InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Bank granted motion to dismiss in credit card sign-up bonus class action
On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting a defendant bank’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims relating to alleged false advertising in connection with a credit card, with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleged that after responding to a social media advertisement for a credit card in December 2022, promising a $200 cash sign-up bonus for spending $500 within the first three billing cycles, he applied for and was approved for the card. However, the terms of the agreement he entered into with defendant did not mention the sign-up bonus, and he never received it. Consequently, plaintiff sued for "Breach of Contract Including Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing," asserting that defendant’s actions are part of a broader marketing strategy to entice customers to apply for defendant’s credit cards. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case based on two arguments: (i) plaintiff lacks the necessary Article III standing; and (ii) plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The court sided with the defendant on both arguments determining that (i) the plaintiff failed to establish the “traceability” element of standing because it is not clear when the advertisement was seen or what it specifically promised; and (ii) the contract did not include a promise for a sign-up bonus, such that no breach of contract had occurred.
The court provided plaintiff with leave to amend within 45 days from entry of the order.
Court of Chancery throws out suit against bank for alleged fraud
On April 16, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, a judge threw out a case with prejudice where a shareholder (the plaintiff) sued a bank but ultimately failed to show a “substantial likelihood of liability.” The plaintiff alleged that the bank, along with its board, violated the EFTA and Regulation E by failing to resolve unauthorized electronic transfer claims and provisionally credit the consumer’s accounts within 10 business days, by failing to resolve unauthorized electronic transfer claims within 45 days, and by failing to reimburse victims of unauthorized electronic fund transfers after 45 days. To bolster the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff cited a 2022 U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Committee) investigation into the same alleged unauthorized electronic transfers and related reports, including one produced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). However, the court found the reports at issue failed to demonstrate a violation of federal regulations. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and granted the bank’s motion to dismiss.
Maine enacts new money transmission law in line with the Money Transmission Modernization Act
On April 22, the Governor of Maine signed into law LD 2112 (the “Act”) which will codify a new law titled the “Maine Money Transmission Modernization Act.” The Act will amend and repeal many parts of the state’s money transmission laws and brought the law more in alignment with the Money Transmission Modernization Act, the model law drafted with a goal of creating a single set of nationwide standards and requirements. The stated purpose of the Act will be to coordinate with states to reduce the regulatory burden, protect the public from financial crimes, and standardize licensing activities allowed and exempted by Maine.
Among many other new provisions, the Act will require any person which engages in the business of money transmission or advertises, solicits, or holds itself out as providing money transmission to obtain a license. The Act will define “money transmission” as “(i) [s]elling or issuing payment instruments to a person located in [Maine]; (ii) [s]elling or issuing stored value to a person located in [Maine]; or (iii) [r]eceiving money for transmission from a person located in [Maine].” However, the Act will exempt, an agent of the payee to collect and process a payment from a payor to the payee for goods or services, other than money transmission services, provided certain criteria are met. Additionally, the Act will exempt certain persons acting as intermediaries, persons expressly appointed as third-party service providers to an exempt entity, payroll processors, registered futures commission merchants and securities broker-dealers, among others. Anyone claiming to be exempt from licensing may be required to provide information and documentation demonstrating their qualification for the claimed exemption.
The Act also will include a section on virtual currency, which will be defined as “a digital representation of value that: (i) [i]s used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value, and (ii) [i]s not money, whether or not denominated in money.” The Act will specify that “virtual currency business activity” will include, among other activities, exchanging, transferring, storing, or engaging in virtual currency administration, whereas “virtual currency administration” will be defined as issuing virtual currency with the authority to redeem the currency for money, bank credit or other virtual currency.
The Act will require certain reporting, including about the licensee’s condition, financial information, and money transmission transactions from every jurisdiction, among other types of information. The amendments will also outline numerous licensing application and renewal procedures including net worth, surety bond, and permissible investment requirements. Maine will now join several other states that adopted the model law. The Act takes effect on July 16 of this year.
