InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit reverses decision in COPPA suit
In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision to dismiss a suit alleging that a multinational technology company used persistent identifiers to collect children’s data and track their online behavior surreptitiously and without their consent in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). According to the opinion, the company used targeted advertising “aided by sophisticated technology that delivers curated, customized advertising based on information about specific users.” The opinion further explained that “the company’s technology ‘depends partly on what [FTC] regulations call ‘persistent identifiers,’ which is information ‘that can be used to recognize a user over time and across different Web sites or online services.’” The opinion also noted that in 2013, the FTC adopted regulations under COPPA that barred the collection of children’s “persistent identifiers” without parental consent. The plaintiff class claimed that the company used persistent identifiers to collect data and track their online behavior surreptitiously and without their consent, and alleged state law claims arising under the constitutional, statutory, and common law of California, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Tennessee, in addition to COPPA violations. The district court ruled that the “core allegations” in the third amended complaint were squarely covered, and preempted, by COPPA.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit considered whether COPPA preempts state law claims based on underlying conduct that also violates COPPA’s regulations. To determine this, the appellate court examined the language of COPPA’s preemption clause, which states that state and local governments cannot impose liability for interstate commercial activities that is “inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions” under COPPA. The opinion noted that the 9th Circuit has long held “that a state law damages remedy for conduct already proscribed by federal regulations is not preempted,” and that the statutory term “inconsistent” in the preemption context refers to contradictory state law requirements, or to requirements that stand as obstacles to federal objectives. The appellate court stated that it was not “persuaded that the insertion of ‘treatment’ in the preemption clause here evinces clear congressional intent to create an exclusive remedial scheme for enforcement of COPPA requirements.” The opinion noted that because “the bar on ‘inconsistent’ state laws implicitly preserves ‘consistent’ state substantive laws, it would be nonsensical to assume Congress intended to simultaneously preclude all state remedies for violations of those laws.” As such, the appellate court held that “COPPA’s preemption clause does not bar state-law causes of action that are parallel to, or proscribe the same conduct forbidden by, COPPA. Express preemption therefore does not apply to the children’s claims.”
NY restricts lenders’ ability to reset statute of limitations on foreclosures
In December, the New York governor signed A 7737-B, the “Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act,” which amends the rights of parties in foreclosure actions. Among other things, the law provides that a lender or servicer’s voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action does not reset New York’s 6-year statute of limitations on foreclosures, according to New York CPLR §213. Further, pursuant to the new law, if an action to foreclose a mortgage or recover any part of the mortgage debt is time-barred, any other action seeking to foreclose the mortgage or recover the debt is also time-barred. The amendments are effective immediately and, notably, apply to all pending actions in which a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced.
DFPI modifies Student Loan Servicing Act proposal
On January 6, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued modified proposed regulations under the Student Loan Servicing Act (Act), which provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by DFPI (covered by InfoBytes here). Last September, DFPI issued proposed rules to clarify, among other things, that income share agreements (ISAs) and installment contracts, which use terminology and documentation distinct from traditional loans, serve the same purpose as traditional loans (i.e., “help pay the cost of a student’s higher education”), and are therefore student loans subject to the Act. As such, servicers of these products must be licensed and comply with all applicable laws, DFPI said. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The initial proposed rules also (i) defined the term “education financing products” (which now fall under the purview of the Act) along with other related terms; (ii) amended various license application requirements, including financial requirements for startup applicants; (iii) outlined provisions related to non-licensee filing requirements (e.g., requirements for servicers that do not require a license but that are subject to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law, which was enacted in 2020 (effective January 1, 2021)); (iv) specified that servicers of all education financing products must submit annual aggregate student loan servicing reports to DFPI; and (v) outlined new clarifications to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law to provide new requirements for student loan servicers (covered by InfoBytes here).
Following its consideration of public comments on the initial proposed rulemaking, DFPI is proposing the following changes:
- Amendments to definitions. The modified regulations revise the definition of “education financing products” by changing “private loans” to “private education loans,” which are not traditional loans. DFPI explained that changing the term to what is used in TILA will provide consistency for servicers and eliminate operational burdens. While the definition of “education financing products” also no longer includes “income share agreements and installment contracts” in order to align it with TILA, both of these terms were separately defined in the initial proposed rulemaking. The definition of “traditional student loan” has also been revised to distinguish which private student loans are traditional loans and which are education financing products (in order to help servicers determine the applicable aggregate reporting and records maintenance rules). The modifications also revise the definitions of “federal student loan,” “income,” “income share agreement,” “installment contract,” “payment cap,” “payment term,” and “qualifying payments,” remove unnecessary alternative terms for “income share,” and add “maximum payments” as a new defined term.
