InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC updates RESPA booklet in Comptroller’s Handbook
On May 7, the OCC announced an update to the RESPA booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. Among other things, the revisions to the booklet reflect updates to Regulation X made by the CFPB in recent years, including (i) the establishment and implementation of a definition of “successor in interest;” (ii) compliance with certain servicing requirements when a person is a debtor in bankruptcy; and (iii) clarifications and revisions to the provisions regarding force-placed insurance notices, policy and procedure requirements, and early intervention and loss mitigation requirements.
CFPB proposes debt collection rules
On May 7, the CFPB issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) amending Regulation F, to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (the “Proposed Rule”). The Bureau also released a Fact Sheet on the Proposed Rule. The proposed effective date is one year after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, with comments on the Proposed Rule due 90 days after publication. Generally, the Proposed Rule covers debt collection communications and disclosures and addresses related practices by debt collectors. Highlights of the Proposed Rule include:
- Coverage. The Proposed Rule incorporates many existing provisions of the FDCPA into Regulation F including existing definitions of “debt collector” and “debt,” with only minor wording and organizational changes. The Proposed Rule would generally only cover third-party debt collectors, not the first-party efforts of the original creditor or its servicer, and specifically excludes in-house collectors of creditors (“[a]ny officer or employee of a creditor while the officer or employee is collecting debts for the creditor in the creditor’s name.”). The Proposed Rule restates the FDCPA’s definition of “consumer” but interprets the term to include “a deceased natural person who is obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a debt.” Additionally, with respect to the special definition of “consumer” for the section on communications in connection with debt collection, the Proposed Rule interprets that to include a confirmed successor in interest as well as the personal representative of a deceased consumer’s estate.
- Disclosures.
- Validation Notice. The Proposed Rule requires a debt collector to provide a consumer with a validation notice that includes certain information about the debt and the consumer’s rights with respect to the debt including: (i) the debt collector’s name and mailing address; (ii) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is currently owed and, for consumer financial product or service debt as defined in the Proposed Rule, the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed on the itemization date; (iii) the itemization date and the amount of debt owed on that date; (iv) itemization of the current amount of the debt in a tabular format reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date; (v) the current amount of the debt; (vi) if the debt is a credit card debt, the merchant brand, if any, associated with the debt, to the extent available to the debt collector; (vii) information about consumer protections; and (viii) consumer response information, including dispute prompts. The validation notice must also include the “debt collector communication disclosure” indicating the communication is for the purposes of collecting a debt.
- Disclosure Safe Harbor. Under the Proposed Rule, if a debt collector delivers in writing the Bureau’s Model Form B-3 validation notice, provided in appendix B to the Proposed Rule (available on pg. 491), it is considered to be in compliance with the validation notice requirements, though use of the model form is not required.
- Electronic Disclosures. The Proposed Rule would require debt collectors who provide required disclosures electronically to obtain the consumer’s affirmative consent directly to comply with Section 101(c) of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act). In the alternative, debt collectors can send the electronic disclosures to a particular email address or phone number (in the case of text messages), that the creditor or prior debt collector could have with regard to that debt in accordance with the E-SIGN Act. Additionally, the Bureau released a flow chart to clarify how a debt collector would provide certain required disclosures electronically.
- Conduct Provisions.
- Time and Place Restrictions. The Proposed Rule clarifies that calls to mobile telephones and electronic communications, such as emails and text messages, are subject to the FDCPA’s prohibition on communicating at times or places that the debt collector knows or should know are inconvenient to the consumer, subject to certain exceptions.
- Restriction on Number of Telephone Calls. With exceptions for certain types of calls (such as those responding to a consumer request for information or made with prior consent by the consumer given directly to the debt collector), the Proposed Rule prohibits a debt collector from calling a consumer about a particular debt more than seven times within a seven-day-period. The Proposed Rule also prohibits a debt collector from calling a consumer for seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the consumer regarding the debt, beginning with the date of the conversation. A debt collector who does not exceed the frequency limits is deemed in compliance with the FDCPA’s prohibition on harassment and the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices as it relates to telephone calls.
- Text and Email Communications. The Proposed Rule does not contain a restriction on the frequency or number of communications a debt collector can make via email or text message. However, the Proposed Rule requires a debt collector to include—in emails, text messages and other electronic communications—an option for the consumer to unsubscribe from future such communications and would prohibit a debt collector from attempting to communication through a medium the consumer has requested the collector not use, including a particular phone number or email address. The Proposed Rule would prohibit a debt collector from contacting a consumer through a workplace email address (absent prior consent by the consumer or receipt by the debt collector of an email sent from the consumer’s work email account) or through a public-facing social media platform, except through the platform’s private message function.
