InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court approves additional settlements in CFPB student debt relief action
On September 8, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment against two additional defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney alleging 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. Four defendants settled in August, with a total suspended judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay and total payments of $90,000 to Minnesota, North Carolina, and California, and $1 each to the CFPB, in civil money penalties.
The new final judgment holds the two relief defendants liable for nearly $7 million in redress; however, the judgment is suspended based on an inability to pay. The defendants are not subject to any civil money penalties, but are required to relinquish certain assets and submit to certain reporting requirements.
CFPB and New York AG take action against debt collection operation
On September 8, the CFPB and the New York attorney general jointly filed a lawsuit against a debt collection operation based near Buffalo, New York. The defendants include five companies, two of their owners, and two of their managers (collectively, “defendants”). According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FDCPA, and various New York laws by using illegal tactics to induce consumer payments, such as (i) threatening arrest and imprisonment; (ii) claiming consumers owed more debt than they actually did; (iii) threatening to contact employers about the existence of the debt; (iv) harassing consumers and third parties by using “intimidating, menacing, or belittling language”; and (v) failing to provide debt verification notices.
The lawsuit seeks consumer redress, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and injunctive relief against the defendants.
Massachusetts AG sues auto lender for deceptive loans
On August 31, the Massachusetts attorney general announced an action against a national auto lender for allegedly making unfair and deceptive auto loans and engaging in unfair debt collection practices. According to the complaint, since 2013, the auto lender allegedly made “high-risk high-interest subprime” loans to Massachusetts borrowers who the lender “knew or should have known were unable to repay their loans,” in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the attorney general asserts that consumers were subject to “hidden finance charges,” which resulted in consumers’ actual interest rates being higher than the state’s usury ceiling of 21 percent. Moreover, the lender’s collection employees allegedly “harassed” consumers in default by calling them “as often as eight times a day,” when state law limits collection calls to no more than two calls per week, sent improper repossession notices, and failed to use the correct fair market value when calculating deficiency amounts. Lastly, the attorney general argues that the lender used “false or misleading statements” concerning the characteristics of the loans packaged and securitized to investors.
The attorney general is seeking a permanent injunction, restitution, and civil penalties.
Court approves settlements in CFPB student debt relief action
On August 26 and 28, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered two final judgments (see here and here) against four of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney alleging 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 asserts 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 settlements suspend a total judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay, and requires the two defendants who settled on August 26, to pay a total of $75,000 to Minnesota, North Carolina, and California, and $1 each to the CFPB, in civil money penalties, and the two defendants who settled on August 28, to pay a total of $15,000 to the respective states and $1 to the CFPB in civil money penalties. In addition to the monetary penalties, the defendants are required to relinquish certain assets and submit to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All four defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations, as part of the settlements.
State AGs challenge FDIC’s “valid-when-made” rule
On August 20, eight state attorneys general—from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia—filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the FDIC’s valid-when-made rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC’s final rule clarifies that, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan (details on the effect of the rule can be found in Buckley’s Special Alert on the issuance of the OCC’s similar rule).
In the complaint—which follows a similar action filed in July by three of the same attorneys general against the OCC for issuing a final rule designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision (previously covered here)—the attorneys general argue, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the FDIA,” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. Moreover, the attorneys general assert that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling “rent-a-bank” schemes.” Finally, the complaint states 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, and thus that Madden is likely to have been beneficial rather than harmful.” The complaint requests the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act in issuing the rule and hold the rule unlawful.
Pennsylvania settles with bank to resolve “aggressive” collection practices
On August 19, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced it had entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with a national bank to end the bank’s “aggressive” debt collection practices. According to the AG, the bank allegedly filed collection lawsuits against individuals with unpaid auto loans “in a district justice court in Warren, Pennsylvania despite the fact that most of the defendants in those actions were consumers who purchased their vehicles in another part of the state and merely had their vehicle installment contract assigned to [the bank].” After obtaining judgments, the bank also allegedly violated Pennsylvania law by sending post-judgment letters that threatened further legal action, including a sheriff’s sale of an individual’s vehicle. These alleged misrepresentations constituted an unfair or deceptive debt collection act or practice, the AG stated. The bank did not admit to the violations, but agreed to modify its collection practices to, among other things, (i) strike all existing judgments entered between 2013 and the effective date of the agreements in a magisterial district court that the consumer did not reside in at the time the vehicle was purchased or the action commenced, or that was not where the vehicle was purchased; (ii) issue a credit to the deficiency balance on any amount that was paid as a result of a judgment; (iii) refund any remaining amounts once the deficiency balance has been reduced to $0; and (iv) pay $15,000 in monetary relief.
Final CCPA regulations approved: Overview of changes
On August 14, the California attorney general announced that the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the final regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CCPA—enacted in June 2018 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and amended several times—became effective January 1. While the regulation package was under review by the OAL, the California attorney general made certain “nonsubstantial changes” and “changes without regulatory effect” to the CCPA regulations, which are outlined here (Buckley created redline available here). Under the OAL’s regulations, changes are considered “nonsubstantial” if they clarify without materially altering the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the original text. Changes are considered to be “without regulatory effect” if they involve renumbering or relocating a provision, revising structure, syntax, grammar or punctuation, and, subject to certain conditions, making a provision consistent with statute.
