InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB announces advisory opinion program, updates business conduct bulletin, proposes whistleblower award legislation
On March 6, the CFPB announced three new measures it is undertaking to prevent customer harm, including (i) implementing an advisory opinion program; (ii) updating its bulletin regarding responsible business conduct; and (iii) advancing whistleblower award legislation through engagement with Congress. Details of each measure are as follows:
- Advisory Opinion Program. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued three new innovation policies last September to reduce regulatory uncertainty and improve compliance. Similarly, the Bureau’s March 6 announcement states that the advisory opinion program should “provide clear guidance to assist companies in better understanding their legal and regulatory obligations.” The program directs that requests for advisory opinions should be submitted through the CFPB website. The opinions will then be published in the Federal Register and on its website.
- Responsible Business Conduct Bulletin. The amended bulletin, originally released in 2013, “clarif[ies] [the Bureau’s] approach to responsible business conduct” and emphasizes “the importance of such conduct.” The updated bulletin presents four categories of “responsible conduct” that entities are encouraged to adopt to improve the culture of compliance and that the CFPB will use to evaluate whether credit is warranted in an enforcement investigation or supervisory matter, including (i) self-assessment; (ii) self-reporting; (iii) remediation; and (iv) cooperation.
- Whistleblower Award Legislation. The proposed legislative language would amend Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and authorize the Bureau to create a whistleblower award program. For individuals that volunteer information leading to a “successful enforcement action,” the program would enable the Bureau to provide a monetary award of between 10 to 30 percent of the collected penalty amount, up to $10 million.
5th Circuit: CFPB structure is constitutional
On March 3, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (covered by InfoBytes here), a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB’s single-director structure is constitutional, finding no constitutional defect with allowing the director of the Bureau to only be fired for cause. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint against two Mississippi-based payday loan and check cashing companies for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. In March 2018, a district court denied the payday lenders’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting the argument that the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional and that the CFPB’s claims violate due process. The 5th Circuit agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal on the constitutionality question, and subsequently, the payday lenders filed an unchallenged petition requesting an initial hearing en banc. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
On appeal, the majority upheld the district court’s decision that the Bureau is not unconstitutional based on its single-director structure. “The payday lenders argue that the structure of the CFPB denies the Executive Branch its due because the Bureau is led by a single director removable by the President only for cause,” the majority wrote. “We find no support for this argument in constitutional text or in Supreme Court decisions and uphold the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure, as did the D.C. and Ninth [C]ircuits.” The majority compared the case to the D.C. Circuit’s en banc decision in PHH v. CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and the 9th Circuit’s decision in CFPB v. Seila Law LLC (covered by InfoBytes here), both of which upheld the Bureau’s structure. The majority also distinguished a 2018 ruling from the 5th Circuit sitting en banc, which held the FHFA’s single-director structure unconstitutional (covered by InfoBytes here). This provoked a strong dissent charging that the majority had “suddenly discover[ed] that stare decisis is for suckers.”
Supreme Court hears arguments on CFPB’s structure
On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB to consider whether the Constitution prohibits an agency being led by a single director who cannot be removed at will by the President. In addition, the arguments addressed the question of the appropriate remedy if the Court determines that the limitation on the President’s ability to remove the director is unconstitutional.
The case arises out of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued by the CFPB to the petitioner Seila Law, a law firm providing debt relief services to consumers. Seila Law refused to respond to the CID, arguing that it is invalid because the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional. The CFPB and the DOJ agreed with the contention that the statute is unconstitutional. However, the parties differed on the question of remedy. The government argued that the removal restriction should simply be severed from the statute, leaving the remainder of the Consumer Financial Protection Act in place. But Seila Law argued that to do so would amount to a judicial “rewrite” of the statute, and the Court should instead simply hold that the CID is unenforceable and leave to Congress the task of revising the statute to comply with the Constitution.
Because the government was not defending the constitutionality of the statute, the court appointed a former Solicitor General to act as an amicus to defend the constitutionality of the statute. In addition, the House of Representatives, which had filed an amicus brief on behalf of that legislative body, also defended the constitutionality of the statute at the oral arguments.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage of Seila Law here.
