InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit: Incomplete loan modification application bars plaintiff's CA Homeowner Bill of Rights claims
On May 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a plaintiff’s allegations that a lender violated RESPA and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), breached its contract, and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s request for promissory estoppel. In affirming the district court, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff’s HBOR claims failed, specifically because the plaintiff insufficiently showed that she incurred actual damages because of a RESPA violation. The appellate court also agreed that the plaintiff’s HBOR claims failed because she did not submit a complete application. Under HBOR, mortgage servicers are prohibited from reporting a notice of default if a lender’s “complete application for a first lien loan modification” is pending. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently show that she had submitted a complete loan modification application, and did not demonstrate that she took follow-up action in response to a letter stating her loan modification application was incomplete, meaning her claim failed.
With respect to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, the 9th Circuit held, among other things, that the lender’s “alleged promise to consider plaintiff’s loan modification application upon dismissal of her lawsuit was neither sufficiently definite to create a contract nor sufficiently ‘clear and unambiguous to support a promissory estoppel.’” Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing also failed because she could not prove breach of contract. Specifically, she did not state a claim for breach of the deed of trust because, as the plaintiff herself noted, “she failed to perform under the deed of trust when she did not make loan payments, and performance under the contract is a necessary element of a breach of contract claim.”
The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority in two key respects. First, the judge argued the majority wrongfully rejected the plaintiff’s HBOR claim because the complaint contended that the lender “would send out such boilerplate letters so that it did not have to comply with the requirement that it cease foreclosure activities once an application is complete,” and that “a lender’s bad faith conduct does not render a borrower’s application incomplete.” Regarding the plaintiff’s good faith and fair dealing claim, the judge argued that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that she submitted a complete application to the lender. According to the complaint, the plaintiff submitted the necessary documents and was allegedly informed by the lender’s lawyer that “her application was ‘in review, which meant that plaintiff’s application was complete.’”
District Court approves final class action privacy settlement
On April 29, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving privacy and data security allegations against a health insurance company and several related health insurance entities (collectively, “defendants”). According to the plaintiffs’ memorandum of support, the plaintiff filed suit in 2015, alleging that the defendants compromised the personal identifying information, Social Security numbers, and medical and financial data of approximately 9.3 million policy holders from a 2013 data breach. After the security incident was announced, 14 lawsuits were filed, which were consolidated with this case. Under the terms of the final settlement, the defendants are required to implement information security and compliance measures, and comprehensively address security risks. The settlement also includes $3.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $700,000 in litigation costs. Class representatives will be awarded service awards that range between $1,000-$7,500 each, which will total approximately $95,500.
District Court grants final approval in usury class action settlement
On August 16, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving a purported scheme to unlawfully use tribe-owned firms to make online short-term loans and charge triple-digit interest rates. According to the memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and the stipulation and agreement of settlement, the district court previously approved two class settlements related to the lending enterprise. The first resulted in the purported lender and others: (i) repaying over $53 million dollars in cash; and (ii) forgiving over $380 million dollars of debt owed by consumers who took out loans with three lending companies. However, these settlements did not resolve every claim surrounding the purported scheme, and did not resolve claims with the settling defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that the settling defendant assisted the purported lender’s operations despite a corporate spinoff in May 2014, alleging that “[b]ecause many [of the purported lender’s] employees with institutional knowledge of and involvement in the company’s rent-a-tribe lending business were quickly transferred to [the settling defendant], [the purported lender] required and depended on continued involvement by [the settling defendant] and its employees in operating its rent-a-tribe lending business, which involvement was freely and often provided.” Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the settling defendant must provide monetary relief to class members totaling approximately $45 million.
