InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority seek feedback on stablecoin regulatory proposals
On November 6, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requested feedback on their proposal to regulate a form of cryptocurrency known as stablecoins. Stablecoins are a cryptoasset that “maintain a stable value relative to a fiat currency by holding assets as backing” and fall within the UK Government’s plan to regulate them for future retail payment use. In addition to retail use, the Bank of England and FCA’s wish to regulate stablecoins is meant to “prevent money laundering… and safeguard financial stability.”
The Bank of England published a handy road map with similar regulators on how to best navigate rolling out new technological payment innovations, such as the digital pound. Each of the financial regulators provided two white papers: (i) the FCA’s discussion paper outlines how the FCA can regulate cryptoassets under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, including providing information on backing assets, custody requirements, and allowing overseas stablecoins used as a form of tender in the UK; and (ii) the Bank of England’s discussion paper examines proposed regulations for sterling-dominated stablecoins in the hopes of becoming widespread for retail use. Furthermore, this paper details proposed regulations for everyday use, including money transfers and providing digital wallets.
Both regulators’ comment period is open until February 6, 2024.
Healthcare providers reach $3.5 million settlement in FDCPA suit after eight years of litigation
On November 2, two healthcare providers settled with plaintiffs after eight years of litigation between the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, stemming from alleged violations of the FDCPA, breach of contract, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, among other things. According to the order, the defendants allegedly contacted plaintiffs and their legal counsel, requesting that their legal counsel sign a letter to forego any legal settlement or judgment against the defendants to prevent plaintiffs’ accounts from being sent to collections, despite having plaintiffs’ health insurance information. While the defendants deny any fault, wrongdoing, or liability in connection with the claims, the parties agreed to a settlement amount of $3.5 million, with each claimant receiving a cash payment of $25. The class is comprised of 12,000 individuals with health insurance plans accepted by the healthcare provider who were patients at an Ohio facility from 2009 to 2023, and subsequently made payments or were asked to make payments for their treatment, excluding co-pays or deductibles. Additionally, certain class members will also receive a cash payment equal to fifty percent of the amount paid to the healthcare provider.
District Court grants payday lender's motion to stay CFPB case pending Supreme Court decision
On November 3, the U.S. District Court of Nevada granted a payday lender’s motion to stay a case brought by the CFPB, pending a SCOTUS’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (see InfoBytes here and here). The CFPB issued a civil investigative demand (CID) in late 2022 to the lender, as part of an investigation into its lending practices. The lender complied with the CID initially, but later requested a stay due to the impending SCOTUS decision regarding the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure, which could impact the CFPB’s enforcement authority. Although the CFPB opposed the stay by arguing that the extensive delay could hinder its ability to investigate the lender, the court granted the lender’s motion, in line with other district courts that have faced similar issues.
FTC sues fintech firm for deceiving users and making cancelations difficult
On November 3, the FTC filed suit against a fintech firm within the U.S. Southern District Court of New York. The FTC alleged the fintech mobile app misled customers, “violated Section 5 of the FTC Act[,] and made it hard to cancel services in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).” However, the FTC and Defendant stipulated the entry of a proposed settlement order that includes a monetary judgment of $18 million for consumer refunds and requires Defendant to stop its deceptive marketing practices and end tactics that prevented customers from canceling services. The first time the FTC had collected civil penalties under ROSCA was in January 2023, as covered by InfoBytes here.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that consumers were deceived into signing up for a $250 cash advance, but many users were unable to receive any money at all. Furthermore, consumers had to have first entered a $9.99 monthly membership––regardless of whether they qualified for the $250 or not. Further, if a user wished to cancel their monthly membership, the fintech firm employed “dark” and manipulative design tricks to “create a confusing and misleading cancellation process that prevented consumers from canceling their subscriptions.” The FTC’s proposed settlement order must first be approved by a federal judge before it can go into effect.
2nd Circuit: Reverse and remand a buy-now-pay-later suit
On November 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision to deny a buy now pay later servicer’s (defendant) motion to compel arbitration in a class action. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, among other things, after the defendant’s charges incurred overdraft fees on the plaintiff’s checking account. The defendant argued that the consumer agreed, on multiple occasions, to the mandatory arbitration provisions in the servicer’s terms and conditions when she used its services. The district court concluded that the plaintiff did not have “reasonably conspicuous notice of and unambiguously manifest assent to [defendant’s] terms” and therefore plaintiff was not bound by the mandatory arbitration provisions in the defendant’s terms.
The 2nd Circuit panel of three judges identified “several factors” in its finding that the plaintiff had reasonably conspicuous notice, including that defendant’s interface was “uncluttered” adding that “[a] reasonable internet user, therefore, could not avoid noticing the hyperlink to [defendant’s] terms when the user selects ‘confirm and continue’ on the [application].” Further, the court found that the plaintiff “unambiguously manifested her assent” to the defendant’s terms and conditions.
CFPB proposes a rule to regulate fintech firms like banks
On November 7, the CFPB proposed a rule to supervise large non-bank fintech firms that offer services like digital wallets and payment apps, applicable to larger firms handling greater than 5 million transactions per year, in the same way many large banks and credit unions are supervised. While fintech agencies offer consumer banking services, they are not regulated as stringently as banks are.
The CFPB found that many consumers from middle- and lower-income backgrounds now prefer using digital consumer payment applications over cash. This shift from traditional banking puts consumers at risk since fintech applications are not subject to “traditional banking safeguards… like deposit insurance.” The CFPB’s proposed rule ensures these non-bank companies:
- Adhere to federal consumer financial protection laws that encompass protections against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, consumers’ rights when transferring money, and privacy rights. The CFPB would supervise larger participants to ensure compliance.