CFPB denies tribal lenders’ joint request to set aside CIDs
On February 18, the CFPB released a Decision and Order denying a joint request to set aside civil investigative demands (CIDs) issued in 2019 to four online installment lenders owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, as well as a processing services company. The CIDs in dispute were issued to the petitioners last October and sought information “to determine whether lenders or associated individuals or entities have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices [(UDAAP)] by collecting amounts that consumers did not owe or by making false or misleading representations to consumers in the course of servicing loans and collecting debts.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, four of the petitioners were also part of a 2017 CFPB enforcement action, which alleged that the lenders’ practices violated UDAAP and the Truth in Lending Act. This action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in 2018 (covered by InfoBytes here).
According to the CFPB, the joint petition to set aside or modify the CIDs sets out five primary arguments: (i) the CFPB “lacks authority to investigate entities that are arms of a tribe”; (ii) the lenders cannot comply with the CIDs without violating a protective order issued by the Tribal Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Commission; (iii) “the CIDs lack a proper purpose”; (iv) “the CIDs are overly broad and unduly burdensome”; and (v) the CIDs should be withdrawn or stayed pending the U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB about whether the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional.
The CFPB’s denial of the petitioners’ request addresses each of the arguments. First, it rejects that it lacks authority to investigate “arms of a tribe” based on, among other things, a Ninth Circuit case holding that the CFPA applies to tribal businesses and numerous cases holding that tribes “do not enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by the federal government.” Second, while noting the CFPB’s “utmost respect” for, and desire to coordinate with, state and tribal regulators, the agency is not required to coordinate with such regulators before carrying out its responsibility to investigate potential violations of federal consumer law. Third, with respect to whether the CIDs have a proper purpose, the CFPB asserts, among other things, that the dismissal of the earlier lawsuit does not preclude it from bringing future actions, and moreover, even if some of the requested information relates to potentially time-barred conduct, it does not undermine the overall validity. Fourth, concerning the petitioners’ claims that the CIDs are overbroad or unduly burdensome, the CFPB states that the petitioners did not meaningfully engage during the meet-and-confer-process and have not adequately specified or identified how or why the CIDs would be unduly burdensome. Finally, regarding the constitutional issue, the CFPB notes that it has consistently stated that “the administrative process set out in the [CFPB’s] statute and regulations for petitioning to modify or set aside a CID is not the proper forum for raising and adjudicating challenges to the constitutionality of the [CFPB’s] statute.” The CFPB directs the petitioners to comply with the CIDs within 30 days of the order.
CFPB agrees to publish small-business data proposal by September
On February 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated settlement between plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC), and the CFPB to resolve a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiffs argued that the Bureau’s failure to implement Section 1071—which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses—violates two provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, and has harmed the CRC’s ability to advocate for access to credit, advise organizations working with women and minority-owned small businesses, and work with lenders to arrange investment in low-income and communities of color.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Bureau has agreed to outline a proposal for collecting data and studying discrimination in small-business lending by September 15, and will also create a Small Business Advocacy Review panel by October 15 to prepare a report on the proposal within 60 days. The Bureau and the plaintiffs will also negotiate the deadlines for issuing the proposed rule, and, if an agreement cannot be reached, the parties will accept a court-supervised process for public reporting as well as for the development and issuance of the proposed and final rules.
Last November, the Bureau held a symposium covering small business lending and Section 1071. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) At the time, Director Kathy Kraninger noted in her opening remarks that the symposium would assist the Bureau with information gathering for upcoming rulemaking and emphasized that the Bureau is focused on a rulemaking that would not impede small business access to credit by imposing unnecessary costs on financial institutions.
