InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Reaches Agreement With Title Lender
On September 26, the CFPB entered into a consent agreement with a Georgia-based automobile-title lender and its affiliates, based on allegations that the lender violated the Unfair and Abusive prongs of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB alleged that the lender “lur[ed] consumers into costly loan renewals by presenting them with misleading information about the deals’ terms and costs.” The CFPB specifically indicated the lender’s use of a “Payback Guide” that focused the consumer’s attention on the monthly payment, and not on the total cost of the transaction, including the costs to roll over the loan to an additional period, materially interferes with the consumer’s ability to understand the terms of the transaction. The CFPB also alleged that the lender committed unfair debt-collection practices by visiting consumers’ homes, references, and places of employment, and revealing information about past-due debt to third parties, including neighbors, roommates, family members, supervisors, and co-workers. Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is prohibited from using the Payback Guide and from encouraging consumers to exceed the original term of repayment. The order also prohibits the lender from making in-person visits to collect payments. Under the agreement, the lender must pay $9 million as a civil penalty to the CFPB.
House Financial Services Committee Approves Financial CHOICE Act
On September 13, the House Financial Services Committee approved by a 30-26 vote the Financial CHOICE Act, Congressman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-TX) legislative replacement to the Dodd-Frank Act. In his opening remarks, Hensarling claimed that the bill aims to end bailouts, support economic growth, and provide regulatory relief to community banks. House Democrats did not offer amendments to the bill, although many expressed adamant disapproval. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) claimed that the “deeply disturbing” legislation “would take us back to the regulatory stone age.” Various Democrats referenced the CFPB’s recent enforcement action against a national bank to argue that the Financial CHOICE Act’s attempt to remove the CFPB’s authority over abusive practices was one of many reasons to oppose the bill. Democrats unanimously voted against the legislation, while all but one Republican, Congressman Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), voted in favor of moving the legislation forward.
CFPB Issues Consent Order to National Bank Over Account Operations
On September 8, the CFPB issued a consent order to a national bank to resolve allegations that its employees opened deposit and credit card accounts for consumers without obtaining consent to do so. According to the CFPB’s consent order, the respondent implemented an incentive compensation program under which employees “engaged in Improper Sales Practices to satisfy goals and earn financial rewards.” The CFPB alleges that the bank’s employees’ Improper Sales Practices were unfair and abusive. Specifically, the consent order alleges that the employees, possibly without consumers’ knowledge or without their consent, (i) opened more than 1.5 million deposit accounts and subsequently transferred money from consumers’ existing accounts to fund the newly opened accounts; (ii) submitted approximately 565,000 credit card account applications on behalf of consumers, with consumers consequently incurring late, annual, and over-draft fees on such accounts; (iii) issued debit cards and created personal identification numbers to activate the cards; and (iv) enrolled consumers in online-banking services. Pursuant to the consent order, the bank, among other things, must pay a civil penalty of $100 million and an expected $2.5 million in consumer redress.
FTC Resolves "Operation Collection Protection" Charges; Bans Companies from Debt Collection Business
On September 7, the FTC announced separate stipulated orders (here and here) against two groups of debt collectors to resolve November 2015 charges that their debt collection practices were deceptive, abusive, and unfair in violation of the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the FTC, the first group of debt collectors (i) attempted to collect on debts consumers claimed they did not owe; (ii) failed to verify the debts; and (iii) impersonated law enforcement, threatened non-compliant consumers with arrests and lawsuits, and made accusations of bank fraud. In addition to barring the defendants from debt collection activities and from “misrepresenting material[] facts about any financial-related products or services,” the order imposes a judgment of more than $4.47 million. Regarding the second group of debt collectors, the FTC alleged that, in addition to threatening consumers with arrest if purported debts went unpaid and harassing friends, family members, and employees in an attempt to collect debts, they sent “alarming and deceptive text messages to trick consumers into contacting them, without identifying themselves as debt collectors.” Pursuant to the final judgment, the defendants must pay a judgment of approximately $27 million. The order imposes a separate judgment of $11,000 on the individually named defendant.
