 18, the CFPB released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to create a new category of Qualified Mortgages to be called “Seasoned QMs”. The CFPB concluded that if a loan has performed for a long enough period of time and meets certain underwriting conditions and product restrictions, it is warranted to conclusively presume that the creditor’s determination of a consumer’s ability to repay at consummation was reasonable. The new QM category would designate the loan as a safe harbor QM, even if the loan did not meet the criteria of any of the other QM definitions at consummation.
Under the NPRM, a loan originated as a rebuttable presumption QM or as a Non-QM loan will be granted a safe harbor presumption that it complies with the ATR requirements if it (1) meets certain product restrictions and (2) is held in portfolio during the seasoning period and meets specified performance criteria. The product restrictions require that (1) the loan is secured by a first lien; (2) the loan has a fixed rate, with fully amortizing payments and no balloon payment; (3) the loan term does not exceed 30 years; and (4) the total points and fees do not exceed specified limits.
CFPB updates Payday Lending Rule FAQs
On August 11, the CFPB released updated FAQs pertaining to compliance with the payment provisions of the “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (Payday Lending Rule). Earlier in June, the Bureau issued a final rule revoking certain underwriting provisions of the Payday Lending Rule (previously covered by InfoBytes here), along with FAQs discussing the details of covered loans and “payment transfers” under the rule. The updated FAQs provide guidance on several topics, including (i) exemptions for certain loans originated by a federal credit union; (ii) Regulation Z’s coverage threshold; (iii) conditions for when closed-end and open-end loans may become covered longer-term loans; (iv) exclusions for real estate secured credit; (v) the purchase money exclusion’s applicability to automobile loans; (vi) situations where failed payment transfers count towards the limit under Payday Lending Rule; (vii) how a “business day” is determined; and (viii) situations where a lender must provide an unusual payment withdrawal notice.
Lender and owner to pay $12.5 million in civil money penalties in CFPB administrative action
On August 4, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that a Delaware-based online payday lender and its CEO be held liable for violations of TILA, CFPA, and the EFTA and pay restitution of $38 million and $12.5 million in civil penalties in a CFPB administrative action. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2015, the Bureau filed an administrative suit against the lender and its CEO alleging violations of TILA and the EFTA, and for engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Specifically, the CFPB argued that, from May 2008 through December 2012, the online lender (i) continued to debit borrowers’ accounts using remotely created checks after consumers revoked the lender’s authorization to do so; (ii) required consumers to repay loans via pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; and (iii) deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans by providing them with contracts that contained disclosures based on repaying the loan in one payment, while the default terms called for multiple rollovers and additional finance charges. In 2016, an ALJ agreed with the Bureau’s contentions, and the defendants appealed the decision. In May 2019, CFPB Director Kraninger remanded the case to a new ALJ.
After a new hearing, the ALJ concluded that the lender violated (i) TILA (and the CFPA by virtue of its TILA violation) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose consumers’ legal obligations; and (ii) the EFTA (and the CFPA by virtue of its EFTA violation) by “conditioning extensions of credit on repayment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers.” Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the lender and the lender’s owner engaged in deceptive acts or practices by misleading consumers into “believing that their APR, Finance Charges, and Total of Payments were much lower than they actually were.” Lastly, the ALJ concluded the lender and its owner engaged in unfair acts or practices by (i) failing to clearly disclose automatic rollover costs; (ii) misleading consumers about their repayment obligations; and (iii) obtaining authorization for remote checks in a “confusing manner” and using the remote checks to “withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts after consumers attempted to block electronic access to their bank accounts.” The ALJ recommends that both the lender and its owner pay over $38 million in restitution, and orders the lender to pay $7.5 million in civil money penalties and the owner to pay $5 million in civil money penalties.
24 state attorneys general reject CFPB’s time-barred debt proposal
On August 4, twenty-four state attorneys general responded to the CFPB’s request for comments on its proposed supplemental debt collection rule (the “Supplemental Proposed Rule”) arguing it does not “adequately protect[] consumers’ rights.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Supplemental Proposed Rule— which adds to the CFPB’s May 2019 proposed rule (InfoBytes coverage here) — proposes (i) certain disclosures required to be included in communications where a third-party debt collector knows or should know that a debt is time-barred; and (ii) model language and forms that debt collectors may use to comply with such disclosure requirements.
Among other things, the attorneys general disagree with the “know or should know” standard, arguing that the Bureau should “adopt a strict-liability standard, which would be in line with what the FDCPA intends to accomplish.” Moreover, the attorneys general assert that the model disclosures (i) were not adequately tested; (ii) do not account for the variations in state laws as to the potential revival of time-barred debt; and (iii) provide a safe harbor that is inconsistent with the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank Act. Lastly, the attorneys general express concerns that the Supplemental Proposed Rule conflicts with state laws that require state disclosures to be on the front side of debt collection notices and fails to address “obsolete debt.”
