InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB supports Connecticut’s bill to ban medical debt on credit reports
On April 15, the CFPB released a letter written by Brian Shearer, the Assistant Director within the Office of Policy Planning and Strategy, throwing the Bureau’s support behind Connecticut’s new bill to bar medical debt on credit reports. The proposed bill, SB 395, has passed its committee in the first chamber. This legislation would align Connecticut with similar legislation in Colorado and New York, and the CFPB noted that the “preemption of state law is narrow under both the [FDCPA] and the [FCRA], and states may… limit the inclusion of information about a person’s allegedly unpaid medical bills on consumer reports.” The CFPB announced in September 2023 its NPRM to prohibit creditors from using medical bills in underwriting decisions (as covered by InfoBytes here). According to the letter, “[m]edical debt is categorically different from most types of consumer tradelines that typically appear on consumer reports. Consumers frequently incur medical bills in unique circumstances that differ from other forms of credit extension, and CFPB research has found that medical debt is less predictive of future consumer credit performance than other tradelines.”
Connecticut Attorney General reports on Connecticut Data Privacy Act
On February 1, Connecticut’s Attorney General (AG) released a report on the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) including information on the law and how the state enforces it. Enacted in May 2022, the CTDPA is a comprehensive consumer data privacy law which took effect on July 1, 2023. The CTDPA gives consumers in Connecticut a set of rights regarding their personal information and privacy standards for businesses handling such data. Connecticut residents can: (i) see what data companies have on them; (ii) ask for corrections on inaccurate information; (iii) request the deletion of their data; and (iv) choose not to have their personal information used for selling products, targeted advertisements, or profiling. The report noted that within the first six months the CTDPA has been in effect, the AG issued dozens of violations towards a number of information requests. It added that companies generally responded positively to the notices and updated quickly their privacy policies and consumer rights mechanisms. According to the report, while some companies initially went below the CTDPA threshold, they made changes to meet it later while a few went beyond identified areas in the notices by strengthening their disclosures.
The report also mentioned that beginning on January 1, 2025, businesses are required to acknowledge universal opt-out signals, reflecting consumers’ choice to opt out of targeted advertising and the sale of personal data. This mandatory provision was emphasized during Connecticut's legislative process to alleviate the consumer burden, and it has been enacted into law. Finally, the report discusses possible expansions and clarifications to the CTDPA for the legislature to consider.
FTC, Connecticut file complaint against auto dealer for deceptive and unfair practices
On January 4, the FTC and the State of Connecticut issued a joint complaint against an auto dealer and its owner for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the dealership allegedly imposed additional fees, including certification fees, add-on charges, and government charges, without consumers’ explicit consent. The FTC alleged that the dealership made misrepresentations regarding advertised prices, charging consumers additional fees when they would attempt to purchase vehicle, and charged customers for certification fees for vehicles that had been advertised as “certified.” The complaint also alleged that the dealership would charge consumers for add-ons, such as GAP insurance, service contracts, maintenance contracts, and total loss protection with or without express consent, and at times after the consumer specifically declined the add-on. The complaint further alleged that the dealership often stated in advertisements that a vehicle was certified but did not report the sale of that vehicle or pay the certification fee to the manufacturer, so consumers did not receive the actual benefits. The complaint seeks consumer redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten money, civil penalties, and a permanent injunction.
2nd Circuit: Reverse and remand a buy-now-pay-later suit
On November 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision to deny a buy now pay later servicer’s (defendant) motion to compel arbitration in a class action. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, among other things, after the defendant’s charges incurred overdraft fees on the plaintiff’s checking account. The defendant argued that the consumer agreed, on multiple occasions, to the mandatory arbitration provisions in the servicer’s terms and conditions when she used its services. The district court concluded that the plaintiff did not have “reasonably conspicuous notice of and unambiguously manifest assent to [defendant’s] terms” and therefore plaintiff was not bound by the mandatory arbitration provisions in the defendant’s terms.
The 2nd Circuit panel of three judges identified “several factors” in its finding that the plaintiff had reasonably conspicuous notice, including that defendant’s interface was “uncluttered” adding that “[a] reasonable internet user, therefore, could not avoid noticing the hyperlink to [defendant’s] terms when the user selects ‘confirm and continue’ on the [application].” Further, the court found that the plaintiff “unambiguously manifested her assent” to the defendant’s terms and conditions.
Connecticut implements measures for auto-renewals
On June 28, the Connecticut governor signed HB 5314 (the “Act”), enacting measures relating to automatic renewal offers and consumer agreements. The Act, among other things, includes newly defined terms such as “automatic renewal provision.” The Act stipulates that any business that enters into a consumer agreement that contains an automatic renewal or continuous services provision must provide various consumer notices and enable any consumer who enters into such an agreement online to terminate online. Notices include a description of the actions the consumer must take to terminate, and if disclosed electronically, a link or other electronic means. Also, to be disclosed before renewal, in any consumer agreement containing an automatic renewal provision, must be the amount of the recurring charge and the amount of the change if the charges are subject to change (if such change in amount is known by the business). The business must further disclose the length of the term for such an agreement, unless the consumer chooses the length of the term, as well as any minimum purchase obligations and contact information for the business. The business must also establish a means for communication with consumers, such as email, toll-free phone number, or website if the agreement is contracted online. The Act also stipulates the nature of the disclosures for consumers before entering such an agreement, before the business makes a material change to the terms of the agreement, and before a consumer enters an agreement that offers a gift or free trial period. Additionally, the Act provides that no person doing business can impose any charge or fee for providing bills to consumers in paper form.