- Time zone requirement revisions. The modified regulations revise the time zone in which a payment must be received to be considered on-time to Pacific Time in order to protect California borrowers.
- Additional borrower protections. The modified regulations specify that servicers are required to send written acknowledgement of receipt and responses to qualified written requests via a borrower’s preferred method of communication. For borrowers who do not specify a preferred method, servicers must send acknowledgments and responses through both postal mail to the last known address and to all email addresses on record.
- Examinations, books, and records requirement updates. The modified regulations revise the information that servicers must provide in their aggregate reports for traditional student loans, including with respect to: (i) loan balance and status; (ii) cumulative balances and amounts paid; and (iii) aggregate information specific to ISAs, installment contracts, and other education financing products. Additionally, DFPI clarified that while the amount a borrower will be required to pay to an ISA provider in the future is unknown, many ISAs contain an “early completion” provision to allow a borrower to extinguish future obligations, and ISA providers must give this information to borrowers. DFPI further clarified that while servicers may choose to maintain records electronically, they must also be able to produce paper records for inspection at a DFPI-designated servicer location to allow an examination to be conducted in one place.
Comments on the modified regulations are due January 26.
Senators ask FTC, CFPB to investigate deceptive listing agreements
In December, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH), along with Senators Tina Smith (D-MN) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent a letter to the FTC and the CFPB requesting a review of a Florida-based real estate brokerage firm’s use of exclusive 40-year listing agreements marketed as a “loan alternative.” The request follows a November press release by the Florida attorney general announcing legal action against the firm for engaging in allegedly deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable business practices. According to the AG’s complaint, the firm offered homeowners $300 to $5,000 as a cash loan alternative in exchange for an agreement to use the firm as an exclusive real estate listing broker for a 40-year period. The complaint claimed the firm informs homeowners that there is no obligation to return the cash, stressing the homeowner will owe the firm nothing unless and until the home is sold. The AG asserted, however, that what is not clearly disclosed is that after accepting the payment, the firm files a 40-year lien on the property so that if at any time within 40 years the home is foreclosed upon or transferred to heirs upon the homeowner’s death, or if homeowners simply wish to cancel the deal, the firm will attempt to take three percent of the home’s value. Further, the AG claimed that the firm also failed to inform customers that the liens are filed in the public record, which can make it difficult for homeowners to refinance or access their home’s equity. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties.
NYDFS announces winter storm relief
On December 27, NYDFS announced actions to provide financial relief to New Yorkers in the Western and North Country regions in the aftermath of a historic winter storm. The relief is part of New York’s continuing and comprehensive efforts to address the historic winter storm that caused statewide devastation. According to the announcement, NYDFS requested that state-chartered banking organizations, federally-chartered banks, and credit unions operating in the area provide fee-free access services to nearby customers and non-customers while travel conditions remain dangerous. NYDFS will also issue temporary adjuster permits to qualified out-of-state independent insurance adjusters to expedite insurance claims in light of the winter storm. Expediting permits will increase the number of adjusters available to process claims and help New Yorkers get their claims paid faster. Insurers are encouraged to make any necessary applications on the NYDFS website. NYDFS urged the insurance industry to work towards a fair and speedy resolution of all claims and provide the necessary resources to do so.
New Jersey reaches $27.3 million settlement with merchant cash advance operation
On January 3, the New Jersey attorney general announced a $27.4 million settlement with a private equity firm, its parent company, and six other associated companies (collectively, “respondents”) to resolve allegations related to violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). According to the press release, the respondents targeted small businesses to enter into lending arrangements disguised as merchant cash advances (MCA) on future receivables. The AG claimed these loans effectively charged interest rates far exceeding the state’s usury caps. According to the attorney general’s press release, the respondents also allegedly engaged in deceptive servicing and collection practices against small businesses.
Under the terms of the consent order, the respondents are permanently enjoined from engaging in any acts or practices that violate the CFA and any applicable Advertising Regulations. The respondents have also agreed to forgive all outstanding balances for customers who entered MCAs (approximately $21.75 million) and pay $5.625 million to cover restitution, attorneys’ fees, costs of investigation and litigation and costs of administering restitution, and penalties not to exceed $250,000. The press release stated that the respondents will also (i) dismiss any pending debt collection actions against customers who had their balances forgiven as a result of the settlement; (ii) provide current customers with the ability to request modifications to their payment terms based on actual receivables; (iii) “[i]mprove internal business practices, be transparent in any terms of future MCA agreements regarding fees and reconciliation rights, and give notice to customers before taking legal action to collect on purported unpaid balances”; and (iv) ensure that all respondents, principals, and any future business entities that may result from a change in structure comply with the terms of the consent order.
