InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB files amicus brief on FDCPA case regarding scienter
On January 2, the CFPB announced its filing of an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that takes the position that debt collectors can and should be held strictly liable under the FDCPA regardless of whether they knowingly or unknowingly made a false statement. As the administrator and enforcer of the FDCPA, the CFPB cites that under Section 1692e of the FDCPA, debt collectors are prohibited from “us[ing] any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” According to the brief, Section 1692e’s general prohibition does not include a scienter requirement and does not require that a “representation be knowingly or intentionally false, deceptive, or misleading to violate that prohibition.” The CFPB continues that since Congress selectively included an express scienter requirement, which is a level of intent or knowledge required to establish liability, in specific provisions of the FDCPA, but did not include one in Section 1692e, that indicates Congress did not implicitly intend for Section 1692e to include a scienter requirement. The CFPB also noted that “every federal court of appeals to have addressed this issue (8 in total) has held that Section 1692e does not include a scienter requirement.”
CFPB finds student loan servicer issues in new report
On January 5, the CFPB released a report on how student loan borrowers may face customer support challenges as their student loan payments resume. Federal student loan repayments resumed for the first time in over three years, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act directs the CFPB to conduct studies and provide oversight over the servicing process. The CFPB highlights its coverage of servicers because borrowers do not get to pick their servicer and many servicers, especially during the payment pause, often made business decisions to cut costs leading to diminished customer service.
The report found that from August to October 2023, student loan borrowers faced longer hold times when contacting their servicer by phone, significant delays in processing applications for income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, and faulty and confusing billing statements. More specifically, wait times to speak to a live representative rose from 12 minutes to over 70 minutes; the number of pending IDR plan applications totaled more than 1.25 million, with more than 450,000 pending longer than thirty days with no resolution; and borrowers received faulty bills from their servicers, often causing confusion and putting even more strain on customer service resources as borrowers call customer service representatives. The director of the CFPB, Rohit Chopra, accompanied the report with a statement of his own.
CFPB distributes nearly $6 million in relief payment to veterans harmed by bad-faith lenders
On January 2, the CFPB reported it had sent nearly $6 million to consumers harmed by illegal lending practices that specifically targeted veterans. Between 2019 and 2020, the CFPB filed four suits against several loan brokers, which InfoBytes previously covered. In 2019, the CFPB entered into a settlement with an online loan broker that promised to connect veterans with companies offering high-interest loans in exchange for the assignment of some or all of their military pension payments. Again in 2019, InfoBytes covered another settlement between the CFPB and a pension-advance broker for allegedly misrepresenting the contracts offered to veterans and other consumers between 2011 and 2016. In 2020, the CFPB entered into a settlement with and a loan broker who offered high-interest loans to veterans in exchange for assignment of some of their monthly pension or disability payments. Lastly, and again in 2020, InfoBytes covered a complaint brought by the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs against a pension-advance scheme in violation of the CFPA for brokering contracts offering high-interest credit to disabled veterans and other consumers in exchange for the assignment of some of the consumers’ unpaid earnings, monthly pensions, or disability payments.
The recent payments totaled $5.1 million from the CFPB’s victims’ relief fund and over $720,000 from money paid by the defendants. The CFPB sent checks in December to certain customers, but an individual who believes they are eligible can submit a claim for a refund.
CFPB, DOJ sue developer over predatory lending
On December 20, the CFPB and the DOJ issued a press release announcing the filing of a complaint against four affiliated Texas-based entities (collectively, the “developer”) alleging bait-and-switch land sales and predatory financing. The agencies claim the developer violated ECOA and FHA by targeting thousands of Spanish-speaking borrowers with predatory seller financing. The complaint also alleges the developer misrepresented or omitted material information regarding the seller-financed flood-prone lots having “the infrastructure necessary to connect water, sewer, and electrical services pre-installed,” and regarding flood risk. The complaint also claims that the developer did not provide purchasers with a property report before the purchaser entered into the subject agreement. Further, according to the complaint, the developer marketed the lots primarily in Spanish, but required borrowers to sign important transactional documents written in English only. The action also includes claims brought under other laws and regulations. Notably, this is the first federal court lawsuit the CFPB has brought under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968 (ILSA).