Filed in federal district court of New York, the actions were part of the FTC’s Operation Collection Protection, a federal-state-local initiative that has brought a total of 148 debt collection-related actions to date.
CFPB Issues Consent Order to a National Bank Over Student Loan Servicing Practices
On August 22, the CFPB issued a consent order to a national bank to resolve allegations that its student loan servicing practices were unfair and deceptive in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act and that its payment aggregation practices violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CFPB alleged that the bank failed to disclose key aspects related to its payment allocation process, including that partial payments would be distributed across all loans, even if a payment was sufficient to satisfy the minimum payment required for an individual loan. According to the consent order, the bank’s “allocation of a Partial Payment proportionally to all loans in the account sometimes caused consumers’ payments to satisfy fewer, if any, of the loan amounts due in the account than if the Partial Payment had been allocated in a manner that satisfied as many of the loan amounts as possible.” According to the CFPB, the bank’s failure to properly disclose its method for payment allocation resulted in consumers incurring improper late fees, which, if left unpaid for more than 30 days at the end of the month, were reported as delinquent to consumer reporting agencies. The CFPB further alleged that the bank’s payment processors used a late fee monitoring report that had a system coding error that improperly charged consumers late fees if a payment was made on the last day of a grace period, or if consumers chose to make partial payments instead of one payment. The CFPB contended that the bank failed to update, correct, or remove negative information that was inaccurately reported to credit reporting agencies. Pursuant to the consent order, the bank must (i) pay $410,000 in consumer redress; (ii) pay a civil penalty of $3.6 million; (iii) improve its student loan servicing practices to ensure that consumers’ partial payments are distributed in such a way that the amount due is satisfied for as many loans as possible, unless the consumer requests otherwise; (iv) enhance its disclosure statements; and (v) remove or correct errors on consumers’ credit reports.
CFPB Takes Action Against North Dakota Payment Processor for Alleged Unauthorized Withdrawal Practices
On June 6, the CFPB filed a complaint against a North Dakota-based third-party payment processor and two of its senior executives for alleged violations of the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition against unfair acts and practices. Acting on behalf of its clients, the payment processor transferred funds electronically through a network called the Automated Clearing House, and in the process, according to the CFPB, the payment processor “ignored numerous red flags about the transactions they were processing, including repeated consumer complaints, warnings about potential fraud or illegality raised by banks involved in the transactions, unusually high return rates, and state and federal law enforcement actions against their clients.” The CFPB contends that the defendants failed to: (i) heed warnings, including federal and state enforcement actions taken against the defendants’ clients, from banks and consumers regarding potential fraud or unauthorized debits; (ii) adequately monitor and respond to “enormously” high return rates; and (iii) investigate “red flags” throughout its clients’ application processes that “should have caused it to… perform enhanced due diligence prior to accepting a client for processing.” Regarding the individuals’ involvement in the allegedly unlawful activity, the CFPB’s complaint alleges that both engaged in unfair acts and practices by “actively ignoring” a number of red flags associated with the payment processor’s business activities. The CFPB’s complaint seeks monetary relief, injunctive relief, and penalties.
Vermont AG Announces Settlement with Arizona Payment Processor of Internet Loans
Recently, Vermont AG William Sorrell announced a settlement of approximately $178,000 with an Arizona-based electronic payment processor to resolve alleged violations of state consumer protection laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices. According to AG Sorrell’s office, the company processed internet loans on behalf of unlicensed lenders in violation of the state’s consumer protection laws. Under the settlement, which is the state's fourth and largest against a payment processor of high interest, unlicensed loans, the company must credit consumer bank accounts a total of $153,282 and pay $25,000 in civil penalties and costs to Vermont.
