InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Basel Committee reiterates full and fast position on implementation
On May 13, the Basel Committee released a press release which reiterated its expectation to implement all aspects of the Basel framework, such as the Basel III “Endgame” proposal, in “full, consistently and as soon as possible.” The Basel III reforms were announced by the Basel Committee in 2017 and included liquidity requirements which brought much debate among U.S. legislators. The Committee’s statement contrasts some outstanding questions on the U.S.’s decision to implement the banking reforms. For instance, Congressional democrats penned a letter in February urging U.S. banking regulators to codify the final rule changes (covered by InfoBytes here), yet the House Financial Committee’s Chairman, Patrick McHenry (R-NC), urged banking regulators in March to reconsider the Basel Committee’s proposal (covered by InfoBytes here).
Bowman remarks on fine tuning supervisory and regulatory efforts
On May 17, Fed Governor Michelle Bowman delivered a speech to the Pennsylvania Bankers Association focusing on bank regulatory reform, opportunities for engagement, bank mergers and acquisitions, third party risk management, regulations under the EGRPRA, and prioritization within bank regulation and supervision.
Bowman highlighted the need for bank examiners and managers to concentrate on central banking concerns such as credit, interest rate, and liquidity risks, since she opined “[t]he current period of regulatory reform feels more contentious than in the past.” Bowman suggested bank stakeholders engaged in feedback regarding newer reform efforts, highlighting difficulties with keeping up with requirement changes, and the need to inform policymakers.
Bowman stated reservations on proposals to change how banking agencies assess bank merger requests. She countered the notion that agencies give automatic approval to mergers, pointing out the extensive time and effort required by banks during the application process. Bowman conceded that there was room for improvement in achieving timely regulatory actions while still ensuring a thorough examination of applications.
Bowman also commented on the importance of public comment in the Fed’s review of its regulations to identify outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome regulations in accordance with the EGRPRA. She also acknowledged the significance of climate risk but noted it did not pose a fundamental threat to the stability of financial institutions.
CFPB issues interpretive rule likening BNPL accounts to credit cards subject to Regulation Z
On May 22, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule stating its position that certain consumer protection provisions of Regulation Z applied to Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) accounts. The interpretive rule asserted that “digital user accounts” used to access BNPL credit are considered “credit cards” under Regulation Z.
According to the CFPB, BNPL “digital user accounts” fell within TILA and Regulation Z’s definition of a credit card because they qualified as an “other credit device” or “other single credit device.” The CFPB likened its interpretation of “credit device” to the Fed’s interpretation of “access device” in Regulation E, which included non-physical payment codes to initiate an electronic fund transfer. Further, the CFPB stated that because BNPL “digital user accounts” were usable “from time to time to obtain credit,” they met the definition of a “credit card” under Regulation Z.
As a result, the CFPB’s interpretive rule stated that entities issuing such accounts were “card issuers” and therefore “creditors” who are “broadly subject” to the regulations in Subpart B of Regulation Z. The interpretive rule noted that although Subpart B was entitled “Open-End Credit,” it nevertheless applied to closed-end BNPL credit issued through a digital user account if such credit was not subject to a finance charge and was not payable by written agreement in more than four installments. Subpart B included provisions applicable to, among other things, disclosures, consumer disputes, billing errors, and refunds.
The CFPB will request public feedback on the interpretive rule but will reserve the right to move forward without revisions if they are not warranted. The CFPB will submit a report with the interpretive rule to the Senate, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Comptroller General (head of the GAO) prior to the rule’s published effective date.
CFPB sues online lending platform for alleged CFPA, FCRA violations
On May 17, the CFPB announced a lawsuit against an online lending platform through which consumers could obtain small-dollar, short-term loans through a brokering arrangement with lenders. The CFPB alleged the platform violated the CFPA through its deceptive advertisements to consumers on the platform’s alleged promotion of financing terms which included “no interest,” “0% APR,” or “0% interest” but instead invited consumers to provide “tips” and “donations” to lenders, which, would increase the likelihood of a loan being funded. The CFPB further alleged that while the platform marketed zero-interest loans, the platform did not provide users an option for a $0 donation fee or to skip the fee altogether. The Bureau claimed, “almost all of [the platform’s] loans carry an equivalent annual percentage rate of over 36% APR, and many loans carry an APR in excess of 300%, with some over 1,000%.” The Bureau also claimed the platform violated the CFPA by providing misleading TILA disclosures that did not contain the cost of the additional fees and tips in the quoted total payments.
The complaint alleged further violations of the CFPA where the platform (i) obscured whether and how borrowers can select the option for no donation or tip; (ii) stated or implied through its practices that consumers were obligated to repay loan amounts although the loans violated the applicable states’ lender-licensing or usury laws that declared such loans void ab initio or limited consumers’ obligation to repay; (iii) requested to collect and collects on void loans consumers were not obligated to repay for the aforementioned reason; (iv) misleadingly implied that it will furnish negative information to the credit bureaus unless the consumer makes a payment, without actually intending to do so; and (v) violated the FCRA.
