InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, Arkansas AG settle FCRA violations
On August 4, in an action brought by the CFPB and the Arkansas attorney general, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered a stipulated final judgment and order against a Utah-based home-security and alarm company (defendant) for allegedly failing to provide proper notices under the FCRA. As previously covered by InfoBytes here, according to the complaint, the company extended credit to its customers by allowing them to defer payment for alarm and security-system equipment over the life of a long-term contract. In extending credit to its customers, the company allegedly obtained and used consumers’ credit scores to determine the amount of activation fees it would charge for its products and services and then charged higher fees to consumers who had lower credit scores, without providing those consumers with required risk-based pricing notices in accordance with the FCRA and Regulation V. Under the terms of the order, the company is required to submit a compliance plan and pay a $600,000 civil money penalty, of which $100,000 will be offset if it pays that amount to settle related litigation with the State of Arkansas that is pending in state court. The company will also be required to provide proper risk-based pricing notices as required under the FCRA.
Mississippi AG reaches $3.7 million settlement with auto finance company
On July 21, the Mississippi attorney general announced a settlement with an auto finance company to resolve alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The AG claimed the auto finance company, among other things, allegedly placed consumers into loans with a high probability of default and engaged in aggressive collection practices. Under the terms of the settlement, the auto finance company will pay $3.7 million to the state, including $1.8 million in consumer restitution, and will stop collecting on loans allegedly extinguished under Mississippi law. Additionally, the auto finance company (i) will account for a borrower’s ability to pay and set a reasonable debt-to-income threshold; (ii) may not require dealers to sell any ancillary products; (iii) will “monitor dealers for possible inflation, power booking, or expense deflation”; (iv) may “not misrepresent a consumer’s prospect of redeeming a vehicle that has been repossessed”; (v) may not require borrowers to make payments through methods requiring additional third-party fees; and (vi) will notify all relevant credit reporting agencies that the borrowers’ debts have been extinguished.
FDIC argues “valid-when-made rule” fills statutory gaps
On July 15, the FDIC filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s “valid-when-made rule.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August state attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Act],” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.” The complaint asked the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing the rule and to hold the rule unlawful. The FDIC countered that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule because it “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law,” but rather clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority (covered by InfoBytes here).
The AGs disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the rule violates the APA because the FDIC’s interpretation in its “Non-Bank Interest Provision” (Provision) conflicts with the unambiguous plain-language statutory text, which preempts state interest-rate caps for federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (FDIC Banks) alone, and “impermissibly expands the scope of [12 U.S.C.] § 1831d to preempt state rate caps as to non-bank loan buyers of FDIC Bank loans.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In its reply in support of the summary judgment motion, the FDIC’s arguments included that the rule is a “reasonable interpretation of §1831d” in that it filled two statutory gaps by determining that “the interest-rate term of a loan is determined at the time when the loan is made, and is not affected by subsequent events, such as a change in the law or the loan’s transfer.” The FDIC further claimed that the rule should be upheld under Chevron’s two-step framework, and that §1831d was enacted “to level the playing field between state and national banks, and to ‘assure that borrowers could obtain credit in states with low usury limits.’” Additionally, the FDIC refuted the AGs’ argument that the rule allows “non-bank loan buyers to enjoy § 1831d preemption without facing liability for violating the statute,” pointing out that “if a rate violates § 1831d when the loan is originated by the bank, loan buyers cannot charge that rate under the Final Rule because the validity of the interest is determined ‘when the loan is made.’”
District Court approves $35 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 14, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against the named defendant in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which had alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. A second amended complaint also included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the FDCPA and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
In 2019, the named defendant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 case. As the defendant is a Chapter 7 debtor and no longer conducting business, the Bureau did not seek its standard compliance and reporting requirements. Instead, the finalized settlement prohibits the defendant from resuming operations, disclosing or using customer information obtained during the course of offering or providing debt relief services, or attempting “to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment” from any consumers who purchased or agreed to purchase debt relief services. The defendant is also required to pay more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states.
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here).
District Court approves $6.02 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 1, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against two defendants in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserted the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments.
The finalized settlement issued against the two relief defendants, who neither admit nor deny the allegations except as specifically stated, requires the payment of $3.98 million by one defendant and $2.04 million by the other. However, based on the defendant’s inability to pay, full payment of the $2.04 million will be suspended. The finalized settlement also ordered the paying relief defendant to disgorge any funds held in accounts in excess of the $3.98 million, “including any income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, as of the date the funds are transferred.” Moreover, both relief defendants are required to grant all rights and claims of identified assets to the Bureau, as well as any assets “currently in the possession, custody, or control of the Receiver.”
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). Orders have yet to be entered against the remaining defendants.
AGs support FTC disgorgement authority
On June 28, a coalition of 28 state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress in support of H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act. The bill would give the FTC authority to seek restitution and disgorgement, among other equitable remedies, for consumer protection and antitrust violations in federal court without first going through a lengthy administrative process. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, holding that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” The ruling reversed a $1.3 billion restitution award in a case alleging that payday loan companies had deceived and overcharged customers. The coalition urged lawmakers to reinstate the “essential tools that the FTC needs to combat fraud and anticompetitive conduct and protect an honest marketplace.”
