InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District court: Initial debt collection communication via email does not violate FDCPA
On May 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a debt collector’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit with prejudice brought by a plaintiff alleging violations of the Electronic Signatures in Global Commerce (E-SIGN) Act and the FDCPA. The defendant sent an email to the plaintiff attempting to collect an unpaid debt that contained a validation notice. The plaintiff argued that the email violated the E-SIGN Act because she did not consent to receive email from the defendant, and that it also violated the FDCPA “because the email referred to ‘send[ing]’ a copy of the verification of the debt whereas § 1692g(a)(4) specifies that a copy of the verification will be ‘mailed.’” Among other arguments, the plaintiff claimed that the email’s subject line, which stated “This needs your attention,” violated the FDCPA because it did not convey that the message was seeking to collect a debt, and that she received several more emails during the validation period, which confused her and “overshadowed” the validation notice in the initial communication.
The court disagreed, stating that because there are “no express restrictions” within the FDCPA about how the initial communication must be made, allowing it to be made electronically is a “reasonable argument.” Specifically, the court noted that the CFPB has recognized that certain communication technologies such as email did not exist when the FDCPA was passed, and referred to the Bureau’s commentary on its proposed debt collection rule that stated “a validation notice as part of an initial communication can be conveyed via email.” [Emphasis in the original.] The court also determined that the plaintiff lacked standing with respect to her claim that the initial email’s subject line violated the FDCPA since she opened the email and clicked on the link. Furthermore, the court noted that using the word “send” instead of “mailed” in the initial communication would not have confused the least sophisticated debtor because the “debtor, if concerned about getting a verification of debt via email, could always ask for a copy to be sent via physical mail instead.”
CFPB approves mortgage servicing and small-dollar lending NAL templates
On May 22, the CFPB announced it issued two no-action letter (NAL) templates. The two templates approved by the Bureau are intended to support financial institutions to better assist struggling consumers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Details of the two approved templates include:
- Mortgage servicing. The Bureau approved a template submitted by a mortgage software company that would enable mortgage servicers to use the company’s online platform—which is an online version of Fannie Mae Form 710—to implement loss mitigation practices for borrowers. A copy of the company’s application is available here.
- Small-dollar lending. The Bureau approved a template, in response to a request by a nonpartisan public policy, research and advocacy group for banks, that would assist depository institutions in offering a standardized, small-dollar credit product under $2,500 with a repayment term between 45 days and one year. The template covers, among other things, a product structured as either (i) a fixed-term, installment loan, which the customer would pay back in fixed minimum payment amounts over the term of the loan; or (ii) an open-end line of credit, linked to the consumer’s deposit account, where any amounts drawn would be repaid by consumers in fixed minimum amounts over a fixed repayment period. An institution would need to certify that their product offering meets the product features—labeled as “guardrails” in the template—but the Bureau notes that the inclusion of “any particular guardrail should not be interpreted as a statement by the Bureau that small-dollar credit products must contain such guardrails to avoid violating the law.” A copy of the group’s application is available here.
CFPB: March and April set records for most complaints
On May 21, the CFPB issued a consumer complaint bulletin analyzing complaints the Bureau has received during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bulletin analyzes complaints mentioning “COVID, coronavirus, pandemic, or CARES Act” that were received as of May 11. Of the over 143,000 complaints the Bureau has received in 2020, 4,541 complaints were related to Covid-19. Highlights of the bulletin include: (i) overall, the Bureau had the highest complaint volumes in its history in March and April at 36,700 and 42,500, respectively; (ii) mortgage and credit cards are the top complaint categories for Covid-19 complaints; (iii) eight percent of complaints submitted by servicemembers were Covid-19 related compared to five percent of non-servicemembers; and (iv) after the emergency declaration, the weekly average complaint volume for prepaid cards grew 84 percent, while the volume for student loans decreased by 19 percent. Among other things, the bulletin includes breakdowns of complaint volumes by consumer financial products and examples of common issues from complaint narratives that mention a Covid-19 keyword.
Senators question CFPB on student loan servicer examinations
On May 20, several senators, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger requesting information regarding the Bureau’s examination of companies that service student loans guaranteed by the federal government. The senators noted that they are “encouraged to learn that the CFPB recently began its first examination of a servicer of federally-held student loans since 2017,” but they stated that, given the Department’s “record [of] obstructing CFPB oversight and enforcement, [they] are skeptical of the Department’s role in this joint examination and would strongly oppose limitations, restrictions, or other interference with the CFPB’s ability to conduct complete and thorough examinations.” Among other things, the senators also expressed concerns that the Bureau and the Department have not yet finalized the Supervisory Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would allow the Bureau to access student borrower loan data that the senators claim is necessary for the Bureau to conduct future examinations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies signed an MOU to share student loan complaint data last February. The senators requested clarification on measures the Bureau is taking to carry out its statutory mandate to oversee the federal student loan market, including (i) how many examinations the Bureau has planned for 2020; (ii) what progress, if any, has been made on reestablishing the supervisory MOU; (iii) how the Bureau is monitoring student loan servicers’ compliance with the CARES Act, including pausing payments, interest, and collection; and (iv) whether the Bureau has identified any trends in borrower complaints since the Covid-19 pandemic began. The senators asked that the Bureau respond to the questions by June 3.
CFPB further extends comment period for proposed rulemaking on time-barred debt disclosures
On May 19, the CFPB announced a further extension to the comment period on its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to time-barred debt disclosures (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). The NPRM, issued in February, would amend Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA, to require debt collectors to make certain disclosures when collecting time-barred debts. Due to challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic, the June 5 deadline has been extended until August 4.
