InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Trade groups sue Colorado Attorney General to block enforcement of law limiting out-of-state bank charges on consumer credit
On March 25, three trade groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, against the Colorado Attorney General and the Administrator of the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code to prevent enforcement of Section 3 of House Bill 23-1229, which was signed into law last year to limit out-of-state bank charges on consumer credit (the “Act”). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Act amended the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code to opt out of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) provision that allowed state-chartered banks to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of the location of the borrower and regardless of conflicting out-of-state law. The Act would go into effect on July 1.
According to the complaint, the Act “far exceed[s]” the authority Congress granted Colorado under DIDMCA and would be deemed “invalid on its face.” Plaintiffs alleged that Colorado ignored the federal definition of where a loan was deemed to be “made,” imposing “its state interest-rate caps on any ‘consumer credit transaction[] in’ Colorado,” including “any loan to a Colorado consumer by any state-chartered bank that advertises on the internet in Colorado.” Plaintiffs further alleged that the Act’s opt out “is preempted by DIDMCA and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to expand the federally granted opt-out right to loans not actually ‘made in’ Colorado under federal law,” and “violates the Commerce Clause because it will impede the flow of interstate commerce and subject state-chartered banks to inconsistent obligations across different states.” The Plaintiffs also alleged that Colorado’s stated goal of combatting “predatory, payday-style lending” will not be accomplished through the opt out, as plaintiffs’ members are not payday lenders and offer “a wide variety of useful, familiar, everyday credit products” that “are provided at a range of rate and fee options, which sometimes—to account for credit risk—are above Colorado’s rate and fee caps, but within the rate caps allowed by DIDMCA.” Furthermore, plaintiffs warn that the Act “will prevent Plaintiffs’ members from offering these mainstream products to many Colorado consumers,” while “national banks will still offer these very same loan products to Colorado residents at interest rates in excess of Colorado’s interest-rate and fee caps.” Plaintiffs urged the court to issue a ruling stating that the Act “is void with respect to loans not ‘made in’ Colorado as defined by applicable federal law” and to enjoin Colorado from enforcing or implementing the Act with respect to those loans.
Colorado Attorney General fines debt collector $500,000 for collecting on illegal loans
On January 16, the Colorado State Attorney General (AG) reached a settlement agreement with a third-party debt collection company that is ordered to pay $500,000 to the State. The company previously contracted to collect debt from consumers on behalf of unlicensed lending entities associated with Native American tribes, or Tribal Lending Entities (TLEs). According to the settlement agreement, none of the TLEs were licensed Colorado lenders and all of their loan agreements with consumers contained finance charge terms that exceeded the Uniform Consumer Credit Code’s 12 percent finance charge cap on unlicensed lenders—with most having interest rates that exceeded 500 percent APR and some up to 900 percent APR. The AG alleged that, between 2017 and 2022, the company violated the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect on defaulted TLE-issued loans by representing to consumers that the entire loan balance was owed to the TLEs, that the company was legally authorized to collect the payments, and that consumers were legally obligated to pay the full amount. The company denies that its conduct violated any state law and otherwise denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Along with the penalty, the company will be barred from collecting on any debt where the loan’s APR exceeded the 12 percent cap and will provide the State with a list of affected consumers within 30 days.
CFPB, seven State AGs file suit against debt-relief company
On January 19, the CFPB and seven state attorneys general (Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) announced a lawsuit against a debt-relief company, its subsidiaries, and its two individual owners (defendants) for allegedly facilitating an unlawful debt relief service. According to the complaint, the company used third parties to solicit consumers with large debts and direct them to contact defendants. The company then, allegedly, advised consumers to enroll in their debt-relief service that will negotiate reduced payoff amounts with consumers’ creditors and represent consumers. Additionally, individual defendants implicated in the action created law firms paired with one of the company’s subsidiaries, which performed little to no work on behalf of consumers, while non-attorney negotiators from the company were tasked with renegotiating a consumer’s debt. The CFPB and the AGs alleged that the company charges fees ($84 million since 2016) before and during the service, that left consumers with additional debt, lower credit scores, lawsuits with creditors, and had none of their original debts settled or reduced.