CFPB, Georgia AG allege debt-relief violations
On June 29, the CFPB announced a stipulated final judgment and order against a financial services company and its owners for allegedly deceiving consumers into hiring the company. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia with the Georgia attorney general, the defendants violated the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act by using telemarketing practices to deceptively induce consumers to hire the company, by, among other things, falsely promising to help them: (i) reduce their credit card debts by advertising to potential customers through direct mailers; and (ii) improve consumers’ credit scores by claiming they could restore their credit scores and that they had a “credit restoration team.” In addition, the defendants “collected millions of dollars in advance fees, claiming that it provided a ‘debt validation’ program that used the debt-verification process set forth in the [FDCPA] to invalidate and eliminate debt and improve consumers’ credit record, history, or rating.” Under the terms of the order, the defendants are banned from the telemarketing of any consumer financial product and selling financial advisory, debt relief, or credit repair services. The defendants must also pay a fine of $150,001, $15,000 of which will be remitted to the state of Georgia, and a penalty of approximately $30 million in consumer redress (full payment of which may be suspended if certain conditions are met).
State AGs argue FDIC’s “valid-when-made rule” violates APA
On June 17, eight state attorneys general (from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia) filed an opposition to the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment and reply in support of their motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the FDIC’s “valid-when-made rule.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August the AGs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Act]” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.” The complaint asked the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing the rule and to hold the rule unlawful. The FDIC countered in May (covered by InfoBytes here) that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule, which “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law.” Rather, the FDIC argued that the rule clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority.
In response, the AGs argued that the rule violates the APA because the FDIC’s interpretation in its “Non-Bank Interest Provision” (Provision) conflicts with the unambiguous plain-language statutory text, which preempts state interest-rate caps for federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (FDIC Banks) alone, and “impermissibly expands the scope of § 1831d to preempt state rate caps as to non-bank loan buyers of FDIC Bank loans.” Additionally, the AGs challenged the FDIC’s claim that its Provision “does not implicate rent-a-bank schemes or the true lender doctrine because the Provision only applies ‘if a bank actually made the loan,’” emphasizing that the FDIC’s “mere statement that it does not condone rent-a-bank schemes” is insufficient and that “choosing to not address true-lender issues is an insufficient response to comments that the Provision creates significant uncertainty about those issues.” Moreover, the AGs claimed that the Provision is “arbitrary and capricious” and fails to meaningfully address valid concerns and criticisms raised by commenters, and that the rule constitutes “in substance if not form, a reversal of the FDIC’s previous stance” that the FDIC is “obligated to acknowledge and explain.”
FTC tackles illegal pyramid scheme
On June 16, the FTC and the Arkansas attorney general filed a complaint against the operators of a “blessing loom” investment program (defendants), alleging that they acted as an illegal pyramid scheme that bilked millions of dollars from thousands of consumers. The joint complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act, Consumer Review Fairness Act, and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by: (i) participating in a pyramid scheme, which constitutes a deceptive act; (ii) prohibiting the ability of an individual to engage in a covered communication; and (iii) falsely representing goods and services. The complaint alleges that the defendants lured people into enrolling in their program by falsely guaranteeing investment returns as high as 800 percent, with some members allegedly paying as much as $62,700 to participate in the program. In addition, the defendants allegedly, among other things, (i) targeted Black communities and stated in the “[program’s] Bible,” which contains program membership bylaws, that all program members must, with no exceptions, be of African-American descent; (ii) targeted financially distressed consumers; (iii) falsely claimed the program provided “a means to achieve financial freedom and generational wealth”; (vi) attempted to hide their illegal activity from law enforcement and payment processors by forbidding certain payment applications to be used by members; and (v) prohibited members from publishing material related to the program online, such as comments and reviews. The complaint seeks to permanently enjoin the defendants’ illegal operation and requests that the court award redress for injured consumers. The complaint also seeks to impose civil penalties on the defendants under Arkansas state law.
NYDFS, state AGs offer recommendations on climate disclosures to SEC
On June 14, NYDFS and a coalition of 12 state attorneys general led by the California attorney general submitted separate letters (see here and here) in response to a request for input by Acting SEC Chair Allison Herren Lee, providing recommendations on disclosing information on climate change risks that entities are facing. Among other things, NYDFS recommends that the SEC: (i) make disclosures reliable, balanced, understandable, consistent over time, comparable among institutions within a sector, and provided in a timely manner; (ii) provide disclosure of the corporate governance and board oversight relating to climate-related issues and risks, such as policies, procedures, internal controls, and management information systems; (iii) disclose how an institution identifies, assesses, monitors, and manages climate-related risks and how such risks are integrated; and (iv) encourage agencies to take an equitable approach “that reflects each institution’s exposure to climate risks and the nature, scale, size, and complexity of its business.” NYDFS notes that “[d]eveloping and managing standards related to the disclosure of risks related to climate change requires collaboration among state and federal regulators and the industries that they regulate.”
The AGs advise the SEC to require that private and public companies analyze climate change-related risks altering their businesses and disclose that information, asserting that the current disclosure requirements under the SEC are insufficient. The letter includes recommendations, such as requiring SEC-regulated firms to (i) make annual disclosures of their greenhouse gas emissions and any plans to address their emissions; (ii) evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of climate change and climate change regulation; and (iii) disclose corporate governance and risk management practices as they relate to climate change.