- Follow the same rules as banks and credit unions, fostering fair competition and consistent enforcement of federal consumer financial protection laws.
The Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) provides the CFPB with the authority to conduct supervisory examinations over all non-bank companies in the mortgage, payday loan, and private student loan industries, as well as those who serve as service providers to banks and credit unions. In addition, the CFPB can supervise individual entities that pose a risk to consumers, as well as larger participants in other markets. This proposed rule would give the CFPB greater regulatory authority and oversight over large technology firms in consumer financial markets.
CFPB reports on veterans’ financial hurdles despite legislative wins
On November 1, the CFPB published a broad summary of several findings regarding how financial institutions may not be doing all they can to help service members under federal legislation. For instance, in 2022, the CFPB found that service members were losing $10 million a year in savings in eligible auto and personal loans. Last month, the CFPB released a similar study on how credit card companies were also limited in giving all the benefits they could offer under the SCRA. Loans aside, military payroll allotments provide financial companies with a way to force automatic payments––something the CFPB acknowledges is “ripe for abuse.” The CFPB worked with the DOD to close loopholes that could exploit servicemembers. Additionally, military identity theft in 2023 is still an ongoing issue, as has been previously covered by InfoBytes here. But in October the CFPB found that Transunion had failed to provide crucial identity theft protection for thousands of individuals, including active-duty members of the military. There are also issues with supposed consulting services: “Earlier this year, the CFPB published a joint WARNO with the VA on unaccredited individuals and organizations and the CFPB is working closely with federal and state agencies to protect veterans’ benefits.”
The CFPB notes it will “continue to work with all our partners as the financial marketplace evolves so we can understand the unique needs and challenges of members of the military community. If you have a problem with a financial product or service, submit a complaint to us, and we’ll work to get you a response.”
CFPB releases report on state community reinvestment acts
On November 2, the CFPB issued a report on several states’ community reinvestment laws. The report focused on how much outstanding mortgage debt banks hold in the residential mortgage market: in 1977, “banks held 74 percent of outstanding mortgage debt. By 2007, this share had declined to just 28 percent.”
In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to combat redlining practices that prevailed despite the passing of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. While the federal CRA applies to banks only, many states created their community reinvestment laws to cover non-bank mortgage companies, including CT, IL, MA, NY, RI, WA, WV, and DC.
Key findings from the CFPB's report are below:
- Some states require mortgage companies to provide affirmative lending, service delivery, and investment services;
- Some states conduct independent examinations, while other states review federal performance evaluations in conjunction with state factors;
- Enforcement includes limitations on mergers, acquisitions, branching activities, and licensing;
- Some states collect information beyond federal requirements for evaluation; and
- Some state acts have been amended in response to market changes.
The CFPB finds that states play an active role in promoting reinvestment by institutions, but further review is necessary to understand these developments.
FHA updates guidance on sales comparison grid for manufactured homes
On November 2, the FHA released a mortgage letter (ML) updating the sales comparison approach for manufactured homes. The update to the FHA’s rule affects how real estate appraisers will now appraise manufactured homes using the sales comparison approach (SCA) grid. The SCA is the mix of attributes in a home that determine its value (e.g., floor area, features, location, number of bathrooms, lot size, etc.). A manufactured home is a home unit constructed entirely off-site and then shipped on-site. According to the FHA’s ML, this letter “updates the exception in the Sales Comparison Approach for Manufactured Housing (II.D.5.k) section of the Single-Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1” by aligning the “FHA[’s] insurance guidelines with the requirements from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs.”
HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge spoke on this change, stating “[t]he critical step we're taking today ensures HUD is in alignment with our industry partners, and it will make more quality affordable housing available to people across the country.”
FSOC approves analytic framework for financial stability risks and guidance on nonbank financial company determinations
On November 3, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) announced that it unanimously voted to issue the final versions of a new analytic framework regarding financial stability risks, in addition to updated interpretive guidance on the council’s nonbank designation guidance. The analytic framework indicates vulnerable points that commonly contribute to financial stability risks, and it explains how FSOC may address the risks, including interagency coordination, recommendations to regulators, or the designation of certain entities. The nonbank designation guidance establishes how the council determines whether a given nonbank should be under the Fed’s supervision and prudential standards under Section 113 of Dodd-Frank. In April, FSOC released the proposed analytic framework and the proposed nonbank designation guidance (as covered by InfoBytes here) and opened a comment period on the proposals.
FSOC adopted key changes in consideration of public comments on the proposed framework, including (i) clarifications to the interpretation of “threat to financial stability”; (ii) more examples of quantitative metrics considered in its analysis; (iii) expanded discussion of transmission channels; and (iv) additional emphasis on FSOC’s engagement with state and federal financial regulatory agencies regarding risk. Comments directed at the interpretive guidance were addressed, and some changes are reflected in the framework. Both CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and OCC Acting Comptroller Michael J. Hsu issued statements supporting the issuance of the interpretive guidance and the framework. Chopra commented that FSOC’s actions to evaluate whether any “shadow bank” meets the statutory threshold for enhanced oversight are essential in preventing potential threats to financial stability. Hsu also noted the significance of leveraging Dodd-Frank's tools for “monitoring and mitigating risks to U.S. financial stability.”
The analytic framework will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register, and the nonbank designations guidance will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.