DFPI issues recommendations for engaging in crypto technologies
In December, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a report identifying six recommendations for how California should engage with blockchain and Web3 industries. The report follows a May 2022 Executive Order (E.O.) from the California governor to create a regulatory and business environment for blockchain and cryptocurrency companies that balances the benefits and risks to consumers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, one of the priorities of the E.O. included for DFPI to, among other things, engage in a public process, including with federal agencies, to “develop a comprehensive regulatory approach to crypto assets harmonized with the direction of federal regulations and guidance” and “exercise its authority under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) to develop guidance and, as appropriate, regulatory clarity and supervision of private entities offering crypto asset-related financial products and services” in California. The report made six recommendations to “encourage the continued growth and adoption of blockchain technology.”
- Engagement with stakeholders. The state should “continue dialogue with industry, advocates, and regulators to stay apprised of new technologies, products, definitions and risks.”
- Consumer protection and education. The state should promote consumer protection and consumer education about blockchain and crypto products, which includes, among other things: (i) training staff to better supervise regulated entities, products, and services; (ii) increasing efforts to educate Californians on how to use certain crypto-asset related financial products and services; and (iii) developing and publishing “standards for use in reviewing crypto asset-related securities to help provide more meaningful investor disclosures and to allow companies who wish to offer such securities more quickly and efficiently.”
- Legislation and regulation. The state should identify legislative gaps and clarify statutory authority regarding crypto assets. DFPI will attempt to harmonize California’s regulatory approach with federal regulators, other states, and local jurisdictions.
- Government use. The state should consider ways to use blockchain technology to “increase efficiencies, improve access, and reduce costs.”
- Environmental protection. The state should encourage more environmentally efficient blockchain technologies and explore policy interventions to reduce energy use.
- Workforce and economic development. The state should tap its higher education systems to help support and grow the blockchain sector and related technologies.
CFPB and New York say auto lender misled consumers
On January 4, the CFPB and New York attorney general filed a complaint against a Michigan-based auto finance company accused of allegedly misrepresenting the cost of credit and deceiving low-income consumers into taking out high-interest loans on used vehicles. (See also AG’s press release here.) The joint complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendant based the price of a loan (and then artificially inflated the principal amount) and the payment to the dealer on the projected amount that may be collected from the consumer during the life of the loan (without factoring in whether consumers could actually afford the loan).
The Bureau and AG further argued that the true cost of credit is hidden in inflated principal balances in order to evade state interest rate caps. An investigation conducted by the AG found that while the defendant’s loan agreements in New York claimed an APR of 22.99 percent or 23.99 percent (just below the 25 percent usury cap), the defendant actually charged on average more than 38 percent (and on many occasions charged an APR in excess of 100 percent). These high-interest loans, the AG claimed, often caused consumers to accrue additional fees and become delinquent on their loans.
The complaint also alleged the defendant failed to consider consumers’ ability to repay their loans in full, engaged in aggressive debt collection tactics, and created financial incentives for dealers to add on extra products, such as vehicle service contracts. Add-on products generated roughly $250 million in revenue for the defendant in 2020, the complaint said, adding that these alleged deceptive lending practices lowered consumers’ credit scores and cost borrowers millions of dollars. The complaint further maintained that the defendant packaged the consumer loans into securities that were sold to investors on the premise that the underlying loans complied with applicable law. These alleged false representations, the complaint said, constituted securities fraud under New York’s Martin Act.
The complaint — which also alleges violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against deceptive and abusive acts or practices, New York usury limits, and other state consumer and investor protection laws — seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, monetary relief, disgorgement, and civil money penalties of $1,000,000 for each day of violations.
The defendant was previously targeted for violating consumer protection laws in 2021 by the Massachusetts attorney general, who announced a $27.2 million settlement to resolve allegations of predatory lending and deceptive debt collection practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Crypto platform reaches $100 million settlement to resolve alleged compliance failures
On January 4, NYDFS issued a consent order against a cryptocurrency trading platform for engaging in alleged violations of New York virtual currency, anti-money laundering, transaction monitoring, and cybersecurity regulations. According to the consent order, in 2020, NYDFS found significant deficiencies across the respondent’s compliance program, including its Know-Your Customer/Customer Due Diligence (KYC/CDD) procedures, Transaction Monitoring System (TMS), OFAC screening program, and AML risk assessments. As a result of these findings, the respondent agreed to improve its BSA/AML and OFAC compliance programs, including engaging an independent consultant to develop a remediation plan and improve its compliance program.