Among others, the following nonsubstantial changes were made to the final regulations:
- The shorthand phrase “Do Not Sell My Info” was removed from several sections in order for the language to track the statute (i.e. “Do Not Sell My Personal Information”).
- The requirement in Section 999.308(c)(1)(e) that the identification of sources from which personal information is collected “be described in a manner that provides consumers a meaningful understanding of the information being collected” in the privacy policy has been removed but the categories of sources still must be identified.
- The severability provision, formerly in Section 999.341 was deleted as unnecessary. This provision previously stated: “If any article, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of these regulations contained in this Chapter is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the Attorney General, or otherwise inoperative, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of these regulations.” (formerly § 999.341).
Additionally, the following requirements were deleted from the regulations at this time, although the California attorney general has indicated that these provisions may be resubmitted “after further review and possible revisions”:
- The requirement, formerly in Section 999.305(a)(4), that the business notify and obtain explicit consent from a consumer to use the consumer’s personal information for a purpose materially different than those disclosed in the notice at collection.
- The requirement, formerly in Section 999.306(b)(2), that a business that substantially interacts with consumers offline must provide a notice to the consumer offline to facilitate their awareness of the right to opt-out.
- The requirement in Section 999.315(c) that the business’s methods for submitting the request to opt-out must “be easy for consumers to execute” and “require minimal steps to allow the consumer to opt-out.”
- The provision, formerly in Section 999.326(c), permitting a business to deny a request from an authorized agent if the agent fails to submit proof of authorization from the consumer.
The final regulations became effective on August 14, 2020.
Final CCPA regulations approved
On August 14, the California attorney general announced that the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the final regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CCPA—enacted in June 2018 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and amended several times—became effective January 1. The proposed final regulations were submitted to OAL on June 1 and were “nonsubstantially changed” during OAL’s review process for “accuracy, consistency, and clarity.” The final regulations are effective as of August 14.
The final regulations set forth guidance regarding compliance with the CPPA, including requirements related to the various required notices under the CCPA (e.g., Notice at Collection, privacy policy, etc.), business practices for handling consumer requests (e.g., methods for submitting and responding to requests to know and requests to delete), service providers, training and recordkeeping, verification of requests, special rules for minors, and nondiscrimination requirements.
For a detailed overview of the regulations, see here (the InfoByte details an earlier version of the regulations, which remain substantially unchanged). Details discussing the nonsubstantial changes available by InfoBytes here.
Pennsylvania settles with third-party financing company, resulting in $200k in debt cancellation
On August 4, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced it had entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with a third-party financing company, which permanently shuts down the company’s operations in the state and requires the company to cancel nearly $200,000 in debt for its former customers. According to the AG, the company entered into agreements with various debt relief companies to provide third-party financing to student loan borrowers so they could be enrolled in certain federal student loan repayment programs offered by the Department of Education. However, the company allegedly violated provisions of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law and TILA related to closed end credit transaction by, among other things, (i) misrepresenting that the finance plan was a revolving credit plan, when it was actually a closed end transaction; (ii) misrepresenting that it retained a security interest as a result of its financing agreements when in in fact it did not; (iii) financing consumers’ student loan debt relief services when it knew, or should have known, that consumers were not receiving the services as advertised; and (iv) failing to provide Regulation Z-required disclosures for closed end credit transactions, including the amount financed, finance charges, total of payments, and the number and amount of payments necessary to repay the total payments. In addition, the AG claimed that the company charged consumers unacceptably high interest rates. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is banned from financing or assisting others in financing student loan debt relief services and from collecting debt from Pennsylvania borrowers. The company must also request that credit reporting agencies delete the reported debts from consumers’ credit reporting files. Monetary relief in the amount of $930,000 is suspended unless a court determines the company has violated the terms of the settlement.
24 state attorneys general reject CFPB’s time-barred debt proposal
On August 4, twenty-four state attorneys general responded to the CFPB’s request for comments on its proposed supplemental debt collection rule (the “Supplemental Proposed Rule”) arguing it does not “adequately protect[] consumers’ rights.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Supplemental Proposed Rule— which adds to the CFPB’s May 2019 proposed rule (InfoBytes coverage here) — proposes (i) certain disclosures required to be included in communications where a third-party debt collector knows or should know that a debt is time-barred; and (ii) model language and forms that debt collectors may use to comply with such disclosure requirements.
Among other things, the attorneys general disagree with the “know or should know” standard, arguing that the Bureau should “adopt a strict-liability standard, which would be in line with what the FDCPA intends to accomplish.” Moreover, the attorneys general assert that the model disclosures (i) were not adequately tested; (ii) do not account for the variations in state laws as to the potential revival of time-barred debt; and (iii) provide a safe harbor that is inconsistent with the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank Act. Lastly, the attorneys general express concerns that the Supplemental Proposed Rule conflicts with state laws that require state disclosures to be on the front side of debt collection notices and fails to address “obsolete debt.”