- Limited-Content Messages. The Proposed Rule specifies certain content parameters for a “Limited-Content Message” that a debt collector could send by voicemail or text that would not be considered a “communication” and therefore, would not need to include the required disclosures. Additionally, if the limited-content message was heard or observed by a third party, it would not constitute a prohibited third-party disclosure.
- Other prohibitions. The Proposed Rule prohibits a debt collector from, among other things, (i) suing or threatening to sue on a time-barred debt; (ii) reporting debts to credit reporting agencies prior to initiating communications with the consumer; and (iii) selling, transferring or placing for collection a debt to another debt collector that the collector knows or should know has been paid or settled, discharged in bankruptcy, or relates to a filed identity theft report.
9th Circuit: CFPB structure is constitutional; law firm must comply with CID
On May 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that (i) the CFPB’s single-director structure is constitutional, and that (ii) the district court did not err when it granted the Bureau’s petition to enforce a law firm’s compliance with a 2017 civil investigative demand (CID). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB previously determined that none of the objections raised by the law firm warranted setting aside or modifying the CID, which sought information to determine whether the law firm violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) when providing debt-relief services. The law firm contended that the CFPB’s single-director structure was unconstitutional and therefore the CID was unlawful. It argued further that the CFPB lacked statutory authority to issue the CID.
On review, the 9th Circuit held that the for-cause removal restriction of the CFPB’s single director is constitutionally permissible based on existing Supreme Court precedent. The panel agreed with the conclusion reached by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit majority in the 2018 en banc decision in PHH v. CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) stating, “if an agency’s leadership is protected by a for-cause removal restriction, the President can arguably exert more effective control over the agency if it is headed by a single individual rather an a multi-member body.” The 9th Circuit noted that the dissenting opinion of then Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh found that the single-director structure was unconstitutional and noted that “[t]he Supreme Court is of course free to revisit those precedents, but we are not.”
The 9th Circuit next addressed the law firm’s argument that the CFPB lacked statutory authority when it issued the CID. The panel held that the TSR “does not exempt attorneys from its coverage even when they are engaged in providing legal services,” and therefore, the Bureau has investigative authority without regard to the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) practice-of-law exclusion. In addition, the panel rejected the law firm’s argument that the CID was vague or overly broad, and stated that the CID fully complied with the CFPA’s requirements and identified the allegedly illegal conduct and violations.
CFPB sues credit repair telemarketers
On May 2, the CFPB announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Utah-based credit repair telemarketers and their affiliates (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the CFPB alleges the defendants charged consumers a fee for telemarketed credit repair services when they signed up for the services, and then monthly thereafter, without (i) waiting for the timeframe in which they represented their services would be provided to expire; and (ii) demonstrating that the promised results have been achieved, in the form of a consumer report issued more than six months after those results were achieved, as required by the TSR. Additionally, the CFPB alleges that certain defendants made false and misleading claims constituting deceptive acts under the CFPA. Specifically, the CFPB alleges those defendants marketed that guaranteed, or high-likelihood, loans or rent-to-own housing offers would be available through affiliates after signing up for credit repair services when in actuality, the products were not available. The CFPB is seeking restitution, civil money penalties, and injunctive relief against the defendants.
CFPB issues fact sheet on TRID disclosures with assumption transactions
On May 1, the CFPB released a factsheet addressing when loan estimates and closing disclosures are required for assumption transactions under the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule). The factsheet includes a flowchart and a narrative summary to demonstrate when the disclosures would be required. According to the factsheet, as a threshold matter, the new transaction must be within the TRID Rule’s scope of coverage (e.g., the transaction is a closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by real property or a cooperative unit and is not a reverse mortgage subject to § 1026.33). The creditor must then determine if the transaction is an “assumption” as defined in Regulation Z (under § 1026.20(b) an assumption “occurs when a creditor expressly agrees in writing to accept a new consumer as a primary obligor on an existing residential mortgage transaction.”) The factsheet includes three elements the transaction must meet in order to qualify as an assumption under Regulation Z: (i) the creditor must expressly accept the new consumer as a primary obligor; (ii) a written agreement must be executed, which includes the creditor’s express acceptance of the new customer; and (iii) it must be a “residential mortgage transaction” as to the new customer—specifically, the new customer must be financing the acquisition or initial construction of his or her principal dwelling. If the creditor determines the transaction is an assumption, based on the outlined factors, it must provide a loan estimate and closing disclosure required by the TRID Rule, unless the transaction is otherwise exempt from the requirements.