Federal legislation would apply TILA to small business financing
On July 30, Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), the Chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, announced new legislation titled, “Small Business Lending Disclosure and Broker Regulation Act,” which would amend TILA and subject small business financing transactions to APR disclosures. The federal legislation would track similar state legislation enacted in California and currently pending the governor’s signature in New York, covered by InfoBytes here and here. However, unlike both California and New York, the federal legislation does not exempt depository institutions from coverage. Highlights of the TILA amendments include:
- CFPB Oversight. The legislation provides the CFPB with the same authority with respect to small business financing as the Bureau has with respect to consumer financial products and services.
- Coverage. The legislation defines small business financing as, “[a]ny line of credit, closed-end commercial credit, sales-based financing, or other non-equity obligation or alleged obligation of a partnership, corporation, cooperative, association, or other entity that is [$2.5 million] or less,” that is not intended for personal, family, or household purposes.
- Disclosure. The legislation would require disclosure of the following information at the time an offer of credit is made: (i) financing amount; (ii) annual percentage rate (APR); (iii) payment amount; (iv) term; (v) financing charge; (vi) prepayment cost or savings; and (vii) collateral requirements.
- Fee Restriction. The legislation prohibits charging a fee on the outstanding principal balance when refinancing or modifying an existing loan, unless there is a tangible benefit to the small business.
Additionally, the legislation would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act to create the Office of Broker Registration, which would be responsible for oversight of brokers who “solicit[] and present[] offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party.” The legislation would, among other things: (i) require commercial brokers to register with the CFPB; (ii) require commercial brokers to provide certain disclosures to small business borrowers; (iii) prohibit the charging of fees if financing is not available or not accepted; and (iv) require the CFPB to collect and publicly publish broker complaints from small businesses. Lastly, the legislation would require each state to establish a small business broker licensing law that includes examinations and enforcement mechanisms.
Relatedly, the FTC recently took action against New York-based merchant cash advance providers and two company executives for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCAs), using unfair collection practices, making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts, and misrepresenting collateral and personal guarantee requirements. See detailed InfoBytes coverage on the complaint here.
Consumer groups sue CFPB over HMDA threshold increase
On July 30, a group of consumer fair housing associations (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed suit against the CFPB, challenging the Bureau’s final rule permanently raising coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under HMDA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the final rule, which amends Regulation C, permanently increases the reporting threshold from the origination of at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to 100, and permanently increases the threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from the origination of 100 lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to 200. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that the Bureau, among other things, (i) failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the changes to the original threshold requirements; (ii) conducted a “flawed analysis of the costs and benefits” of the final rule; and (iii) failed to “adequately consider comments” that were submitted in response to the rule’s proposal. According to the complaint, the final rule “exempts about 40 percent of depository institutions that were previously required to report.” The plaintiffs assert this result “undermines the purpose[]” of HMDA by allowing potential violations of fair lending laws to go undetected. The plaintiffs argue that because the CFPB allegedly violated to the Administrative Procedures Act, the final rule should be vacated and set aside.
CFPB requests input on ways to prevent credit discrimination
On July 28, the CFPB issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on ways to create a regulatory environment that expands credit access and ensures consumers and communities are protected from discrimination with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction. The RFI seeks comments to “identify opportunities to prevent credit discrimination, encourage responsible innovation, promote fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, address potential regulatory uncertainty, and develop viable solutions to regulatory compliance challenges under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B.” The RFI is in lieu of a symposium previously planned for this fall on topics related to ECOA. Information received will assist the Bureau in exploring ways to address regulatory compliance challenges, prevent unlawful discrimination, and foster innovation. Among other things, the Bureau seeks comments on ways to provide clarity under ECOA and/or Regulation B related to: (i) disparate impact analysis; (ii) meeting the credit needs of borrowers with limited English proficiency; (iii) special purpose credit programs; (iv) affirmative advertising to disadvantaged groups; (v) small business lending, particularly minority and women-owned firms; (vi) the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of a sexual orientation or gender identity; (vii) the scope of federal preemption of state law; (viii) situations in which “creditors seek to ascertain the continuance of public assistance benefits in underwriting decisions”; (ix) credit underwriting decisions based in part on models using artificial intelligence or machine learning; and (viii) adverse action notices. Comments on the RFI are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The same day, Director Kathy Kraninger published a blog post outlining Bureau priorities for ensuring a more inclusive financial system. In addition to the RFI, Kraninger discussed (i) the usefulness of the consumer complaint system in identifying cases of discrimination and fair lending violations; (ii) examinations and enforcement actions; (iii) the Bureau’s request for legislative authority to compensate whistleblowers; and (iv) education efforts focusing on consumers’ rights in the financial marketplace, including those related to disparities in student loan outcomes.