InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California proposes modifying CCPA regs again
On December 10, the California Department of Justice (Department) released a fourth set of proposed modifications to the regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, on October 12, the Department released a third set of proposed modifications to the regulations that went into effect on August 14. The Department noted that it received around 20 comments in response to the third set of proposed modifications and the fourth set of proposed modifications is to address those comments and/or to clarify and conform the proposed regulations to existing law. Highlights of the proposed modifications include:
- Amending Section 999.306, subd. (b)(3), to clarify that a business that sells (previously proposed as “collects”) personal information collected from consumers in the course of interacting with them offline shall inform consumers of their right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information by an offline method.
- The addition of Section 999.315, subd. (f), which identifies a uniform “opt-out button” to be used in addition to posting the notice of right to opt-out or used in conjunction with a “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link.
Additionally, the Department provided notice that it added new documents and information to the rulemaking file, which was relied upon when adopting the proposed regulations.
Comments on the proposed modifications are due on December 28 by 5:00 p.m.
CFPB releases fall 2020 rulemaking agenda
On December 11, the CFPB released its fall 2020 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information details the regulatory matters that the Bureau “expect[s] to focus on” between November 2020 and November 2021. The announcement notes that the Bureau will also continue to monitor the need for further actions related to the ongoing Covid-19 emergency. In addition to the rulemaking activities already completed by the Bureau this fall, the agenda highlights other regulatory activities planned, including:
- Debt Collection. The Bureau notes that it expects to issue a final rule in December 2020 addressing, among other things, disclosures related to validation notices and time-barred debt (proposal covered by a Buckley Special Alert here).
- LIBOR Transition. The Bureau notes that it anticipates publishing the final rulemaking (proposal covered by InfoBytes here) on the LIBOR transition later than the original January 2021 target identified in the Unified Agenda, due to the November 30 announcement by UK regulatory authorities that they are considering extending the availability of US$ LIBOR for legacy loan contracts until June 2023, instead of the end of 2021.
- FIRREA. The Bureau notes that, together with the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA, it will continue to develop a proposed rule to implement the automated valuation model (AVM) amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning appraisals.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau notes that it intends to issue an NPRM in spring 2021 to consider amendments to the Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules to address actions required of servicers working with borrowers affected by natural disasters or other emergencies. The Bureau notes that comments to the interim final rule issued in June 2020, amending aspects of the mortgage servicing rules to address the exigencies of Covid-19 (covered by InfoBytes here), suggest that the rules may need additional updates to address natural disasters or other emergencies.
- HMDA. The Bureau states that two rulemakings are planned, including (i) a proposed rule that follows up on a May 2019 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which sought information on the costs and benefits of reporting certain data points under HMDA and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans (covered by InfoBytes here); and (ii) a proposed rule addressing the public disclosure of HMDA data.
Eleventh Circuit affirms ruling in TCPA re-consent case
On December 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in a TCPA action in favor of a student loan servicer and an affiliate responsible for performing default aversion services (collectively, “defendants”), concluding that the plaintiff re-consented to being contacted on his cell phone after filling out a form on the servicer’s website. According to the opinion, following a class action settlement in 2010—in which members of the class (including the plaintiff) who did not “submit revocation request forms were ‘deemed to have provided prior express consent’” to be contacted by the defendants—the plaintiff later claimed to have revoked consent to being contacted through the use of an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) during a call with the servicer. While on the call, the plaintiff filled out an online automatic debit agreement to make payments on his delinquent loan. The agreement included a demographic form with an option for the plaintiff to update his contact information, which included an optional cell phone number field and a disclosure that granted consent to being contacted on his cell phone using an autodialer. The defendants began contacting the plaintiff on his cell phone after he fell behind on his loan payments, and the plaintiff sued, alleging the defendants violated the TCPA by placing calls using an autodialer without obtaining his prior express consent. The district court granted the servicer’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff “expressly consented” to receiving the calls and could not “unilaterally revoke” consent “given as consideration in a valid bargained-for-contract,” and that the plaintiff nonetheless “reconsented when he submitted the demographic form.” The plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that he did not re-consent to being contacted because the form was submitted directly after his oral revocation to the servicer.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court, holding that while it was true that the plaintiff “filled out the demographic form just moments after he orally revoked his prior consent, [the plaintiff] cites no authority that this temporal proximity should require this Court to consider the separate interactions (of revoking consent and later reconsenting) as one lumped-together interaction.” As such, the appellate court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument “that the revocation of consent standard should stretch to apply to [his] later reconsent to [the servicer].”