CFPB proposes permanent HMDA thresholds
On May 2, the CFPB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would permanently raise coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the HMDA rules. Specifically, the proposal would permanently raise the reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans from 25 loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to either 50 or 100 closed-end loans in each of the preceding two calendar years. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB temporarily increased the threshold for open-end lines of credit from 100 loans to 500 loans for calendar years 2018 and 2019. The current proposal would extend that temporary threshold to January 1, 2022, and then permanently lower the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit after that date. Lastly, the proposal incorporates, with minor adjustments, the interpretive and procedural rule issued in August 2018 (2018 Rule), which implemented and clarified the HMDA amendments included in Section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposal includes additional interpretive information related to the partial exemptions in the 2018 Rule, including how the partial exemption rules apply after a merger or acquisition. The Bureau is proposing that these changes take effect January 1, 2020. Comments on the NPRM must be received within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
The Bureau also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking information on the costs and benefits of reporting certain data points under HMDA. Additionally, the ANPR also seeks information about the requirement that institutions report certain commercial-purpose loans made to a non-natural person and secured by a multifamily dwelling. Comments on the ANPR must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB fines student loan servicer $3.9 million for unfair practices
On May 1, the CFPB announced a $3.9 million settlement with a student loan servicing company. The settlement resolves allegations that the company engaged in unfair practices by failing to make adjustments to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program to account for circumstances such as deferment, forbearance, or entrance into the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) program. According to the consent order, between 2005 and 2015, certain accounts requiring manual adjustments to principal loan balances based on program participation were allegedly placed in “queues” to process the adjustments, which took, in some cases, years to process. The servicer allegedly did not inform affected borrowers that it did not complete the processing of their principal balances associated with the deferment, forbearance, or IBR participation. The queues allegedly resulted in some borrowers paying off incorrect loan amounts and other borrowers experiencing delays in loan consolidation while waiting for the servicer to adjust principal balances. In addition to the $3.9 million civil money penalty, the consent order requires the servicer to make the proper adjustments to the principal balances of the affected accounts or pay restitution to borrowers who paid off loans with inaccurate loan balances. The servicer is also required to comply with certain compliance monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Democratic senators concerned with CFPB retiring HMDA search tool
On April 29, nine Democratic Senators, led by Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), wrote to the CFPB expressing “deep concern” regarding the Bureau’s plan to retire its tools for public exploration of HMDA data—HMDA Explorer Tool and the Public Data Platform API. In the letter, the Senators argue that retiring the tools with no plan for adequate replacements “threatens to undermine the statutory purposes of HMDA and does not live up the commitments to transparency and accountability” that Director Kraninger promised to uphold during her nomination hearing. The Senators cite to the Bureau’s decision to move the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity from the Supervision and Enforcement section to the Office of the Director and argue that “[r]reductions in available data and its accessibility, combined with weakened [fair lending] enforcement, is a disservice to the consumers the CFPB was created to protect.” The letter urges the CFPB to reverse course and requests that the Bureau provide a “detailed briefing” on the decision by May 10.
In the notice regarding the tools’ retirement, the Bureau states that the FFIEC “will publish a query tool for the 2018 data in the coming months.”
CFPB updates Prepaid Small Entity Compliance Guide
On April 26, the CFPB released version 3.1 of its Prepaid Small Entity Compliance Guide to incorporate previously issued submission instructions for issuers submitting account agreements pursuant to the prepaid account rule through the electronic submission system “Collect.” (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
CFPB issues RFI on Remittance Rule
On April 25, the CFPB issued a Request for Information (RFI) on two aspects of the Remittance Rule, which took effect in 2013, and requires financial companies handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose to individuals transferring money information about the exact exchange rate, fees, and the amount expected to be delivered. The RFI seeks feedback on (i) whether to propose changing the number of remittance transfers a provider must make to be governed by the rule, as well as the possible introduction of a small financial institution exception; and (ii) a possible extension of a temporary exemption to the Rule set to expire July 21, 2020, that allows certain insured institutions to estimate exchange rates and certain fees they are required to disclose (the RFI states that the EFTA section 919 expressly limits the length of the temporary exemption and does not authorize the CFPB to extend the term beyond the July 21 expiration date unless Congress changes the law). The RFI also seeks feedback on the Rule’s scope of coverage, including whether the Bureau should change a safe harbor threshold that allows persons providing 100 or fewer remittance transfers in the previous and current calendar year to be outside of the Rule’s coverage. Additionally, the RFI includes a consideration of issues discussed in the Bureau’s assessment of the Rule, which examined if the Rule had been effective in achieving its goals. Comments on the RFI are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Separately, on April 24, the CFPB released a revised assessment report of its Remittance Rule to “correct an understatement of the dollar volume of remittance transfers by banks in the original report,” which increases the share of the remittance dollars transferred by banks. The Bureau notes that the correction does not affect the report’s conclusions. (See previous InfoBytes coverage of the October 2018 assessment report here.)