Skip to main content
Menu Icon 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.

  • CFPB announces settlement with payday lending operation

    Federal Issues

    On February 6, the CFPB announced a settlement with an Indiana-based payday retail lender and affiliates (companies) in seven states to resolve alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) privacy protections. The CFPB alleges that the companies engaged in unfair acts or practices, failed to properly disclose annual percentage rates, and failed to provide consumers with required initial privacy notices.

    Specifically, the Bureau alleges that the companies violated CFPA’s UDAAP provisions by, among other things, (i) failing to implement processes to prevent unauthorized charges, including those resulting from unauthorized draws on borrowers’ bank accounts; (ii) requiring loan applicants to provide contact information for their employers, supervisors, and four personal references, and then repeatedly calling employers to seek payments when borrowers became delinquent; (iii) disclosing the borrower’s financial information during those calls and, in certain instances, asking the third party to make payments on the loan; (iv) misusing personal references for marketing purposes; and (v) advertising check-cashing and telephone reconnection services they were no longer providing.

    The Bureau also asserts that the companies violated the GLBA by only providing initial privacy notices when consumers opened their first loan. GLBA requires financial services firms to provide borrowers a privacy policy each time a new customer relationship is established, which in this instance the CFPB claims, occurred each time a borrower paid off an outstanding loan and subsequently took out a new loan. Finally, the Bureau alleges that because the payday loans extended by the companies constitute as closed-end credit under TILA and Regulation Z, the companies were required to disclose a payday loan database fee charged to Kentucky customers in the APR but failed to do so. This resulted in, among other things, inaccurate APR disclosures in advertisements.

    While the companies have not admitted to the allegations, they have agreed to pay a $100,000 civil money penalty and are prohibited from continuing the illegal behavior.

    Federal Issues CFPB Enforcement Settlement Payday Lending CFPA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Regulation P Privacy Notices TILA Regulation Z APR UDAAP

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court moves puppy financing action forward

    Courts

    On January 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied two financing companies’ (collectively, “defendants”) motions to dismiss an action alleging the defendants violated the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), TILA, and a Minnesota law prohibiting usurious contracts through a transaction to purchase a puppy. According to the opinion, the plaintiff financed the purchase of a puppy through the defendants, which allowed her to take possession of the puppy in exchange for 24 monthly payments through an agreement styled as a “Consumer Pet Lease.” The agreement had an APR of 120 percent. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants alleging the companies violated (i) the CLA by failing to disclose the number of payments owed under the agreement prior to execution; (ii) TILA by failing to adequately disclose the finance charge, the APR, and the “total of payments” as required under the Act; and (iii) the state’s usury law cap of 8 percent for personal debt. The defendants moved to dismiss the action challenging the plaintiff’s standing, among other things. The court, rejected the defendants arguments, finding that the consumer adequately alleged injury by stating she “would” have, not “might” have, pursued other funding had the defendants disclosed the actual interest rate. Additionally, the court determined the consumer plausibly alleged a CLA violation because the agreement contains information the plaintiff could view as “conflicting and confusing.” With respect to the TILA claims, the plaintiff argued that, although the agreement is styled as a lease, it is actually a credit sale, and the court rejected one of the defendant’s arguments that it was not a creditor, but rather a servicer not subject to TILA. Lastly, the court held the plaintiff adequately pleaded her state usury claim, but noted the claim’s viability would be better informed by discovery. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

    Courts TILA CLA Usury State Issues Standing APR Interest Rate

    Share page with AddThis
  • California DBO requests comments on future rulemaking for commercial financing disclosures

    State Issues

    On December 4, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) released an invitation for comments from interested stakeholders in the development of regulations to implement the state’s new law on commercial financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on September 30, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction —defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”—the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the DBO.

    The act requires the DBO to first develop regulations governing the new disclosure requirements, addressing, among other things, (i) definitions, contents, and methods of calculations for each disclosure; (ii) requirements concerning the time, manner, and format of each disclosure; and (iii) the method to express the annualized rate disclosure and types of fees and charges to be included in the calculation. While the DBO has formulated specific topics and questions in the invitation for comments covering these areas, the comments may address any potential area for rulemaking. Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.

    State Issues Small Business Lending Fintech Disclosures APR Commercial Finance Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Nonbank

    Share page with AddThis
  • New California law requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide commercial financing disclosures

    State Issues

    On September 30, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction — defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”— the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO).

    Although the act is effective immediately, the act requires the DBO to first develop regulations governing the new disclosure requirements, and lenders are not required to comply with the provisions of the act until the final regulations are adopted and become effective. Once final regulations are in place, recipients of commercial financing offers will have to sign the disclosures, which are to be provided at the time of the offer. The disclosures must include (i) the total amount of funds provided; (ii) the total dollar cost of the financing; (iii) the term or estimated term; (iv) the method, frequency, and amount of payments; (v) a description of prepayment policies; and (vi) the total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate. Finance companies subject to the law are required to provide the annualized financing rate until January 1, 2024, at which time that portion of the disclosure requirement sunsets. The act also allows for finance companies who offer factoring or asset-based lending to provide alternative disclosures using an example transaction that could occur under the agreement.

    Importantly, the act does not apply to (i) depository institutions; (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) a commercial financing transaction in which the recipient is a vehicle dealer, vehicle rental company, or affiliated company, and meets other specified requirements; and (v) a lender who makes no more than one applicable transaction in California in a 12-month period or a lender who makes five or fewer applicable transactions that are incidental to the lender’s business in a 12-month period. The act also does not cover (i) true leases, but will apply to bargain-purchase leases; (ii) commercial loans under $5,000, which are considered consumer loans in California regardless of any business-purpose and subject to separate disclosure requirements; and (iii) commercial financing offers greater than $500,000.

    State Issues Small Business Lending Fintech Disclosures APR Commercial Finance

    Share page with AddThis

Upcoming Events