In 2021, NYDFS launched an investigation to determine whether the respondent’s compliance deficiencies had resulted in any legal violations. The investigation found “substantial lapses in [the respondent’s] KYC/CDD program, its TMS, and in its AML and OFAC sanctions controls systems, as well as issues concerning [the respondent’s] retention of books and records, and with respect to meeting certain of its reporting obligations to the Department.” NYDFS noted that in late 2020 and 2021, the respondent took steps to remediate the issues identified by the Department and the independent consultant; however, substantial weaknesses remained, and its compliance system was inadequate to handle the growing volume of the respondent’s business.
Under the terms of the consent order, the respondent must pay a $50 million civil penalty to NYDFS and invest $50 million in its compliance program. Additionally, an independent third party will continue to work with the respondent for another year, which may be extended at the Department’s sole discretion. NYDFS noted that the respondent has already taken steps to build a more effective and robust compliance program under the supervision of NYDFS and the NYDFS-appointed independent monitor. According to the respondent’s press release, the company “has taken substantial measures to address these historical shortcomings” and “remains committed to being a leader and role model in the crypto space, including partnering with regulators when it comes to compliance and other areas.”
Arizona AG: Earned wage access products are not loans
Recently, the Arizona attorney general issued an opinion confirming that earned wage access (EWA) products are not considered consumer loans under Arizona law, and that persons who make, procure, or advertise an EWA product are not subject to licensure as a consumer lender by the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions. The opinion concluded that an EWA product offered as a no-interest, no-fee, non-recourse product does not fall within the definition of “consumer loan” under Arizona Revised Statutes § 6-601(7).
First, a fully non-recourse EWA product “represents a payment of wages already earned by the employee” and “does not allow recourse against the employee in the event the provider is unable to recoup all or some portion of the advance,” the opinion explained. The opinion added that a fully non-recourse EWA product is one in which “the provider obtains no legal or contractual right to repayment against the employee, does not engage in any debt collection activities with regard to any unpaid balance, does not sell or assign any unpaid balance to a third party, and does not report non-payment to any consumer credit reporting agency.”
Second, and independently, the AG opined that an EWA product is not a consumer loan so long as the provider does not impose a “finance charge,” as that term is defined by A.R.S. § 6-601(11). Specifically, “a non-recourse EWA product that requires repayment only of the principal balance is not a 'loan.'” While the Consumer Lenders Act (CLA) “does not expressly state that the obligation to repay principal is not a “finance charge,” requiring repayment of principal is self-evidently not an amount payable incident to or as a condition of a consumer lender loan.”
The opinion noted, however, that a provider “may also receive revenue through services ancillary to providing an EWA product without converting the EWA product into a “loan” under the CLA, such as by requesting a voluntary gratuity, charging a fee for expedited transfer of an EWA payment, or earning interchange revenue for processing a card payment. As long as the provider does not condition the provision of an EWA product on the “receipt of any such ancillary revenue” or impose fees or charges that fall within the CLA’s definition of “finance charge,” the EWA product will not meet the CLA’s definition of a “consumer loan.”
The opinion referred to guidance issued by other regulators who have drawn similar conclusions that an EWA product is not a loan so long as the program meets specific criteria. Such references include the 2020 CFPB advisory opinion on EWA products. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau’s advisory opinion addressed uncertainty as to whether EWA providers that meet short-term liquidity needs that arise between paychecks “are offering or extending ‘credit’” under Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The advisory opinion stated that “‘a Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of ‘credit,’” and noted that the “totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau would generally consider to be credit.” The Arizona AG opinion highlighted the Bureau’s conclusion that EWA products do not involve debt because “a Covered EWA Program facilitates employees’ access to wages they have already earned, and to which they are already entitled, and thus functionally operate[] like an employer that pays its employees earlier than the scheduled payday.”
Last January, CFPB General Counsel Seth Frotman issued a letter in response to concerns raised by consumer advocates (covered by InfoBytes here), stressing that the CFPB’s 2020 advisory opinion “is limited to a narrow set of facts—as relevant here, earned wage products where no fee, voluntary or otherwise, is charged or collected.” Frotman noted, however, that due to “repeated reports of confusion caused by the advisory opinion due to its focus on a limited set of facts,” he planned to recommend that the CFPB director consider ways to provide greater clarity on these issues. He emphasized that the advisory opinion did not purport to interpret whether covered EWA products would be “credit” under other statutes other than TILA, such as the CFPA or ECOA, or whether they would be considered credit under state law.