Among other things, the CFPB claimed the company violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by (i) charging advance fees before a consumer has made at least one payment under a debt settlement plan; (ii) collecting fees after settling some of a consumer’s debts when the fees are not proportional to the amount of debt defendant successfully settled or based on a fixed percentage of the amount saved; and, (iii) supporting its subsidiary law firms that the company knew or knowingly avoided knowing engaged in abusive acts or practices. The complaint sought permanent and preliminary injunctive relief, redress for consumers, and a civil money penalty. On January 11, the court granted the Bureau’s request for a temporary restraining order.
White House convenes on reducing medical debt
On December 8, President Biden met with over 80 federal and state officials to discuss reducing medical debts for Americans. The Biden-Harris administration desires to address medical payment products, unfair debt collection practices, surprise billing and facility fees, and charity care. This roundtable was one of several actions taken by the administration to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, in addition to (i) the CFPB’s report on how medical debt collectors pursue debts under the FDCPA, such as through misattributed billing and billing consumers without contacting them (previously covered by InfoBytes, here); and (ii) the CFPB’s proposed rule to remove medical bills from credit reports (also previously covered by InfoBytes, here). The roundtable featured speakers from the president’s council, the CFPB, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, DHHS, the Treasury, and representatives from California, Colorado, and Washington.
Colorado amends GAP requirements
The Colorado governor recently signed HB 23-1181 (the “Act”) to codify and amend rules relating to guaranteed asset protection (GAP) agreements (designed to relieve “all or part of a consumer’s liability for the deficiency balance remaining, after the payment of all insurance proceeds,” upon the total loss of a consumer’s motor vehicle that served as collateral for a loan). In addition to adding new definitions and outlining exemptions, the Act also, among other things, (i) establishes conditions, notices, and provisions that must be included in order to offer, sell, provide or administer a GAP agreement in connection with a consumer finance agreement; (ii) establishes that the maximum fee that may be charged for a GAP agreement must not exceed four percent of the amount financed in the consumer credit transaction or $600, whichever amount is greater; (iii) provides that a creditor may contract for, charge, and receive only one GAP fee as part of an agreement regardless of the number of co-borrowers, co-signers, or guarantors; (iv) lays out the process for calculating a deficiency balance and how much a consumer is owed in the event of a total loss; (v) establishes requirements in the event a GAP agreement is cancelled; (vi) details when a consumer must submit a GAP agreement claim after a total loss; and (vii) prohibits the sale of a GAP agreement in specific circumstances.
The Act is effective January 1, 2024, and applies to GAP agreements entered into on or after this date.
Colorado bill amends student loan provisions and UCCC licensing renewal deadlines
On June 5, the Colorado governor signed SB 23-248 (the “Act”), which addresses consumer protection in certain credit transactions. Among other things, the bill amends, repeals, and adds sections around lender nomenclature in the Colorado Student Loan Equity Act. The Act defines the terms “private education creditor” and “creditor” as (i) “any person engaged in the business of making or extending private education credit obligation”; (ii) “a holder of a private education credit obligation”; or (iii) “a seller, lessor, lender, or person that makes or arranges a private education credit obligation and to whom the private education credit obligation is initially payable or the assignee of a creditor’s right to payment.” Several exemptions are outlined. The Act also establishes the term “refinanced” to mean when “an existing private education credit obligation is satisfied and replaced by a new private education credit obligation undertaken by the same consumer.” In subsequent sections, words like “lender” and “loan,” amongst other things, are replaced with the newly defined terms. The Act also amends certain provisions relating to Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) licensing renewal and fee due dates. Specifically, all supervised lender licensees must file for renewal and pay the appropriate renewal fees by July 1 annually, where previously the renewal due date was January 1 each year.
The Act takes effect the day after the expiration of the 90-day period following adjournment of the general assembly.