The Act is effective October 1.
Connecticut establishes rules for virtual currency kiosks
On June 27, the Connecticut governor signed HB 6752 (the “Act”) to establish certain requirements for owners or operators of virtual currency kiosks in the state. Among other things, the commissioner has the authority to establish regulations, forms, and orders that govern the use of digital assets, such as virtual currencies and stablecoins, by regulated entities and individuals. When adopting, amending, or rescinding any such regulation, form, or order, the commissioner may consult with federal financial services regulators, regulators from other states, as well as other stakeholders and industry professionals to promote the consistent treatment and handling of digital assets. Definitions for “virtual currency address,” “virtual currency kiosk,” and “virtual currency wallet” have also been added.
The Act further provides that prior to engaging in an initial virtual currency transaction with a customer, the owner or operator of a virtual currency kiosk is required to provide clear and conspicuous written disclosures in English regarding the material risks associated with virtual currency. These disclosures should cover several key points, including a prominent and bold warning acknowledging that losses resulting from fraudulent or accidental transactions may not be recoverable, transactions in virtual currency are irreversible, and that the nature of virtual currency may lead to an increased risk of fraud or cyber-attack. Disclosures must also address a customer’s liability for unauthorized virtual currency transactions, a customer’s right to stop payment for a preauthorized virtual currency transfer (along with the process to initiate a stop-payment order), and circumstances in which the owner or operator will disclose information regarding the customer’s account to third parties, unless required by a court or government order. Additionally, customers must be provided upfront information relating to the amount of the transaction, any fees, expenses, and charges, and any applicable warnings. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator of a virtual currency kiosk to ensure that every customer acknowledges the receipt of all disclosures mandated by the Act, and to provide receipts upon completion of any virtual currency transaction. The Act is effective October 1.
Connecticut amends requirements for small lenders
On June 29, SB 1033 (the “Act) was enacted in Connecticut to amend the banking statutes. The Act, among other things, (i) redefines “small loan”; (ii) redefines “APR” to be calculated based on the Military Lending Act and include the cost of ancillary products among other fees as part of the “finance charge”; (iii) requires more people to obtain small loan licenses; (iv) requires that certain small loans are worth $5,000-$50,000, which is intended to capture larger loans particularly for student borrowers who may enter into income sharing agreements; (v) prohibits small loans from providing for an advance exceeding an unpaid principal of $50,000; and (vi) eliminates a requirement that certain people demonstrate an ability to supervise mortgage servicing offices in person. The Act also includes new licensing provisions, adding that any person who acts as an agent or service provider for a person who is exempt from licensure requires licensure if (i) they have a predominant economic interest in a small loan; (ii) they facilitate and hold the right to purchase the small loan, receivables or interest in the small loan; or (iii) the person is a lender who structured the loan to evade provisions in the Act. If the facts and circumstances deem the person a lender, they must be licensed under the Act.
Connecticut joins states enacting commercial financing disclosures and lender and broker registration requirements
On June 28, Connecticut became the latest state to require certain providers of sales-based commercial financing to provide disclosures to borrowers and that such providers and brokers register with the state. SB 1032 (the “Act”) defines “commercial financing” as any extension of sales-based financing by a provider in amounts of $250,000 or less, which the recipient does not intend to use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A “provider” is defined by the Act as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient” and includes, unless otherwise exempt, a “commercial financing broker,” but does not include “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, Connecticut credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union or any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing.” “Sales-based financing” means a transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time (i) as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales made or revenue received by the recipient, or (ii) according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue. The Act establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous additional exemptions.
Under the Act, when extending a specific offer for sales-based financing, the provider must disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the Act. As a condition of obtaining commercial financing, should the provider require a recipient to pay off the balance of existing commercial financing from the same provider, the provider would be required to include additional disclosures. The Act also discusses conditions and criteria when using another state’s commercial financing disclosure requirements that meet or exceed Connecticut’s provisions may be permitted. Providers may rely on a statement of intended purpose made by the “recipient” (defined as “a person, or the authorized representative of a person, who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing by a provider”) to determine whether the financing is commercial financing.
Further, the Act provides that a commercial financing contract entered into on or after July 1, 2024, may not contain any provisions waiving a recipient’s right to notice, judicial hearing, or prior court order in connection with the provider obtaining any prejudgment remedy. Additionally, a provider may not revoke, withdraw, or modify a specific offer until midnight of the third calendar day after the date of the offer. Notably, there is a requirement that providers and brokers of commercial financing be registered with the state banking commissioner, in addition to adhering to the prescribed disclosure requirements, no later than October 1, 2024.