CFPB and FTC release 2021 FDCPA report
On April 15, the CFPB and the FTC released their annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA (see announcements here and here). The agencies are delegated joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and, pursuant to a 2019 memorandum of understanding, may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the annual report provided a broad overview of the debt collection industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and highlighted enforcement actions taken by, and education and outreach efforts, policy initiatives, and supervisory findings of, the CFPB and FTC. With respect to enforcement, the report noted that: (i) the FTC resolved three FDCPA cases against 17 defendants and banned all 17 companies and individuals who engaged in serious and repeated violations of law from engaging in debt collection; (ii) there was one new public enforcement action brought in 2021 related to unlawful debt collection conduct; (iii) the Bureau resolved two pending lawsuits with FDCPA claims and also filed an action to recover a fraudulent transfer to enforce a prior judgment that penalized a defendant’s FDCPA violations, which resulted in judgments for $2.26 million in consumer redress; and (iv) by the end of 2021, the Bureau had three FDCPA enforcement actions pending in federal court. The report also noted that the CFPB handled roughly 121,700 debt collection complaints in 2021, of which the Bureau sent approximately 73,600 (or 60 percent) to companies for their review and response. Finally, the report also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC “made it much more difficult for the FTC to obtain monetary relief for unfair or deceptive debt collection practices that fall outside the scope of the FDCPA.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in that decision the Court unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.”
District Court grants final approval of $10 million class action settlement
On April 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval to a $10 million class action settlement resolving allegations that a defendant bank breached its payment card processing servicing contracts with merchants by imposing excessive fees without contractually required notice. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was “unjustly enriched by imposing early termination fees that constituted unlawful penalties.” The settlement class includes over 200,000 merchants that entered into a payment card processing servicing contract with the defendant and who paid at least one of the fees underlying the litigation from October 2011 to the settlement date. Those fees include annual fees, early termination fees, and paper statement fees. According to the memorandum in support of the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, the deal would provide $10 million in cash to the settlement class, and attorneys representing the class can seek up to one-third of that fund in attorneys’ fees. In addition, each of the three class representatives will be granted $10,000 service awards, per the motion.
9th Circuit: Defendant is liable for third-party calls
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s ruling that a defendant knew its third-party contractor was making pre-recorded calls to prospective consumers without consumers’ consent in violation of the TCPA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2017, consumers filed a consolidated class action against a cruise line, alleging violations of, among other things, the TCPA for marketing calls made to class members’ cell phones using an automatic telephone dialing system between November 2016 and December 2017. The suit alleged that the defendant hired a company to generate leads and initiate telephone calls to prospective consumers for cruise packages. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied dismissal of the TCPA action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Court’s decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., did not invalidate the TCPA in its entirety from 2015 until July 2020. In Barr the U.S. Supreme Court held that the TCPA’s government-debt exception is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction and severed the provision from the remainder of the statute. (Covered previously by InfoBytes here.)
On the appeal, the issue was whether the defendant is liable under the TCPA for prerecorded voice calls made by the third-party contractor to the plaintiffs, who had not given prior express consent to be called. The 9th Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision in granting summary judgment for the defendant where the TCPA did not require the defendant to ensure that the third-party contractor had prior express consent for each call that it made to the defendant’s customers, nor did the defendant have actual authority over the third-party contractor. However, the 9th Circuit concluded that the defendant may be vicariously liable for the third-party contractor’s calls because it might have ratified them. The appellate court noted that the defendant knew that it received 2.1 million warm-transferred calls from the company between January 2017 and June 2018, but only 80,081 of those transfers were from individuals who had allegedly consented to receiving the calls. The defendant also had knowledge that there was a slew of mismatched caller data, and that the third-party contractor placed calls using prerecorded voices. The appellate court wrote that, “[t]hese facts, in combination with the evidence of widespread TCPA violations in the cruise industry, would support a finding that [the defendant] knew facts that should have led it to investigate [the company’s] work for TCPA violations.”
