InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
38 state AGs argue for broad TCPA autodialer definition
On October 23, a coalition of 38 state attorneys general filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to accept the broad definition of an autodialer under the TCPA, which would cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded the plaintiff plausibly alleged the social media company’s text message system fell within the definition of autodialer under the TCPA. The 9th Circuit applied the definition from their 2018 decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC (covered by InfoBytes here), which broadened the definition of an autodialer to cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list.
The attorneys general argue that the 9th Circuit’s definition of autodialer is “the only reading of the autodialer definition that is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the definition’s two key verbs: ‘store’ and ‘produce.’” Moreover, they assert the broad definition is within the original 1991 meaning of the TCPA when it was enacted by Congress as a way to address the gaps state consumer protection laws may have in preventing interstate telephone fraud and abuse. According to the attorneys general, every state statute that defined an autodialer in 1991, “understood that term to reach devices with the capacity to store and dial numbers from a predetermined list, regardless of whether a random or sequential number generator was used.” Therefore, when Congress enacted the TCPA with the intention to “supplement—not to shrink—preexisting state laws,” it would follow that Congress would not intentionally adopt a narrower definition than existed at the time among the states.
CFPB urges court to reject challenge to Payday Rule’s payment provisions
On October 23, the CFPB filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in ongoing litigation involving two payday loan trade groups (plaintiffs) concerning the Bureau’s 2017 final rule covering payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other installment loans (Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August the plaintiffs asked the court to set aside the Rule and the Bureau’s ratification of the payment provisions of the Rule as unconstitutional and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Earlier in July, the Bureau issued a final rule revoking the Rule’s underwriting provisions and ratified the Rule’s payment provisions (covered by InfoBytes here) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v CPFB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert, holding that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau). A motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs last month requested the court to hold the Bureau’s payment provisions as unlawful and set them aside so a new notice-and-comment rulemaking process could be conducted, since the provisions “were part of a rule issued by an invalidly constituted agency.” The plaintiffs further argued that “[a]s binding precedent makes clear, an invalid agency cannot take lawful action. So the provisions were void from the start. Nor can the Bureau cure this problem by waving the magic wand of ratification.”
The Bureau, however, urged the court in its cross-motion to reject the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Rule’s payment provisions because while “they were initially promulgated by a Bureau whose Director was unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President[,] . . . that problem has been fixed.” Moreover, “[a]s case after case confirms, such a ratification by an official unaffected by a separation-of-powers violation remedies an earlier constitutional problem—and Plaintiffs cite no authority suggesting otherwise,” the Bureau challenged, stating that “[w]hile Plaintiffs may want a more drastic remedy—wholesale invalidation of a rule they do not like—they can no longer complain that the Payment Provisions were adopted without adequate presidential oversight.”
OFAC amends CACR to remove certain remittance-related general authorizations
On October 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a final rule amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) “to further implement portions of the President’s foreign policy toward Cuba to deny the Cuban government access to funds in connection with remittances to Cuba.” Among other things, the final rule amends several general licenses to remove any transactions that involve entities or subentities identified on the State Department’s Cuba Restricted List (CRL) from the scope of certain remittance-related general authorizations. According to OFAC, the CRL is a list of “entities and subentities under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.” Additionally, the final rule also clarifies that transactions that relate to the collection, receipt or forwarding of remittances involving an identified entity or subentity are “not authorized as an ordinarily incident transaction where the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude any such transactions.” In conjunction with the announcement of the final rule, OFAC also updated and issued several new Frequently Asked Questions. The final rule takes effect November 26, allowing for a 30-day implementation period in order to allow for technical implementation of the additional restrictions.
OFAC sanctions Russian government research institution connected to malware
On October 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions pursuant to Section 224 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act against a Russian government research institution. According to OFAC, the institution knowingly, on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation, engaged in significant activities that undermined cybersecurity. As a result, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned person, and any entities owned 50 percent or more by such person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from entering into transactions with the sanctioned persons. Additionally, non-U.S. persons who engage in certain transactions with the sanctioned person may also be exposed to sanctions.