Oklahoma amends SAFE Act licensing provisions
On April 29, Oklahoma enacted SB 1492 (the “Act”) which amends the Oklahoma Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act by, among other things, expanding the definition of “mortgage broker” to include servicing a residential mortgage, defining “servicing” to include holding servicing rights, as well as significantly adjusting fees and annual assessments for licensees. With respect to mortgage servicing, the law defines servicing as “the administration of a resident mortgage loan following the closing of such loan” and further states that an entity will be serviced if it “either holds the servicing rights, or engages in any activities determined to be servicing, including: (a) the collection of monthly mortgage payments; (b) the administration of escrow accounts; (c) the processing of borrower inquiries and requests; and (d) default management.” The definition of “mortgage lender” already includes an entity that “makes a residential mortgage loan or services a residential mortgage loan” and will be approved by HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. The Act adds a new section allowing licensees to permit their employees and independent contractors to work at remote locations, subject to certain conditions regarding policies and procedures for customer contact information and data, maintenance of physical records, and prohibitions on in-person customer interactions, among other things. Finally, the Act will add or amend certain fees and their annual assessment determinations, including assessments based on loan volumes for originated loans and others for serviced loans during the assessment period. The Act will go into effect on November 1.
Florida enacts telemarketing exemption from credit counseling services law
On April 26, the Governor of Florida signed into law HB 1031 (the “Act”), which will amend Florida’s credit counseling services law to provide an exception for telemarketers and sellers that furnish “debt relief services” (as defined under the federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule: i.e., the TSR). Generally, the law places certain disclosure, financial reporting, and fee charging obligations on any person engaged in “debt management services” or “credit counseling services.” The amendment will provide those telemarketers or sellers that “provide any debt relief service” within the scope of the TSR will not be subject to the provisions of Florida’s credit counseling law as long as they do not receive from the debtor or disburse to a creditor any money or items of value. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
DFPI annual report highlights consumer protection efforts and upcoming regulations
On April 25, the California DFPI released its Annual Report of Activity under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), highlighting investigations, public actions, and consumer outreach efforts under the CCFPL. According to the report, the DFPI (i) experienced a 70 percent increase in CCFPL complaints, which predominantly involved crypto assets and debt collectors; (ii) opened 734 CCFPL-related investigations and issued 181 public CCFPL actions; (iii) launched the Crypto Scam Tracker and a new consumer complaints portal; and (iv) advanced two rules, including unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UUDAAP) protections for small businesses and new registration requirements (pending final approval by the Office of Administrative Law) for earned wage access, debt settlement services, debt relief services, and private postsecondary education financing products.
The report emphasized that the new regulations specified that optional payments, such as tips, collected by California Financing Law (CFL)-licensed lenders would be considered charges under the law. According to the DFPI, these updates will reinforce the CFL by blocking potential loopholes and ensuring compliance among CFL-licensed lenders. Once these regulations would be approved, DFPI will oversee these financial service providers. Upon adoption, DFPI says it will be a pioneer in defining “earned wage access” as loans and regulating income advance services and the treatment of tips as charges, all through regulatory measures rather than statutory enactment.
Virginia amends its foreclosure procedures and requires an affidavit
Recently, the Governor of Virginia signed HB 184 (the “Act”) which amended the foreclosure procedures and subordinate procedures. Specifically, the Act added a requirement that if the proposed sale was initiated due to a default in payment under a security instrument, then the subordinate mortgage lienholder must submit to the trustee an affidavit affirming that monthly statements were sent to the property owner detailing any interest, fees, or charges assessed. The amendments also provided that the subordinate mortgage lienholder must provide a copy of such affidavit to the person who would pay the instrument with written notice for a request for sale. That notice must advise the person to pay the instrument if the person believed that fees or interest were assessed in error. If the court would agree, then the person will be entitled to recover attorney fees and costs against the subordinated mortgage lienholder after the date of the foreclosure sale. The Act also added a provision that any purchaser at a foreclosure sale provide certification that the purchase will pay off any priority security instrument no later than 90 days from the date that the trustee's deed conveying the property would be recorded in the land records. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
FDIC submits amicus brief in Colorado DIDMCA opt-out case
On April 23, the FDIC submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in support of the defendant: the Colorado attorney general. This case involved Colorado HB 23-1229 (the “Act”), which was enacted on June 5, 2023, and will become effective on July 1. As previously covered by InfoBytes, trade groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent enforcement of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 purported to “opt out” of Section 521 of the DIDMCA which had allowed state-chartered banks to export rates of their home state across state borders.