Finally, the banking commissioner is authorized to adopt regulations to carry out the Act’s provisions. Providers who violate the Act’s provisions, or any adopted regulations, will be subject to civil penalties. The commissioner may also seek injunctive relief against providers who knowingly violate any of the provisions.
The Act takes effect July 1, 2024.
More states targeting commercial financing disclosures
Several states are moving forward on legislation relating to commercial financing disclosures. While Georgia is the most recent state to require disclosures in connection with commercial financing transactions of $500,000 or less (covered by InfoBytes here), additional states, including Connecticut and Florida, are moving bills through the legislature that would also impose several requirements on commercial financing lenders and providers.
Awaiting the governor’s signature, Connecticut SB 1032 would require certain providers of commercial financing to make various disclosures, with violators being subject to civil penalties. The requirements are applicable to sales-based financing in amounts of $250,000 or less. A “provider” is defined by the bill as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient” and includes, unless otherwise exempt, a “commercial financing broker,” but does not include “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, Connecticut credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union or any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing.” The bill establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous additional exemptions. Providers may also be able to rely on a statement of intended purpose made by the “recipient” – which is defined as “a person, or the authorized representative of a person, who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing by a provider” – to determine whether the financing is commercial financing. Additionally, when extending a specific offer for sales-based financing, the provider must disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the bill. As a condition of obtaining commercial financing, should the provider require a recipient to pay off the balance of existing commercial financing from the same provider, the provider would be required to include additional disclosures. The bill also discusses conditions and criteria for when using another state’s commercial financing disclosure requirements that meet or exceed Connecticut’s provisions may be permitted.
The bill further provides that a commercial financing contract entered into on or after July 1, 2024, may not contain any provisions waiving a recipient’s right to notice, judicial hearing, or prior court order in connection with the provider obtaining any prejudgment remedy. Additionally, a provider may not revoke, withdraw, or modify a specific offer until midnight of the third calendar day after the date of the offer. Finally, the banking commissioner also is authorized to adopt regulations to carry out the bill’s provisions. Notably and unique to Connecticut is a requirement that providers and brokers of commercial financing be registered with the state banking commissioner in addition to adhering to the prescribed disclosure requirements. No later than October 1, 2024, providers and brokers must abide by certain application requirements and pay registration fees. If enacted, Connecticut’s requirements would take effect July 1, 2024.
Similarly, Florida also moved legislation during the 2023 session related to commercial financing that would have created the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law. Among other things, HB 1353 would have required covered providers to provide specified disclosures for commercial financing transactions in amounts of $500,000 or less and would have established unique broker requirements. Florida’s session ended May 5.
Fintech fined over interest charges billed as tips and donations
A California-based fintech company recently entered separate consent orders with California, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia to resolve allegations claiming it disguised interest charges as tips and donations connected to loans offered through its platform. The company agreed to (i) pay a $100,000 fine in Connecticut and reimburse Connecticut borrowers for all loan-related tips, donations, and fees paid; (ii) pay a $30,000 fine in the District of Columbia, including restitution; and (iii) pay a $50,000 fine in California, plus refunds of all donations received from borrowers in the state. The company did not admit to any violations of law or wrongdoing.
The Connecticut banking commissioner’s consent order found that the company engaged in deceptive practices, acted as a consumer collection agency, and offered, solicited, and brokered small loans for prospective borrowers without the required licensing. The company agreed that it would cease operations in the state until it changed its business model and practices and was properly licensed. Going forward, the company agreed to allow consumers to pay tips only after fully repaying their loans. The consent order follows a temporary cease and desist order issued in 2022.
A consent judgment and order reached with the D.C. attorney general claimed the company engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the cost of its loans and by not clearly disclosing the true nature of the tips and donations. The AG maintained that the average APR of these loans violated D.C.’s usury cap. The company agreed to ensure that lenders accessing the platform are unable to see whether a consumer is offering a tip (or the amount of tip) and must take measures to make sure that withholding a tip or donation will not affect loan approval or loan terms. Among other actions, the company is also required to disclose how much lenders can expect to earn through the platform.
In the California consent order, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) claimed that the majority of consumers paid both a tip and a donation. A pop-up message encouraged borrowers to offer the maximum tip in order to have their loan funded, DFPI said, alleging the pop-up feature could not be disabled without using an unadvertised, buried setting. These tips and/or donations were not included in the formal loan agreement generated in the platform, nor were borrowers able to view the loan agreement before consummation. According to DFPI, this amounted to brokering extensions of credit without a license. Additionally, the interest being charged (after including the tips and donations) exceeded the maximum interest rate permissible under the California Financing Law, DFPI said, adding that by disclosing that the loans had a 0 percent APR with no finance charge, they failed to comply with TILA.