Agencies announce several resolution plan actions
On December 9, the FDIC and Federal Reserve Board announced several resolution plan actions, including providing finalized guidance for the resolution plans of four large foreign banking organizations (FBOs). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, FBOs must submit resolution plans—also known as “living wills”—which detail the strategic plans for their U.S. operations and subsidiaries for rapid and orderly resolution in bankruptcy in the event that the banks fail or fall under material financial distress. The final guidance modifies the proposed updates issued last March (covered by InfoBytes here) in several ways. Among other changes, the agencies “tailored their expectations around resolution capital and liquidity, derivatives and trading activity, as well as payment, clearing, and settlement activities,” and modified the scope of the guidance “to generally cover foreign banks in category II of the agencies' large bank regulatory framework.” As a result, three FBOs would be subject to the guidance for their plan submissions for 2021, and an additional FBO would be subject to the guidance for its full plan due in 2024 if it remains within the scope. The agencies also released information for 15 large foreign and domestic banks in categories II and III of the large bank regulatory framework that identifies required targeted information to be included in their next resolutions plans, due December 17, 2021. The agencies also confirmed that certain previously identified weaknesses in four FBOs have been remediated.
CFPB sues debt collection company that used DA letterhead to threaten consumers
On December 9, the CFPB announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against a Missouri-based company alleging violations of the FDCPA and the CFPA. The company allegedly engaged in deceptive and otherwise unlawful debt collection acts and practices in the course of operating “bad-check pretrial-diversion programs on behalf of more than 90 district attorneys’ offices throughout the United States.” According to the Bureau, the company used district-attorney letterhead to threaten consumers with criminal prosecution unless they paid the amount of the dishonored check, enrolled and paid for a financial-education course, and paid various other administrative fees. The complaint claims that not only did the company fail to include required FDCPA disclosures in the letters it sent to consumers, it also failed to identify itself in the letters and did not inform consumers that it is a debt collector and not a district attorney. The company also allegedly failed to inform consumers that district attorneys almost never prosecute individuals who do not pay back the amount owed. Moreover, the Bureau claims that in most cases the company did not refer cases for prosecution, even if the check writer failed to respond to the collection letter, did not pay the alleged outstanding debt and fees, or failed to complete the financial-education course. The complaint seeks an injunction against the company as well as damages, redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of civil money penalties.
Virginia issues modified stay at home order identifying banks and financial institution as essential retail businesses
On December 10, the governor of Virginia issued a modified stay at home order limiting travel and gatherings for Virginia residents and operations for certain businesses. However, banks and other financial institutions with retail functions are considered essential retail businesses and may continue to remain open during normal business hours. All businesses, including essential retail businesses, are advised to adhere to the Guidelines for All Business Sectors.
