CFPB urged to regulate fee-based EWA products as credit subject to TILA
On October 12, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra received a letter from “96 consumer, labor, civil rights, legal services, faith, community and financial organizations and academics,” which urged the Bureau to rescind its earned wage access (EWA) advisory opinion and sandbox approval, and requested that the Bureau regulate fee-based EWA products as credit subject to TILA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last November the Bureau issued an advisory opinion on EWA products to address the uncertainty as to whether EWA providers that meet short-term liquidity needs that arise between paychecks “are offering or extending ‘credit’” under Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The advisory opinion stated that ““a Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of ‘credit,’” and noted that the “totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau would generally consider to be credit.” In December, the Bureau approved a compliance assistance sandbox application, which confirmed that a financial services company’s EWA program did not involve the offering or extension of “credit” as defined by section 1026.2(a)(14) of Regulation Z. The Bureau noted that various features often found in credit transactions were absent from the company’s program, and issued a two-year approval order, which provides the company a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f) as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order. (Covered by InfoBytes here).
The letter asserted that “[r]egardless of how they are structured, the essence of virtually all of these programs is that a third party advances funds to the consumer before the consumer’s regular payday and is repaid later in some fashion out of the paycheck. That is a loan. Methods to verify that the consumer has earned wages coming to them are simply a form of underwriting or security. . . . Similarly, the involvement of the employer or the use of payroll deduction does not mean that an advance is not a loan.” The letter raised several concerns, including that the Bureau’s position which views EWA products “as something other than loans leads to evasions of federal credit laws, such as [TILA], and of state laws, in particular usury laws.” Moreover, the letter stressed that this reasoning could have an impact on fair lending laws and “could be used in an attempt to weaken the scope of ECOA and its protections against discrimination against communities of color and other protected classes.” The letter stressed that asking for EWA products to be treated as credit does not mean they should not exist, but rather that the Bureau should examine fee-based EWA providers under its payday lending supervisory authority.