Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • 2nd Circuit: Confirmation email to consumer satisfies EFTA’s written authorization requirement

    Courts

    On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of one of two defendants on plaintiff’s Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) claims, holding that the defendant satisfied its EFTA obligations by providing the plaintiff a confirmation email containing the material terms and conditions authorizing a recurring monthly charge to the plaintiff’s debit card. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claims against the defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiff contended that one of the defendants—a discount club operator—failed to provide him with a written copy of the authorized electronic fund transfer after he joined the defendant’s fee-based monthly discount club. The plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the defendant club operator, as well as the retailer from whom he purchased a video game online, alleging, among other things, that the defendant violated the EFTA, and that both defendants engaged in “unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of CUTPA.” The district could granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both claims.

    The opinion discusses the 2nd Circuit’s holding from the plaintiff’s first appeal, in which the appellate court previously held “that the district court improperly rested its decision on evidence outside the scope of [the plaintiff’s] complaint,” with respect to the claim that the defendant failed to provide “‘a copy of such authorization’” to the plaintiff, as required by the EFTA. In addressing the plaintiff’s second appeal, the 2nd Circuit considered the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant failed to satisfy the EFTA’s requirements because it did not provide him with a “duplicate or facsimile of the Enrollment Page on which he authorized recurring payments.” The appellate court determined that: (i) the EFTA does not require the defendant to provide the plaintiff “with a duplicate of the webpage on which he provided authorization for recurring fund transfers”; and (ii) the defendant’s confirmation email to the plaintiff was sufficient to satisfy its EFTA obligations. The appellate court emphasized that, despite the parties’ “dueling dictionary definitions” of “copy” and “authorization,” the “EFTA’s stated purpose of consumer protection would be served whether the term ‘copy of such authorization’ is read to mean a duplicate or a summary of material terms.” The appellate court also highlighted the CFPB’s Official Interpretation of Regulation E, which states that a person “‘that obtains the [payment] authorization must provide a copy of the terms of the authorization to the consumer either electronically or in paper form.’ 12 C.F.R. Pt. 205, supp. I, §10(b), cmt. 5 (emphasis added).”

    Courts Appellate Second Circuit EFTA State Issues CFPB

  • Federal agencies announce measures to encourage consumer and business lending

    Federal Issues

    On March 27, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), the FDIC and the OCC jointly announced two measures the agencies have put in place to “support lending to households and businesses” during the Covid-19 pandemic. First, effective immediately, the agencies will “[a]llow[] early adoption of a new methodology on how certain banking organizations are required to measure counterparty credit risk derivatives contracts.” Second, the agencies will “[p]rovid[e] an optional extension of the regulatory capital transition for the new credit loss accounting standard.”

    The first measure deals with the Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure Amount of Derivative Contracts (SA-CCR), which had an effective date of April 1. Allowing early adoption for the quarter ending on March 31 may “improve current market liquidity and smooth disruptions” caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, the interim final rule for Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL)—the second measure—was released to minimize the effect of the “CECL accounting standard [on] regulatory capital.” In addition to the transition period of three years already available, the interim final rule—Regulatory Capital Rule: Revised Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances—provides up to two more years to “mitigate the estimated cumulative regulatory capital effects” of CECL. Comments on the interim final rule must be submitted by May 11. (See OCC News Release 2020-42 here and FDIC press release here.)

    Federal Issues FDIC Federal Reserve OCC CECL Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Covid-19

  • FDIC requests 2019 diversity self-assessments through new automated portal

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 23, the FDIC issued FIL-23-2020 to announce a request from the agency’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion for 2019 diversity self-assessments from FDIC-regulated financial institutions in accordance with Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Financial institutions with 100 or more employees should refer to the FIL for instructions on completing the voluntary self-assessment. The FDIC strongly encourages financial institutions to use the new automated portal: Diversity Self-Assessment of FDIC Regulated Financial Institutions when completing self-assessments, as it allows for multiple authorized users and the ability to view previous submissions, as well as provides additional resources for participants. Self-assessments are due May 31.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC Federal Issues Diversity Dodd-Frank Financial Institutions

  • 9th Circuit holds extraneous information violates FCRA standalone disclosure requirement

    Courts

    On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) action, concluding that a company’s disclosures contained “extraneous information” in violation of the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement. The plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against his former employer (defendant) after his employment—which was contingent on passing a background check—was ultimately terminated based on the results of his credit report. According to the plaintiff, the defendant violated two sections of the FCRA: (i) that the disclosure form was not clear and conspicuous and was encumbered by extraneous information; and (ii) that the defendant failed to notify him in the pre-adverse action notice that he could discuss the consumer report directly with the defendant prior to his termination. The district court dismissed the allegations, concluding that the disclosure met the FCRA’s disclosure requirements because it was not overshadowed by extraneous information, and “that the FCRA does not require that pre-adverse action notices inform an employee how to contact and discuss a consumer report directly with the employer.”