New Jersey charges MCA provider with deceptive practices
On December 8, the New Jersey attorney general announced an action against a merchant cash advance provider, its parent company, and six other associated entities (collectively, “defendants”) alleging the defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the General Advertising Regulations through the marketing and transacting of their merchant cash advance (MCA) product. (The defendants are currently facing similar allegations from the FTC, covered by InfoBytes here.) According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in “unconscionable business practices, deceived consumers, and/or made false or misleading statements” by marketing and advertising an MCA product, which was allegedly structured as a short-term, high-cost loan. New Jersey argues that the MCA contracts contain terms that “eliminate the distinctions between loans (with fixed regular payments over a defined term) and legitimate MCAs (with variable payments tied to actual receivables and an undefined term).” New Jersey asserts that traditionally, MCA’s do not have a finite repayment term and thus, the fixed repayment period was the equivalent of a loan to its customers. Moreover, the agreements’ “fixed daily payments extracted from Consumers’ accounts have little to no relation to the businesses’ receivables.” Additionally, New Jersey asserts that the defendants allegedly engaged in unconscionable collection practices, including requiring consumers to sign, in their individual capacity and on behalf of their business, an Affidavit of Confessions of Judgment to obtain the MCA, which would allow judgment against both the Consumer’s business assets and personal assets in the event of a purported default. New Jersey is seeking a permanent injunction, civil penalties, restitution, and disgorgement.
Notably, the New Jersey complaint follows a recent enforcement action against a merchant cash advance provider in California (covered by InfoBytes here), where the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) found, in apparent contrast to the New Jersey action, that MCA agreements with an indefinite repayment period, among other things, operate as a loan equivalent by, placing the “risk of repayment on the merchant by leaving the repayment period open until fully repaid (with fees and interest).”
CFPB reaches settlement with unlicensed debt collector
On December 8, the CFPB announced a settlement with a New Jersey-based debt collector resolving allegations that the defendant violated the FDCPA and the CFPA’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices by obtaining judgments and demanding payments from consumers in states where it was not legally licensed to do so. According to the Bureau, the defendant purchased consumer debts from debt brokers, used law firms to obtain judgments against the consumers, and “continued to collect on those judgments . . . as well as on a handful of payment agreements it obtained from debtors.” The Bureau found that the defendant falsely implied that it had a legally enforceable right to recover payments from consumers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and demanded payments and threatened legal action even though it did not hold the debt collection licenses required under the laws of those states. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a $204,000 civil money penalty, and prohibits the defendant from collecting on the judgments against, or payment agreements entered into with, consumers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island when it was not legally allowed to do so. The defendant is also required to “take all necessary steps to vacate all judgments not discharged in bankruptcy or [that were] previously satisfied,” and must suspend collection of those judgments and provide notice to consumers with payment agreements that have been satisfied.
House passes NDAA with significant AML/CFT provisions
On December 8, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 in a 335-78 vote, which includes significant language from the September 2019 proposed legislation, the “Improving Laundering Laws and Increasing Comprehensive Information Tracking of Criminal Activity in Shell Holdings (ILLICIT CASH) Act,” among other proposed laws. Highlights of the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions include:
- Establishing federal disclosure requirements of beneficial ownership information, including a requirement that reporting companies submit, at the time of formation and within a year of any change, their beneficial owner(s) to a “secure, nonpublic database at FinCEN”;
- Expand the declaration of purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and establish national examinations and supervision priorities;
- Require streamlined, real-time reporting of Suspicious Activity Reports;
- Establish a Subcommittee on Innovation and Technology within the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group to encourage and support technological innovation in the area of AML and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation (CFT);
- Expand the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include dealers in antiquities;
- Require federal agencies to study the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade of works of art; and
- Inclusion of digital currency in AML-CFT enforcement by, among other things, expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include businesses engaged in the transmission of “currency, funds or value that substitutes for currency or funds.”
OFAC sanctions entities connected to IRGC-QF
On December 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 against an official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), along with the Iranian regime’s envoy to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, for allegedly “acting for or on behalf of the IRGC-QF.” OFAC also announced sanctions against an Iranian university and a separate individual for providing support to IRGC-QF operations. As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and any “entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by such persons, are also blocked.” U.S. persons are “generally prohibited from engaging in transactions” with the designated persons. OFAC further warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for the designated persons they “risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property and interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.”