OCC says banks affected by Hurricane Zeta may close
On October 27, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Zeta “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the 2012 Bulletin, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
CFPB settles with bank for HMDA filing errors
On October 27, the CFPB announced a settlement with a national bank, resolving allegations that the bank reported inaccurate HMDA data for 2016 and 2017 mortgage transactions. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly violated HMDA, Regulation C, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by failing to report accurate data among the 7,000 mortgage applications reported in 2016 and 2017. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the submissions contained “significant errors,” with an internal audit of the 2016 filing identifying a 40 percent error rate and the Bureau’s review of the 2017 filing identifying a 16 percent error rate. The Bureau asserted that the 2016 errors were caused by “a lack of appropriate staff, insufficient staff training, and ineffective quality control,” while the 2017 errors were “directly related to weaknesses in [the bank]’s compliance-management system (CMS).” In 2013, the bank entered into a consent order with the Bureau for similar issues; thus, the Bureau concluded the 2016 and 2017 errors were “intentional and not bona fide” as the bank allegedly failed to maintain a “CMS with procedures reasonably adapted to avoid” the errors since the previous order.
The consent order requires the bank to, among other things, pay a $200,000 civil money penalty and develop a HMDA compliance-management system that includes policies, procedures, and an internal audit program that regularly tests the HMDA data integrity.
OCC issues Concentrations of Credit booklet updating Comptroller’s Handbook
On October 26, the OCC issued Bulletin 2020-90 announcing the revision of the Concentrations of Credit booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. Among other things, the revised booklet (i) changes the supervisory calculation for credit concentration ratios for banks that have implemented the current expected credit loss (CECL) transition rule; (ii) replaces the term “criticized” with “special mention” for consistency with Banking Bulletin (BB) 1993-35, “Interagency Definition of Special Mention Assets”; and (iii) reflects relevant OCC issuances and changes to laws and regulations since the booklet was last published in 2011.
OCC finalizes true lender rule
On October 27, the OCC issued a final rule (see also Bulletin 2020-92) addressing when a national bank or federal savings association (bank) is the “true lender” in the context of a partnership between a bank and a third party to provide certainty about key aspects of the legal framework that applies. The final rule generally adopts the test proposed by the agency in July (see InfoBytes coverage here). Specifically, the final rule amends 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when it, as of the date of origination, (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan. Additionally, the final rule clarifies that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” Lastly, the OCC emphasizes that compliance obligations stay with the “true lender” of the loan and “if a bank fails to satisfy its compliance obligations, the OCC will not hesitate to use its enforcement authority consistent with its longstanding policy and practice.”
The rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Nonbank lender argues CFPB redlining action is flawed
On October 23, a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company moved to dismiss a CFPB redlining action on the grounds that the Bureau’s complaint “improperly seek[s]” to expand ECOA to “prospective applicants.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in July, the Bureau filed a complaint against the mortgage company alleging the mortgage company engaged in redlining in violation of ECOA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau argued, among other things, that the company redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area by discouraging their residents from applying for mortgage loans from the company and by discouraging nonresidents from applying for loans from the company for homes in these neighborhoods. To support its arguments, the Bureau cited to (i) a number of racially disparaging comments allegedly made by the owner and employees on the company’s broadcasts; (ii) the company’s comparatively low application volume from African American neighborhoods and applicants; (iii) its lack of specific marketing targeting the African American community in Chicago; (iv) and its failure to employ African American mortgage loan officers.
In support of its motion to dismiss, the mortgage company argued that the Bureau’s complaint is “flawed” by seeking to expand the reach of ECOA to “prospective applicants” and regulate the company’s behavior before a credit transaction begins. In addition to expanding the application of ECOA, the company argued that the Bureau is attempting to impose—through Regulation B’s “discouragement” definition—(i) “affirmative requirements to target advertising to specific racial or ethnic groups”; (ii) “a demographic hiring quota”; and (iii) “a requirement to have business success with specific racial or ethnic groups.” Moreover, the company argued the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA and Regulation B violates the company’s First Amendment rights by attempting to regulate “the content and viewpoint of protected speech . . . in a way that is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.” Lastly, the company argued the Bureau similarly violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by seeking to enforce Regulation B’s definition of “discouragement,” because it is unconstitutionally vague.
OFAC sanctions Iranian Ministry of Petroleum and others for IRGC-QF support
On October 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum and two oil companies, as well as multiple entities and individuals, including front companies, subsidiaries, and senior executives, for allegedly providing financial support to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), pursuant to Executive Order 13224. Additionally, OFAC designated four persons involved in the sale of Iranian gasoline to “the illegitimate Maduro regime in Venezuela.” As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified individuals 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 dealing with any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, and OFAC 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.”
Concurrently, OFAC issued amended General License 8A, “Authorizing Certain Humanitarian Trade Transactions Involving the Central Bank of Iran or the National Iranian Oil Company,” which replaces and supersedes GL 8 and allows certain humanitarian trade transactions involving one of the designated oil entities.