Section 525 of DIDMCA allows any state to enact legislation to opt out of Section 521 with respect to “loans made in such State.” In the brief, the FDIC argued that courts interpreting federal law have concluded “it is reasonable to conclude that interstate loans are made in the state in which the borrower enters into the transaction and in the state in which the lender enters into the transaction” and that “[i]t would be arbitrary and artificial to select one state when the parties enter into the transaction in two different states.” Thus, according to the FDIC, loans would be made in a state if either the borrower or the lender entered into the transaction in that state. Therefore, the FDIC argued that plaintiffs were incorrect in claiming that the opt-out would apply to loans made by out-of-state creditors to borrowers who were physically located in Colorado.
In addition, the FDIC disagreed with plaintiffs’ argument that FDIC General Counsel Opinion No. 11, 63 Fed. Reg. 27282 (May 18, 1998), which set forth the FDIC’s position regarding where a bank is “located” for purposes of section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, was applicable to interpreting Section 525. The FDIC’s amicus brief stated that Opinion 11 does not address opt-out or Section 525. Moreover, the FDIC argued that “where a loan is made under Section 525 cannot be equated with where a bank is located under Section 521.” The FDIC disagreed similarly with plaintiffs’ reliance on the 1978 Supreme Court of Marquette Nat’l Bank v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., on the grounds that it concerned where a bank was located and not considered where a loan is “made.”
The plaintiffs’ reply brief will be submitted by May 7, and a hearing of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for May 16.
11th Circuit finds plaintiffs failed to show FCRA information is “objectively” available
On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found a defendant, a hotel timeshare company, not liable to two former clients for inaccurately reporting their unpaid debts to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) in violation of the FCRA, as alleged.
The plaintiffs stopped making monthly payments and, citing the terms of their timeshare agreements, considered their obligations to the company canceled. The hotel timeshare company disagreed and reported the plaintiffs’ debts to a CRA, prompting the plaintiffs to sue for an alleged inaccurate furnishing of data. The hotel timeshare company moved for summary judgment and the district court granted it after finding the alleged inaccuracies related to legal, not factual, disputes and therefore not actionable under Section 1692s-2 of the FCRA. The district court reasoned that “a plaintiff asserting a claim against a furnisher for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation cannot prevail… without demonstrating that had the furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation, the result would have been different.”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit held that furnishers were not required to resolve “contractual dispute[s] without a straightforward answer” when furnishing information, even if they could be required “to accurately report information derived from the readily verifiable and straightforward application of law to facts.” Because the underlying contract dispute in this case was subject to reasonable dispute, the court found that the information was not “inaccurate” and thus the plaintiffs did not have actionable claims against the defendant under the FCRA. The court pointed out that the consumers could sue for a declaratory judgment that they did not owe the debt and, if successful, use that as a “cudgel” to persuade a furnisher to stop reporting a debt. But the plaintiffs here had not done that yet. For these reasons the 11th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB and FTC filed an amicus brief while the case had been appealed in favor of the plaintiffs arguing that a furnisher’s duty under the FCRA would apply not only to factual disputes but also to disputes that are legal in nature.
CFPB report finds 15 million Americans with medical debt on their credit reports
On April 29, the CFPB released a report entitled “Recent Changes in Medical Collections on Consumer Credit Records” that showed that as of June 2023 some 15 million Americans (approximately five percent) still have medical bills on their credit reports. However, credit rating agencies’ changes have resulted in a decrease of approximately nine percentage points in the number of Americans that have medical debt on their credit report. Further, the report indicated that the CFPB’s efforts to combat medical debt collection issues (including, and as previously covered by InfoBytes, holding a hearing in July 2023 on medical billing and collections, highlighting the issue in their 2023 FDCPA report, and having its general counsel discuss the issue in April 2024) resulted in a greater expected decline in those with medical billing on their credit report. The CFPB attributed the difference between the forecasted decrease and the actual decrease to two factors: first, that the CFPB’s first report did not include the original date of delinquency; and second, there has been a trend towards reporting fewer medical collections, independent of collection reporting changes.
This year’s report showed that some states saw much larger reductions than others, but indicated a 38 percent nationwide drop in the total balances of medical collections on credit reports, continuing the trend shown in last year’s report that found a 37 percent decline in medical collection tradelines on credit reports (covered by InfoBytes here). Of the 15 million Americans that continue to have medical bills on their credit reports, this year’s report also showed the average reported balance increased from $2,000 to over $3,100, most medical collections tradelines that were removed were below $500, and those living in lower-income communities in the South have the most medical bills in collections for the largest amounts. The CFPB stated that fixing the credit reporting market, including issues that involve the reporting of medical bills, will continue to be a priority.