CFPB posts blog entry analyzing cash-out refinancing
On December 18, the CFPB posted a blog entry regarding cash-out refinance mortgages and their borrowers between 2013 to 2023. According to the entry, which noted reflects the authors’ views, and not those of the CFPB, refinance mortgage originations decreased amid 2022’s rapid interest rate hikes, and notably favored cash-out refinances over non-cash-out options. Cash-out refinances involve borrowing significantly more than the amount owed on an existing mortgage, often used for diverse purposes like debt settlement or home improvements. Despite reduced volumes due to rising rates, the post noted that cash-out refinances are “worth monitoring” since they were considered one of the factors that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
Analyzing loans from 2013 to 2023 from data in the National Mortgage Database, the blog entry revealed some insights into delinquencies. Some of the findings include: (i) cash-out refinances held a larger share of all refinances when interest rates rose; (ii) borrowers opting for cash-out refinances typically had lower income and lower credit scores compared to those pursuing different refinancing avenues; (iii) borrowers with stronger credit scores showed minimal serious delinquencies irrespective of the refinancing type; and (iv) borrowers with lower credit scores showed similar two-year delinquency rates for both cash-out and non-cash-out refinancing, except for borrowers in 2017, a year marked by rising interest rates and lower credit scores for cash-out borrowers. Based on this last finding, the blog post noted that there may be increased delinquencies among cash-out refinances originated in 2022, a year with similar interest rate increases and decrease in cash-out borrowers’ credit score.
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
CFPB report analyzes college banking and credit card agreements
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled College Banking and Credit Card Agreements: Annual Report to Congress, which found that some college-sponsored financial products marketed towards students have less advantageous terms and conditions, and higher fees compared to typical market products.
According to the report, when colleges decided to subcontract with third-party financial service providers to facilitate the application of federal financial aid, they entered “college banking agreements” offering deposit accounts for students, which can function as debit or prepaid cards. The report distinguished between colleges that pay for certain service providers to facilitate the processing of federal financial aid disbursements (referred to as Tier One college banking arrangements), and colleges that are paid by certain service providers to offer deposit accounts and prepaid cards to the student population (referred to as Tier Two college banking arrangements). Tier Two account issuers paid colleges an aggregated of over $19.6 million in 2022. The CFPB observed that some colleges’ financial product partners charge students overdraft fees, despite the general industry trend to move away from such fees. The CFPB also warned in its report that certain overdraft fees can violate the CFPA.
The report also found that students at HBCUs and Hispanic-servicing institutions on average pay higher fees per account. The CFPB also noted several other additional fees charged to students by financial institutions, including (i) dormant account fees; (ii) deposit and withdrawal fees for student ID cards that also function as prepaid cards; and (iii) “sunset” fees imposed on students to pay after graduation or reaching a certain age.
Regarding partnerships in credit cards, the CFPB noted that although the passage of the CARD Act reduced the profitability of marketing credit cards on college campuses, thousands of new accounts between colleges and credit card issuers are opened every year. The CFPB also noted that college students maintain a high level of reliance on credit cards to cover costs and it indicated that it “will continue to research evolving practices” to understand how credit cards are being marketed to college students.
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
President Biden vetoes bill on CFPB small business data rule
On December 19, President Biden vetoed bill S. J. Res. 32 that would have repealed the CFPB’s small business data collection rule known as “Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the small business data collection rule, under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires small business owners to provide demographic data (i.e., race, gender, ethnicity, etc.), as well as geographic information, lending decisions, and credit pricing to lenders. According to President Biden’s statement accompanying the veto, the CFPB’s final rule brings “transparency to small business lending” and repealing this rule would “hinder” the government’s ability to conduct oversight of predatory lenders. The bill is now to be returned to the Senate to be voted on again and can only become law if two-thirds of members support the bill. Separately, in October, a U.S. District Court in Texas imposed an injunction on the CFPB’s small business data rule (covered by InfoBytes here).
CFPB adjusts asset-size exemption thresholds for Regulations C and Z
On December 18, the CFPB adjusted the asset-size exemption thresholds for Regulation C (as part of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act) and Regulation Z (as part of TILA), based on a 4.1 percent increase in the average year-over-year CPI-W from November. For Regulation C, the exemption threshold increased from $54 million to $56 million. Accordingly, any financial institution with assets of $56 million or less is exempt from collecting housing-related lending data in 2024.
For Regulation Z, and certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loans, the exemption threshold increased from $2.537 billion to $2.640 billion. Similarly, but applicable to certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions, the exemption threshold increased from $11.374 billion to $11.835 billion.