Congressman Luetkemeyer Proposes Bill to Eliminate "Abusive" in CFPB's UDAAP Authority
Recently, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) introduced H.R. 5112, the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Uniformity Act, to make the authority of the CFPB and FTC more consistent and similar, and to encourage greater communication among regulators. Specifically, the Act would amend Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act by removing the CFPB’s ability to regulate “abusive” conduct from its current authority to regulate “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts or practices (UDAAP). In addition, the bill would insert the following language at the end of Section 1031: “[i]n prescribing any rule under this subsection, the Bureau shall comply with the requirements of section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a) applicable to the Federal Trade Commission when the Commission prescribes rules and general statements of policy under that section with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”
FDIC and Federal Reserve Announce Settlement with Connecticut-Based Financial Aid Company Over Deceptive Practices
On December 23, the FDIC announced separate settlements with a Connecticut-based financial aid company and an affiliated Utah-based bank for alleged deceptive practices in violation of the FTC Act. Separately, the Federal Reserve announced a settlement solely with the Connecticut-based company for allegedly violating the FTC Act by employing deceptive practices. The company provides financial aid disbursements to higher education institutions for its students. According to the agencies, the company omitted material facts about its financial aid disbursement business, such as: (i) details about alternative disbursement methods available to students; (ii) a full and complete fee schedule; and (iii) information regarding the locations of fee-free ATMs. In addition, the agencies alleged that the company prominently displayed school logos, suggesting to students that schools had endorsed its refund product.
The FDIC’s orders against the company and the bank require each to pay a civil money penalty of $2.23 million and $1.75 million, respectively. In addition, the company and the bank together will pay approximately $31 million in restitution to roughly 900,000 consumers. Under the terms of the Federal Reserve’s order, the company will: (i) pay approximately $24 million in restitution to an estimated 570,000 consumers; (ii) pay a civil money penalty of more than $2 million; (iii) adopt a consumer compliance risk-management program; and (iv) refrain from future violations of section 5 of the FTC Act.
CFPB Orders Small-Dollar Lender to Pay $10 Million for Debt Collection Practices; Releases Compliance Bulletin
On December 16, the CFPB announced a consent order against a Texas-based small-dollar lender for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the EFTA’s implementing regulation, Regulation E. According to the CFPB, beginning in July 2011, the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and violated Regulation E by (i) visiting consumers’ homes and places of employment to collect debts; (ii) contacting third parties for reasons other than to acquire consumers’ location information, which put consumers at risk of their information being disclosed to third parties, and ignoring requests to stop calling consumers’ workplaces; (iv) making false threats of litigation if consumers did not pay the past due amount; (v) misrepresenting the company’s ability to, and routine practice to, run credit checks on loan applicants; (vi) requiring consumers to pay using pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; (vii) causing consumers to incur fees from their banks due to electronic withdrawal practices; and (viii) misrepresenting a consumer’s ability to repay loans early and to revoke authorization for electronic withdrawal authorization. The CFPB’s administratively-filed consent order requires the company to pay $7,500,000 towards refunding consumers affected by its practices, and pay a civil money penalty of $3,000,000. In addition, the order prohibits the company from collecting on defaulted loans owed by approximately 130,000 consumers, and from engaging in unfair and deceptive debt collection practices in the future.
The CFPB simultaneously released Compliance Bulletin 2015-07, warning creditors, debt buyers, and third-party collectors of potentially unlawful in-person debt collection practices. Specifically, the bulletin reminds the financial services industry of debt collection practices prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including (i) engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices; (ii) communicating with a consumer at any place or time that the debt collector knows, or should know, to be inconvenient to the consumer; (iii) communicating with persons other than the consumer (and other identified parties, except in certain circumstances) for purposes other than acquiring location information; (iv) “‘us[ing] unfair or unconscionable means to collect, or attempt to collect, debt’”; and (v) “‘engag[ing] in any conduct the consequences of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection with collecting a debt.’”