Colorado limits out-of-state bank charges on consumer credit
On June 6, the Colorado governor signed HB 23-1229 (the “Act”) to amend the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). Specifically, Colorado has invoked its right under the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) to opt out of a provision that allows state-chartered banks to preempt state interest rates applicable to consumer credit transactions. Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA currently allow state-chartered banks to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting out-of-state law. Section 525, however, provides states with the authority to opt out of these sections.
Modifications to the UCCC impact requirements for alternative charges for loans not exceeding $1,000, and include the following changes:
- Reduces the permissible acquisition charge on the original loan or any refinanced loan from 10 to eight percent of the amount financed;
- Reduces permissible monthly installment account handling charges based on categories of the amount financed;
- Increases the minimum loan term from 90 days to six months;
- Removes the ability for a lender to charge a delinquency charge on a loan;
- Amends provisions relating to the conditions upon which an acquisition charge must be refunded to a consumer; and
- Limits the number of times a lender can refinance a consumer loan to once a year.
The amendments take effect July 1, 2024, and only apply to consumer credit transactions made after that date.
Colorado establishes medical debt collection requirements
On May 4, the Colorado governor signed SB 23-093 to cap the interest rate on medical debt at three percent per year. The Act outlines numerous provisions, including that entities collecting on a medical debt must provide a consumer with a written copy of a payment plan within seven days for medical debt that is payable in four or more installments. The Act also outlines requirements for accelerating or declaring a payment plan longer operative, and lays out prohibited actions (such as collecting on a debt or reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency within a certain timeframe) relating to medical debt that an entity knows, or reasonably should know, is under review or being appealed. An entity that files a legal action to collect a medical debt must provide to a consumer (upon written request) an itemized statement concerning the debt and must allow a consumer to dispute the debt’s validity after receiving the statement. Entities are prohibited from engaging in collection activities until the itemized statement is delivered. The Act outlines self-pay requirements and estimates, and further provides that it is a deceptive trade practice to violate outlined provisions relating to billing practices, surprise billing, and balance billing laws. The Act takes effect immediately and applies to contracts entered into after the effective date.
Colorado restricts vehicle value protection agreements
On March 23, the Colorado governor signed SB 23-015, which prohibits placing conditions on the terms of a vehicle sale, lease, or the extension or terms of credit, upon the purchase of a vehicle value protection agreement. In addition, the bill requires, among other things, that such agreements must outline eligibility requirements, coverage conditions or exclusions, provide certain consumer notices, and must benefit the consumer “upon the trade-in, total loss, or unrecovered theft of a covered vehicle.” Providers of such agreements must also obtain a contractual liability insurance policy that guarantees their obligations under the agreement. Finally, the act establishes that value protection agreements themselves are not insurance and are exempt from state insurance regulations.
Colorado finalizes privacy rules
On March 15, the Colorado attorney general’s office finalized rules to implement and enforce the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA). The final rules, which went through three draft versions (covered by InfoBytes here), were filed with the Colorado Secretary of State following completion of a review by the attorney general’s office. (See redline version of the final rules showing changes made to address concerns raised through public comments here.) As previously covered by a Special Alert, the CPA was enacted in July 2021 to establish a framework for personal data privacy rights. The CPA, which is effective July 1, 2023 with certain opt-out provisions taking effect July 1, 2024, provides consumers with numerous rights, including the right to access their personal data, opt-out of certain uses of personal data, make corrections to personal data, request deletion of personal data, and obtain a copy of personal data in a portable format. Under the CPA, the attorney general has enforcement authority for the law, which does not have a private right of action. In addition to promulgating rules to carry out the requirements of the CPA, the attorney general has authority to issue interpretive guidance and opinion letters, as well as the authority to develop technical specifications for at least one universal opt-out mechanism. Colorado is one of several states that have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that take effect in 2023, joining California, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. (Covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here.) The final rules will be published in the Colorado Register in March and will go into effect July 1.