Nonbank lender argues CFPB redlining action is flawed
On October 23, a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company moved to dismiss a CFPB redlining action on the grounds that the Bureau’s complaint “improperly seek[s]” to expand ECOA to “prospective applicants.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in July, the Bureau filed a complaint against the mortgage company alleging the mortgage company engaged in redlining in violation of ECOA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau argued, among other things, that the company redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area by discouraging their residents from applying for mortgage loans from the company and by discouraging nonresidents from applying for loans from the company for homes in these neighborhoods. To support its arguments, the Bureau cited to (i) a number of racially disparaging comments allegedly made by the owner and employees on the company’s broadcasts; (ii) the company’s comparatively low application volume from African American neighborhoods and applicants; (iii) its lack of specific marketing targeting the African American community in Chicago; (iv) and its failure to employ African American mortgage loan officers.
In support of its motion to dismiss, the mortgage company argued that the Bureau’s complaint is “flawed” by seeking to expand the reach of ECOA to “prospective applicants” and regulate the company’s behavior before a credit transaction begins. In addition to expanding the application of ECOA, the company argued that the Bureau is attempting to impose—through Regulation B’s “discouragement” definition—(i) “affirmative requirements to target advertising to specific racial or ethnic groups”; (ii) “a demographic hiring quota”; and (iii) “a requirement to have business success with specific racial or ethnic groups.” Moreover, the company argued the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA and Regulation B violates the company’s First Amendment rights by attempting to regulate “the content and viewpoint of protected speech . . . in a way that is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.” Lastly, the company argued the Bureau similarly violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by seeking to enforce Regulation B’s definition of “discouragement,” because it is unconstitutionally vague.