InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Kraninger: CFPB's focus is preventing consumer harm, and state and federal collaboration
On July 18, Kathy Kraninger, Director of the CFPB, spoke before the Exchequer Club where she discussed the Bureau’s strategy for preventing consumer harm. Kraninger discussed her ongoing “listening tour”—in which she has met with and received feedback from “more than 600 consumer groups, consumers, state and local government officials, military personnel, academics, non-profits, faith leaders, financial institutions, and former and current Bureau officials and staff”—and commented on ways in which feedback received from these stakeholders has helped shape her approach. Kraininger highlighted four “tools” that the Bureau has at its disposal to execute its mission: education, rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement.
- Education. According to Kraninger, the Bureau’s focus reflects a “consumer-centric definition of financial well-being” designed to empower consumers when protecting their own interests and choosing the appropriate financial products and services. Specifically, Kraninger referred to the Bureau’s “Misadventures in Money Management” financial education tool for active-duty servicemembers, as well as its “Start Small, Save Up” initiative, which is designed to increase consumers’ ability to handle urgent expenses.
- Rulemaking. Kraninger commented that the Bureau will continue to comply with Congressional mandates to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking. However, where the Bureau has discretion, it “will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and prohibiting acts or practices that undermine the ability of consumers to choose the products and services that are best for them.” Kraninger spoke of the need for increased transparency and deregulatory efforts and highlighted a recent change to the comment period for the Bureau’s Payday and Debt Collection rulemakings, as well as the consideration of potential changes to the existing Remittances Rule based on responses to a call for evidence.
- Supervision. Kraninger stressed that “[s]upervision is the heart of the agency,” as it helps to prevent violations of laws and regulations from happening in the first place. The Bureau’s approach will focus on ensuring supervision is effective, efficient, and consistent, and will explore ways to incentivize institutions to have in place good compliance management systems. Kraninger noted that, as chair of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, she will focus on coordinating and collaborating with the other agencies to advance consumer protections.
- Enforcement. Kraninger noted that the Bureau will continue to enforce against bad actors that do not comply with the law, as “[a] purposeful enforcement regime can foster compliance, deter unlawful conduct, help prevent consumer harm, and right wrongs.” She referenced the Bureau’s history of collaborating with state and federal partners on enforcement actions, and stressed her commitment to ensuring enforcement matters are handled as expeditiously as possible. Kraninger also specifically drew attention to the Bureau’s collaborative approach in its recent advisory on elder financial exploitation (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
OFAC sanctions international network involved in procuring materials for Iranian nuclear program
On July 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13382 against an international network of seven entities and five individuals involved in the procurement of sensitive materials for sanctioned elements of Iran’s nuclear program. According to OFAC, the network—based in Iran, China, and Belgium—acted as a procurement network in order to acquire materials controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which were then used in facilities belonging to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. OFAC noted that while United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does permit certain NSG-controlled items to go to Iran, participants are required to receive advance, case-by-case approval, which the identified entities and individuals in this action did not receive. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated entities and individuals. Moreover, OFAC warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for any of the designated entities and individuals, they may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions which, if imposed, could restrict their access to the U.S. financial system.
OFAC sanctions four Venezuelan DGCIM officials
On July 19, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned four officials of Venezuela’s General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DGCIM was sanctioned by OFAC on July 11, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, for operating in the country’s defense and security sector. According to OFAC, the designations of the four individuals were pursuant to E.O. 13692, following the arrest, physical abuse, and death of a Venezuelan Navy Captain. As a result of the designations, all property and interests in property of the designated persons within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
District Court concludes collection attempt on old debt did not violate FDPCA
On July 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the attempted collection of an old debt did not violate the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against the debt collector alleging the collector violated the FDCPA by (i) “falsely representing the legal status of the debt”; and (ii) using “false representations and/or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt,” when it sent a collection letter in March 2017 attempting to collect on a debt that allegedly incurred before 2009. The debt collector moved for summary judgment arguing that the consumer did not have standing and that the claim failed on the merits. The district court agreed with the debt collector, concluding that the consumer did not have standing to pursue the FDCPA claim because she did not incur any concrete injury, noting she made no claims that she was misled by the letter or confused about the status of her debt, nor did she pay on the debt or make a promise to pay. Moreover, the district court agreed that the debt collector adequately informed the consumer about the status of her debt, stating “[t]he letter clearly states that ‘[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt’ and states that, ‘[d]ue to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it[.]’” Lastly, the district court found that in order to comply with the FDCPA, the debt collectors were not required to inform consumers of the “supposed risks of partial payments or entering a payment plan.”