District Court: Pressing the “acknowledge button” is a signature under E-SIGN
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment on behalf of a plaintiff consulting firm, ruling that the defendant breached the terms of a binding contract entered into with the plaintiff, which he “signed” by pressing an “acknowledge button” on a Proprietary Information and Assignment of Inventions Agreement (PIIA). According to the court’s memorandum opinion, the case involves a dispute concerning the rights in a software program developed by the defendant while working at the firm. Previously, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, which declared that the parties had an enforceable contract under which the defendant had assigned his rights in the software program to the plaintiff. At the time, the defendant argued that even though he had pressed the acknowledge button, “he ‘never understood’ nor ‘intended’ himself to be bound by the PIIA[.]” As such, he challenged the plaintiff’s assertion that he had assented to the PIIA. The court disagreed, concluding that evidence established “that the PIIA itself drew an ‘equivalence’ between acknowledging and agreeing,” and that “since there was no separate signature line, nor any instructions or directions to print and sign the PIIA, [defendant] had ‘no reason to think that [plaintiff] expected a more formal acceptance of the’ PIIA than the acknowledgement he provided.” Accordingly, the court concluded that “acknowledging” the PIIA amounted to the defendant’s signature in this context, thus satisfying the E-SIGN Act for purposes of satisfying the statute of frauds and binding the defendant to its terms, which included assigning any of his rights in the software to the plaintiff.
In granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its breach of contract claim, the court first reiterated its previous position that undisputed evidence showed that the defendant acknowledged the PIIA, that the defendant intended to acknowledge the PIIA, and that acknowledgment constituted a signature for purposes of the E-SIGN Act. The court also determined that the plaintiff carried its burden of proof as to showing the plaintiff breached the PIIA and that the plaintiff was sufficiently damaged by the defendant’s breaches.
District Court refuses to enforce choice-of-law provision, allows individual state data privacy claims to proceed
On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a global tech company’s bid to dismiss class action Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) claims. Plaintiffs (Illinois residents) sued the company alleging it violated BIPA by applying image recognition technology to photos uploaded to subscribers’ account without receiving informed written consent. Plaintiffs also claimed the company failed to establish a file retention schedule and deletion guidelines as required by state law. The company argued that the terms of use agreed to by the subscribers contain a choice-of-law provision stating that the laws of Washington State govern the conditions of use and any disputes. The court disagreed, stating that Washington’s biometric protection statute does not provide for a private cause of action and is therefore contrary to Illinois’ fundamental public policy. “The fact that BIPA creates a private cause of action underscores the importance Illinois places on an individual’s right to control their biometric information,” the court said. “Applying Washington law would rob plaintiffs of control over their individual biometric information, instead leaving it to Washington’s attorney general to bring suit.” The court also held that Illinois has a greater material interest in the dispute than Washington. The court allowed the plaintiffs’ claims regarding consent to proceed in federal court but remanded the other claims to the Cook County Circuit Court.
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of wrongful garnishment claims
On March 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of claims based on the FDCPA and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). According to the memorandum, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA and WCPA when they sought to garnish plaintiff’s wages based a state court judgment that was not yet final. The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim, holding that “at worst, Defendants violated a state court procedural rule—not substantive law—when they applied for the writ of garnishment based on the valid, albeit, not final judgment.” In affirming that dismissal, however, the appellate court noted that “[t]he issue is not whether [the defendant] and [the defendant’s attorney] violated state law but whether they violated the FDCPA.” The 9th Circuit clarified that “[t]he [plaintiff] might have argued that [the defendant] and [the defendant’s attorney] falsely represented the legal status of their debt by implicitly claiming in the garnishment application that the debt was subject to a final judgment. But they [did] not make this argument, so it is waived.” With respect to the WCPA claim, while the district court’s dismissal was based on a determination that the garnishment did not “occur[] in trade or commerce” as required under that statute, the 9th Circuit pointed out that if the garnishment was “a violation of the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA), [it] would have established an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce for purposes of the WCPA,” but upheld dismissal because the plaintiff had waived that argument as well.