    On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on whether the signed disclosure form contained extraneous information, concluding that because the disclosure form also included information about plaintiff’s rights to obtain and inspect information gathered by the consumer reporting agency about the plaintiff, it went beyond the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement. Noting that the FRCA requires a standalone disclosure but does not define the term “disclosure,” the 9th Circuit stated that a company may “briefly describe what a ‘consumer report’ entails, how it will be ‘obtained,’ and for which type of ‘employment purposes’ it may be used.” Finding that the clear and conspicuous standard was established in a case decided after the district court had dismissed plaintiff’s case, the court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the defendant’s disclosure form satisfied the clear and conspicuous standard. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s other claim, agreeing with the district court that the FCRA only requires employers to provide “a description of the consumer’s right to dispute with a consumer reporting agency the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in the consumer’s file at the consumer reporting agency.”

    Courts Appellate Ninth Circuit FCRA Credit Report Disclosures Consumer Finance

  • FDIC updates guidance on protecting banks and consumers

    Federal Issues

    On March 27, the FDIC announced an update to guidance it issued on March 16 regarding “steps to protect banks and consumers and to continue operations.” Among the updates, the agency (i) extended telework for all FDIC employees from March 30 until at least April 12; (ii) expanded the period of time the agency will conduct “[s]upervisory and other FDIC activities” off-site through April 12; and (iii) encouraged institutions to communicate with their “Examiner-in-Charge or Regional Director” if they anticipate delays in responding to “normal supervisory requests.”

    Federal Issues FDIC Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Supervision Examination Covid-19

  • Michigan Secretary of State issues FAQs on available services during Covid-19 crisis

    State Issues

    On March 26, the Michigan Secretary of State (SoS) issued FAQs detailing what SoS services are available during the Covid-19 crisis and how to access them. The FAQs provide responses to questions regarding office closures, driver’s licenses, state identification cards, and vehicle registrations.

    State Issues Michigan Covid-19

  • Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner issues bulletins regarding Covid-19 to regulated lenders, credit access businesses, tax lenders, and motor vehicle sales finance licensees

    State Issues

    On March 26, the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) issued four bulletins directed at regulated lenders, credit access businesses, property tax lenders, and motor vehicle sales finance licensees in light of Covid-19. The bulletins urge these entities to work with borrowers during the crisis, including through taking the following measures:

    • Increasing communication with borrowers regarding Covid-19.
    • Working out modifications with borrowers to help ensure successful repayment, including deferred or partial payments, which would avoid delinquencies and negative credit reporting.
    • Waiving certain fees or charges (e.g., late charges, additional finance charges, deferment charges, nonsufficient fund fees) during the disaster declaration.
    • Suspending charging off accounts.
    • Suspending repossession of vehicles, repossessions of collateral, foreclosure of real property, as applicable

    The bulletins also provide guidance on the use of electronic signatures, which the bulletins note are generally allowed under Texas and federal law. The bulletins also provide that the OCCC will not take enforcement actions against regulated lenders, credit access businesses, property tax lenders, or motor vehicle sales finance licensees that conduct business activities from unlicensed locations, if conducted in accordance with certain data security, safe record keeping, and protection of personal information requirements set forth in the bulletins.

    State Issues Covid-19 Texas Licensing Consumer Credit Mortgages Auto Finance

  • Minnesota Department of Commerce designates banks and credit unions as critical sectors

    State Issues

    On March 26, the Minnesota Department of Commerce clarified that banks, credit unions, and other financial services entities within the state are designated as critical sectors and will remain open during the Covid-19 crisis. Kelly’s remarks followed an executive order from Governor Tim Walz, which officially labeled financial services entities as critical sectors.

    State Issues Covid-19 Bank Compliance Credit Union

  • Indiana posts statement regarding remote notary technology vendors

    State Issues

    On March 26, the Indiana secretary of state posted a statement providing that there are currently no approved remote notary technology vendors. Individuals are encouraged to check the announcement regularly as the secretary of state is working on approving vendors.

    State Issues Indiana Notary Vendors Covid-19

  • Idaho Department of Finance issues memorandum to money transmitter licensees and applicants

    State Issues

    On March 26, the Idaho Department of Finance issued a memorandum to Idaho money transmitter licensees and applicants regarding agency operations and communications due to Covid-19. The memorandum includes information on the Department’s teleworking arrangements and notes that routine examinations of registered entities and agents have been suspended. Registration staff continues to process licensing/registration applications through the CRD/IARD/NMLS systems and U.S. mail. In line with the NMLS Policy committee’s decisions and recommendations, the Department has also extended deadlines by 60 days for the filing of certain reports and statements.

    State Issues Covid-19 Idaho Money Service / Money Transmitters Licensing Mortgages

Pages

Upcoming Events