OFAC sanctions four individuals for human rights violations in Iraq
On July 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against two militia figures and two former Iraqi governors for alleged human rights abuses or corruption violations of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. According to OFAC, the four individuals committed the corruption-and abuse-related actions “in areas where persecuted religious communities are struggling to recover from the horrors inflicted on them by ISIS.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
North Carolina AG sues unlicensed debt collector for multiple violations
On July 17, the North Carolina attorney general announced a lawsuit filed against multiple debt collection entities and their owner for allegedly collecting or attempting to collect on consumer debts in North Carolina without filing the appropriate registration or obtaining the necessary permits to operate as a debt collection agency in the state. According to the complaint, the entities, based and registered in Texas, purchased unpaid debts from a national rent-to-own consumer goods company. North Carolina customers allegedly received misleading collection notices from the entities simulating actual court notices and implying the customers had committed criminal offenses. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the entities filed criminal complaints against the customers, containing misleading information and resulting in actual summonses being issued. The complaint alleges violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Business Corporation Act, Professional Corporation Act, Uniform Partnership Act, and North Carolina’s Prohibited Practices by Collection Agencies Engaged in Collection of Debts from Consumers and seeks among other things, civil penalties, restitution, and injunctive relief.
As a result of the complaint filing, the court approved a temporary restraining order prohibiting the entities from engaging in debt collection practices and scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing.
3rd Circuit: Debt collector cannot enforce original creditor’s arbitration agreement
On July 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the denial of a debt collector’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding the debt collector did not establish authority to enforce the arbitration agreement made between the consumer and the original creditor. According to the opinion, a consumer executed a credit card agreement with a creditor containing an arbitration clause. After the consumer fell behind on her payments, her account was referred to the debt collector for collection. The consumer filed suit against the debt collector, alleging that one of the collection letters violated the FDCPA by “failing to inform her whether interest would continue to accrue on her account.” The debt collector moved to compel arbitration based on the provision in the consumer’s credit card agreement with the original creditor, under a third-party beneficiary, agency, or equitable-estoppel theory. The district court rejected each theory and denied the motion, concluding that (i) the agreement did not “evince an intent to benefit” the debt collector; (ii) the FDCPA claim “did not bear a sufficient nexus to the credit-card agreement”; and (iii) the debt collector could not equitably estop the consumer from resisting arbitration under the 3rd Circuit’s previous interpretation of South Dakota law.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court. The appellate court noted that the debt collector failed the test to enforce an agreement as a third-party beneficiary under South Dakota law, because the debt collector failed to establish that the original creditor and its consumers “would not have entered the card agreement but for the intent to benefit debt collectors.” As for the debt collector’s agency theory, the appellate court stated that the debt collector did not cite, and the court did not find, “South Dakota authority adopting a freestanding ‘agency’ theory of third-party enforcement.” Further, the appellate court noted that the debt collector’s arguments would fail under the South Dakota test for equitable estoppel and, therefore, the appellate court had “no basis to conclude that South Dakota would allow [the debt collector], as a non-signatory, to enforce [the original creditor]’s arbitration agreement with its customers.”
U.K.’s ICO fines real estate management company for data security failures
On July 19, the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued a £80,000 fine against a London-based real estate management company for allegedly leaving over 18,000 customers’ personal data exposed for almost two years. According to the ICO, when the company transferred personal data from its server to a partner organization, the company failed to switch off an “anonymous authentication” function, which exposed all the data—including personal data such as bank statements, salary details, copies of passports, dates of birth, and addresses—stored between March 2015 and February 2017. The ICO alleges that the company failed to take appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect customers’ personal data and concluded the failures were “a serious contravention of the 1998 data protection laws which have since been replaced by the [General Data Protection Regulation] GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.”
OFAC sanctions senior member of Hizballah operation
On July 19, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against a senior Hizballah operative allegedly connected to the planning, coordination, and execution of terrorist attacks outside of Lebanon. According to OFAC, the action is part of the Treasury Department’s continued attempts to disrupt “the full range of Hizballah’s illicit financial and facilitation activities.” As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of this target that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated person. The designated individual is also subject to secondary sanctions pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations, which implement the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015, and allow OFAC the authority to “prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction for Hizballah, or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of, or owned or controlled by, Hizballah.”
District Court strikes class certification from robocall suit
On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a rental car company’s (defendant) motion to strike class allegations in a TCPA suit over alleged robocalls. The plaintiff, whose telephone number was listed on a rental contract between his mother and the defendant in addition to the mother’s telephone number, claimed he received multiple prerecorded messages on his cellphone from the defendant after his mother failed to return the car when it was due, even though he had allegedly opted out of the communications. The plaintiff commenced the suit, ultimately seeking certification of an amended putative class of all noncustomers who received automated calls from the defendant “where such [a] call was placed after a request to stop calling that phone number.” In August 2018, the court denied summary judgment to the defendant, who subsequently moved to strike class allegations. The court granted the defendant’s motion, stating there were too many contested facts that raised unique defenses particular to the plaintiff’s case, including (i) the type of consent to receive calls that the plaintiff’s mother gave under her contract; (ii) whether the calls to the plaintiff’s phone were robocalls; and (iii) whether and how the plaintiff revoked the consent given by his mother.