House subcommittee discusses eliminating overdraft fees
On March 31, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions held a hearing titled, The End of Overdraft Fees? Examining the Movement to Eliminate the Fees Costing Consumers Billions, to discuss efforts to reduce or eliminate overdraft fees. Subcommittee Chair Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) opened the hearing by noting that “consumers in the United States pay around $10 to $12 billion in overdraft fees and nonsufficient fund fees,” with just 9 percent of consumers representing up to 80 percent of these fees. He also noted that these “types of fees impact people of color at a disproportionate rate,” and that “[s]tudies have found banks with branches in predominantly black neighborhoods charge more for overdraft on average, and black customers are overrepresented in those who report paying more than $100 in fees in the past year.” Some subcommittee Democrats appeared supportive of measures to address the alleged growing reliance by banks and credit unions on revenues from overdraft fees to make up for interest lost in the current low-rate environment. In contrast, certain subcommittee Republicans appeared skeptical of government efforts to limit financial institutions’ ability to provide overdraft services, questioning the impact such efforts would have on smaller financial institutions like community banks and credit unions. The committee memorandum and hearing focused on the evolving trends related to overdraft programs and fees and their impact on consumers, including the following:
- Overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fee Data and Trends. The subcommittee quoted a study that found that “federal regulators have required banks and credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets to report revenue collected specifically from overdraft and NSF fees, totaling between $11 billion and $12 billion annually,” since 2015. According to the subcommittee, “the true fee total is likely higher since smaller depository institutions are exempt from the reporting requirement.”
- Impact on Consumers. The subcommittee quoted a report that said “consumers face challenges with unclear or confusing overdraft policies or are charged fees simply because of a delay in when their paycheck deposits are made available or when other transactions are settled in their account.” According to the report, consumers “incur overdraft fees despite carefully attempting to avoid them and often believing they have. One practice, in particular, has garnered increased attention recently: charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized when the consumer had sufficient funds in the account but then settled, often a few days later, when the account no longer had sufficient funds.”
- Proposals and Challenges to Improving Consumer Protections when Consumers Overdraft. The subcommittee pointed out that initiatives to improve overdraft fees and NSF fees would “focus on enhancing disclosures and information about overdraft provided to consumers; capping the number of fees a consumer may be charged in a defined period of time; reducing the cost of each fee, or encouraging or incentivizing financial institutions to offer small-dollar loans with streamlined underwriting and affordable interest rates or repayment plans to provide an alternative for consumers who typically rely on overdraft.” The subcommittee also said another possible improvement in the market would result from adopting a faster payments network, such as the FedNow Service. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed announced in August 2020 its intention to implement the FedNow Service—a “round-the-clock real-time payment and settlement service”—through a phased approach with a target launch date sometime in 2023 or 2024.
One witness, a senior policy analyst from a Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, expressed his support for reducing or eliminating overdraft fees, stating that “[o]verdraft fees, by their nature, impact consumers when they can least afford an additional [c]ost.” The witness quoted a study that found “[l]ow- to moderate-income households are nearly twice as likely as higher-income households to overdraw an account.” Calling overdrafts “a penalty for being poor or financially insecure,” another witness, a consumer policy counsel at a civil rights nonprofit, expressed that “overdraft fees are a penalty for being poor or financially insecure.” Quoting a study finding that approximately “80 percent of overdraft fee revenue to banks comes from 9 percent of accounts,” the witness stated that the “median account balance of this group is less than $350.” In contrast, another witness, a law professor at George Mason University, stated in the hearing that “exasperation is not a substitute for sound economic analysis," He stressed that “this is an area in which unintended consequences of bans on overdraft protection, substantive limits, price controls and the like could have some serious unintended consequences.” He further warned of possible negative consequences should policymakers eliminate overdraft programs, cautioning that new restrictions on overdrafts may have many negative implications for consumers, including “higher bank fees, higher minimum monthly deposits . . . and a loss of access to free checking.”
Additionally, some House Republicans were critical of recent efforts taken by the CFPB in this space and the elimination of overdrafts by several banks. During the hearing, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) criticized the CFPB’s inquiry into junk fees (covered by InfoBytes here), arguing that, “t[h]ere is no legal authority for the CFPB to define the term ‘junk fee’ . . . and even less authority for the CFPB to act as a price setter in the consumer financial market.” Luetkemeyer added that “the CFPB is manufacturing a crisis about hidden fees for financial products and services when they are the very people that made up the disclosure regime,” and called the effort “another attempt by the CFPB to denigrate legally operating businesses by any means possible.”