CFPB holds symposium on consumer access to financial records
On February 26, the CFPB held a symposium covering consumer access to financial records and Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which deals with consumers’ rights to access information about their financial accounts. In her opening remarks, Director Kathy Kraninger pointed out three major changes in data aggregation since the OCC first warned banks about aggregating consumer data in 2001: (i) “the range of actors involved has expanded greatly”; (ii) “the extent to which they are using aggregated data to provide new products and services to millions of American consumers has grown in scope and scale”; and (iii) “technologies that enable safer and more efficient consumer authorized data sharing continue to evolve and proliferate.” According to the CFPB’s press release, the purpose of this symposium was “to elicit a variety of perspectives on the current and future state of the market for services based on consumer-authorized use of financial data.” The symposium consisted of three panels: (i) the current landscape and benefits and risks of consumer-authorized data access; (ii) market developments; and (iii) considerations for policymakers. Panel highlights include:
- Panel #1. The panelists considered potential benefits and risks for consumers around data access as well as the current landscape and benefits and risks of consumer-authorized data access. Panelists agreed that consumers should be given control over their data and also mentioned the need to educate consumers on data security. One panelist suggested that consumers need to understand not only the breadth of data that is accessible, but also what sensitive consumer data is being accessed, stored, and shared. She stressed that entities storing/accessing the data should be subject to the same supervision for cyber security standards as banks.
- Panel #2. The panel, which was comprised of experts in market developments and trends, including in the areas of cash flow underwriting and the business of securing consumer permission to access checking account data, discussed market developments in consumer-authorized data access. One panelist suggested that the U.S. is behind countries like Australia and Canada (where government intervention in the market clarified consumers’ legal right to access their financial data) because of a lack of connectivity and of data field availability in the U.S. Others discussed alternatives to the current screen scraping model—which does not advance transparency or traceability for consumers—such as a model based on an application program interface (API) (APIs can be used to combine data from various sources into one application). The panelists also discussed tokenized authentication as a possible middle phase when going from screen scraping to APIs. Panelists suggested that the market is making significant technological improvements, but lacks guidance from policymakers.
Panel #3. The third panel, focused on “where we are going and how we get there” or the “future of the market” and “considerations for policymakers on how to” ensure consumer data is safeguarded “while ensuring that consumers have continual access to their data.” Among other things, the panel discussed that regulatory intervention in this space has not been common. Many panelists also mentioned areas of uncertainty, including whether banks or consumers should decide the limitations of rights to consumer data. Regarding Section 1033, one panelist suggested that the bank view is that the CFPB does not need to regulate here and should not provide consumers and their agents with access to their information, however, any entities that have access to the data should be regulated. Others believed that banks and other financial institutions do not view Section 1033 correctly. Another area of uncertainty discussed was whether the consumer data right is an ownership right, and whether a bank can decide to whom it will or will not provide consumer data.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On February 26, the CFPB released 10 new lender credit FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- “[L]ender credits include [(i)] payments, such as credits, rebates, and reimbursements, that a creditor provides to a consumer to offset” a consumer’s closing costs paid “as part of the mortgage loan transaction”; and (ii) “premiums in the form of cash” provided by a creditor “to a consumer in exchange for specific acts, such as for accepting a specific interest rate, or as an incentive, such as to attract consumers away from competing creditors.”
- Lender credits can be specific or non-specific. Non-specific lender credits are also known as “general lender credits.” The FAQs provide examples of both types of lender credit, and note that the distinction is important, as the two types of lender credits are disclosed differently on the Closing Disclosure.
- Creditors are not required to disclose “a closing cost and a related lender credit on the Loan Estimate if the creditor” absorbs the cost, but will be required to disclose these costs if they are “offsetting a cost charged to the consumer.”
- Creditors are required to disclose a closing cost and a related lender credit on a Closing Disclosure if they absorb the cost, “even if the consumer will not be charged for the closing cost.”
- To disclose lender credits on a Loan Estimate, creditors must calculate the sum “of all general and specific lender credits.”
- The nature of how lender credits are disclosed on a Closing Disclosure varies based on whether it is a general lender credit or a specific lender credit.
- The nature of how lender credits for a “no-cost loan” are disclosed varies based “on whether [a] creditor is absorbing closing costs as well as whether [it] is offsetting costs for specific settlement services.”
- When disclosing all of the closing costs charged to consumers, creditors must include a corresponding total amount of lender credits.
- Creditors that provide “a lender credit to offset a certain dollar amount of closing costs” without specifying which costs are providing a general lender credit. The FAQs outlines the disclosure process.
- Lender credits can only change in certain circumstances. Regulation Z does not limit increases in lender credits on a Loan Estimate, but a decrease in “lender credits disclosed on [a] Loan Estimate” may “lead to a violation of the good faith disclosure standard” if it is not tied to a triggering event outlined in Regulation Z.