CFPB reaches $18 million settlement in credit-report scheme
On May 14, the CFPB filed a proposed stipulated final judgment and order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a mortgage lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in January claiming 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, but instead, the defendants allegedly resold or provided the reports to companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services. The CFPB further alleged that defendants violated the TSR and 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.
If approved by the Court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would (i) impose an $18 million redress judgment against the mortgage lender, of which all but $200,000 would be suspended due to the lender’s limited ability to pay; (ii) require one of the individuals and his company to disgorge $403,750 in profits to provide redress; (iii) impose a $406,150 judgement against a second individual and his company, which will be suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay; (iv) impose a total $450,001 civil money penalty against the defendants; (v) permanently ban the defendants from the debt-relief industry and from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports; and (vi) prohibit the defendants from on using or obtaining consumer reports for “any business purpose other than underwriting or otherwise evaluating mortgage loans.”
CFPB, CSBS issue consumer guide on CARES Act mortgage relief option
On May 15, the CFPB and Conference of State Bank Supervisors jointly issued a Consumer Relief Guide to provide information to homeowners with federally-backed mortgage loans regarding their rights to relief under the CARES Act. The Guide outlines steps for requesting forbearance and provides additional resources for borrowers who need assistance when understanding their options or working with their mortgage servicers. The Bureau also refers borrowers to its centralized webpage, which covers consumer financial resources for the Covid-19 pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as its joint housing assistance website launched in coordination with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (covered by InfoBytes here).
CFPB issues final remittance rule extending safe harbor and providing compliance exceptions
On May 11, the CFPB issued final amendments to the Remittance Transfer Rule (Final Rule), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and imposes requirements on insured institutions that handle international money transfers—also known as remittance transfers—on behalf of consumers. The Final Rule follows a notice of proposed rulemaking issued last December (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the Final Rule grants a permanent safe harbor from exact remittance cost disclosures to insured institutions that do fewer than 500 remittances annually in the current and prior calendar years.
The Final Rule also addresses anticipated compliance challenges following the July 21 expiration of an existing exemption that allows certain insured institutions to disclose estimated exchange rates and third-party money transfer fees. Specifically, the Final Rule adopts a new, permanent exception that permits insured institutions to estimate the exchange rate for a remittance transfer to a particular country if, among other things, the remittance payment is made in the local currency of the designated recipient’s country and the insured institution processing the transaction made 1,000 or fewer remittance payments to that country in the previous calendar year. A second permanent exception will allow insured institutions to estimate covered third-party fees for remittance transfers to a recipient’s institution provided, among other things, the insured institution made 500 or fewer remittance transfers to the recipient’s institution in the prior calendar year. While the adopted final amendments will take effect July 21, the Bureau is adopting a transition period for both exceptions that will allow insured institutions that exceed the 1000-transfer or 500-transfer thresholds to “provide estimates for a reasonable period of time while they come into compliance with the requirement to provide exact amounts.”
The Bureau also reminded institutions of its April 10 policy statement (covered by InfoBytes here), which established a temporary exception allowing institutions providing remittance transfers to estimate these fees to consumers in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. From July 1 until January 21, 2021, the Bureau will not cite supervisory violations or initiate enforcement actions against certain institutions for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates.
CFPB issues policy statement on billing error responsibilities, two sets of Covid-19 FAQs
On May 13, the CFPB released a policy statement and two FAQ documents outlining the responsibilities of financial firms during the Covid-19 pandemic. The policy statement covers Regulation Z’s billing error resolution timeframe in light of the operational disruptions faced by many merchants and small businesses, causing delays in responses to creditors’ inquiries and thus making it difficult for creditors to accurately and timely resolve consumers’ billing error notices. The statement emphasizes that the CFPB will be flexible with its supervisory and enforcement approach during the pandemic as it relates to billing error resolution set forth in §1026.13(c)(2), stating “the Bureau intends to consider the creditor’s circumstances and does not intend to cite a violation in an examination or bring an enforcement action against a creditor that takes longer than required by [Regulation Z] to resolve a billing error notice, so long as the creditor has made good faith efforts to obtain the necessary information and make a determination as quickly as possible, and complies with all other requirements pending resolution of the error.” The Bureau notes that creditors are still expected to fully comply with the other requirements of billing error disputes in Regulation Z.
The Bureau also released payment and deposit rule FAQs related to the Covid-19 pandemic, which state that financial or depository intuitions may change account terms due to the pandemic so long as they provide appropriate notice to consumers. However, if a change is favorable to the consumer, it can be implemented immediately without advance notice. Additionally, the Bureau released open-end (not home-secured) rule FAQs related to the Covid-19 pandemic, which state that creditors may change account terms in response to the pandemic but most changes will require advance notice. However, changes that may help a consumer in need—such as reducing a finance charge—do not require advance notice.
Federal agencies launch joint housing assistance website
On May 12, the CFPB, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a new mortgage and housing assistance website, which consolidates the CARES Act mortgage and rent relief protections, tips to avoid Covid-19 related scams, and tools for homeowners and renters to determine if their property is federally backed. The release details the steps the CFPB has taken in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including informing consumers of their protections under newly created programs and releasing a policy statement concerning the responsibilities of credit reporting companies and furnishers. The release also outlines efforts that FHFA’s regulated entities and HUD have taken to address the national emergency, including forbearance options for homeowners and eviction protections for renters who live in multifamily properties that are backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.