Kraninger: ATR/QM, Remittance Rules expected in May
On February 25, in a speech before the Credit Union National Association Government Affairs Conference, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger discussed the Bureau’s rulemaking approach in the consumer financial marketplace. Specifically, Kraninger reminded attendees that the Bureau’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM rule) issued last July signaled its “intent to allow the patch to expire as intended in January 2021 or shortly thereafter to allow for a smooth and orderly transition.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the ANPR solicited feedback on, among other things, whether the debt-to-income ratio should be altered and how Regulation Z and the ATR/QM Rule should be amended to minimize disruption from the so-called GSE patch expiration. Following a review of all received public comments, Kraninger stated that the Bureau has “decided to propose to amend the QM rule by moving away from the 43 percent debt-to-income ratio requirement,” and will instead “propose an alternative, such as [a] pricing threshold to better ensure that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available for consumers.” A proposed rule seeking comments on possible amendments will be issued no later than May, Kraninger stated.
Kraninger also discussed possible amendments to the Remittance Rule (Rule), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and requires financial companies handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose exact fees and exchange rates. The Bureau issued a Request for Information last April on two aspects of the Rule (covered by InfoBytes here), and a follow-up Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in December (covered by InfoBytes here) to propose a permanent safe harbor for financial companies that provide 500 or fewer remittance transfers a year. According to Kraninger, “[t]his would reduce the burden on over 400 banks and almost 250 credit unions that send a relatively small number of remittances. Ultimately, by allowing the use of estimates in some circumstances and adjusting the threshold for coverage under the rule, . . . [the] proposal was designed to preserve consumers’ ability to send remittances from their bank accounts to certain destinations.” The Bureau plans to finalize the remittances rulemaking in May.
Kraninger also commented on the Bureau’s regulatory review process, and reminded attendees of its “Start Small, Save Up” initiative, which encourages partnerships between financial companies/service providers and the Bureau in order to develop savings products for consumers.
Special Alert: CFPB releases Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Time-Barred Debt Disclosures
On February 21, the CFPB issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), to require debt collectors to make certain disclosures when collecting time-barred debts (the “Supplemental Proposed Rule”).
The Supplemental Proposed Rule adds to the CFPB’s proposed rule, issued May 7, 2019, (InfoBytes coverage here), to amend Regulation F to broadly implement the FDCPA, with respect to third-party debt collectors (the “Proposed Rule”). The Bureau noted when releasing the earlier Proposed Rule that it was contemplating additional disclosure requirements for time-barred debt, and reserved space for such disclosures within Regulation F, as then proposed. The CFPB released several documents related to the Supplemental Proposed Rule, including a fact sheet discussing the Supplemental Proposed Rule and a report on the disclosure of time-barred debt and the right of revival, providing findings from quantitative disclosure testing that the CFPB conducted.* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have any questions regarding Time-Barred Debt Disclosures or other related issues, please visit our Debt Collection & Buying practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.CFPB denies debt collection law firm’s request to set aside CID
On February 10, the CFPB denied a debt collection law firm’s request to modify or set aside a third-party Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued to the firm by the Bureau while investigating possible violations of the FDCPA, CFPA, and the FCRA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau also denied a request by a debt collection company to modify or set aside a CID, which sought information about the company’s business practices and its relationship with the firm in the same investigation. The firm’s petition asserted arguments largely based on the theory that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional, and that the Dodd-Frank Act provides the Bureau’s director with “overly broad executive authority.” Alternatively, the firm argued that if the CID is not set aside, it should be modified, stating, among other things, that the CID’s scope exceeds applicable statutes of limitation.
As it did in the debt collection company’s request to set aside or modify the CID, the Bureau rejected the firm’s constitutionality argument, stating that “[t]he administrative process for petitioning to modify or set aside CIDs is not the proper forum for raising and adjudicating challenges to the constitutionality of provisions of the Bureau’s statute.” Additionally, the Bureau’s Decision and Order discounts the firm’s statute of limitations argument, contending that “the Bureau is not limited to gathering information only from the time period in which conduct may be actionable. Instead, what matters is whether the information is relevant to conduct for which liability can be lawfully imposed.” The Bureau also directed the firm to comply with the CID within ten days of the Order.