The CFPB’s complaint stated that because the platform was a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA and therefore would be required to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” The CFPB will seek, among other things, injunctions against the platform to prevent future violations, monetary relief for borrowers, forfeiture of ill-gotten gains, and a civil money penalty.
Senators release roadmap for federal AI policy
On May 15, the Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group – comprising Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) – released the Bipartisan Roadmap For Artificial Intelligence Policy. The roadmap included their findings and outlined key policy priorities for bipartisan consideration in the 118th Congress and beyond. Understanding that artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies would not fall into the jurisdiction of a single committee, and recognizing the need to manage AI's benefits and risks actively, the working group hosted nine AI Insight Forums to increase the Senate’s knowledge of AI-related policies. The Working Group hoped Senate committees would continue to seek outside input from a variety of stakeholders and experts to inform their decision making. The Working Group also encouraged the executive branch to share with Congress “updates on administration activities related to AI, including any AI-related [MOUs] with other countries and the results from any AI-related studies to better inform the legislative process.”
Key policy areas of the Senate’s AI roadmap included:
- Developing a comprehensive federal data privacy framework.
- Addressing potential long-term risks associated with AI.
- Boosting AI innovation funding to secure U.S. leadership and global competitiveness.
- Enforcing AI-related laws, addressing potential biases, and enhancing AI transparency and “explainability.”
- Preparing the workforce for AI-induced changes, including job displacement and retraining.
- Strengthening national security through adopting AI technology and managing related threats.
- Addressing the issue of deepfakes in elections and protecting content creators and journalists.
- Promoting competition in AI among higher education and businesses, supported by federal funding for the National AI Research Resource.
U.S. Supreme Court rules CFPB funding structure is constitutional
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the funding structure of the CFPB was consistent with the Constitution’s appropriations clause, reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that had called the Bureau’s ability to continue operating without Congressional action into question. The Supreme Court recognized that the CFPB’s funding structure was unique: Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System instead of appropriating funds through the annual appropriations process. However, the Supreme Court found that this unique feature did have constitutional significance. The only question presented was whether the Bureau’s funding mechanism was an “Appropriatio[n] made by Law.” The Supreme Court found that the answer was yes.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s statutory authorization to allow the Federal Reserve System to fund the CFPB satisfied the appropriations clause since “appropriations need only identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes to satisfy the Appropriations Clause,” and both criteria were met. The Supreme Court found the trade associations’ arguments as to why the Bureau’s funding mechanism violated the appropriations clause were unpersuasive.
The CFPB’s constitutionality was challenged following the Bureau’s promulgation of a 2017 regulation on payday lending. In response to a challenge to that regulation, the District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment to the CFPB; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trade associations’ arguments and reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violated the appropriations clause. The Supreme Court has now reversed this decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals.
CFPB’s credit card late fee rule stayed
On May 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs, comprising several trade organization, its motion for preliminary injunction and placed a stay on the CFPB’s credit card late fee rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a suit was filed against the CFPB by multiple trade organizations to challenge the Bureau’s final rule to amend Regulation Z and limit most credit card late fees to $8.
The court decided not to address the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the CARD Act, TILA, and APA violations due to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion that the CFPB's funding structure was unconstitutional; therefore, any regulations promulgated by the CFPB would be unconstitutional. For that reason, due to the CFPB’s unconstitutional structure found by the 5th Circuit, the District Court decided that all factors weighed in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction and thus staying the final rule.
HUD and mortgage lender reach agreement on Montana fair lending complaint
On May 13, HUD announced an agreement with a mortgage lender to resolve allegations of Fair Housing Act violations. According to the redacted agreement, a complaint was filed with HUD last August accusing the mortgage company of engaging in housing discrimination based on race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complainants claim they faced discriminatory housing terms, were denied housing, and were subject to racially discriminatory notices and advertisements. The mortgage company denied all allegations of discrimination, asserted its commitment to fair housing and equal opportunity, and agreed to a Conciliation Agreement to resolve the matter without admitting any wrongdoing or liability.
The mortgage company agreed to a $65,000 settlement and will commit to upholding its fair lending policies, ensuring applicants on Native American reservations are able to obtain residential mortgage loans without fear of discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Respondent will also contribute at least $30,000 towards initiatives designed to enhance housing conditions, financial literacy, and homeownership education for Native Americans near reservations. During the three-year term of the agreement, HUD may review compliance and conduct fair housing tests, among other oversight methods. The terms of the agreement also required the mortgage company to submit a training curriculum on its fair lending training courses for new employees and perform annual trainings with current employees; additionally, the mortgage company must submit an annual report on the mortgage company’s progress and performance in complying with the public interest provisions of the agreement. The agreement has been approved by the regional director of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
CFPB to extend 1071 rule compliance deadlines
On May 17, the CFPB announced it is extending the compliance deadlines for the small business lending rule (Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, the “1071 rule”), which will require financial institutions to collect and report data on lending to small businesses to the Bureau (covered by InfoBytes here). Following challenges to the 1071 rule in the U.S. District Court in Texas, the rule was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in CFPB v. CFSA (covered by InfoBytes here). Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Bureau’s funding is constitutional and the district court’s order requiring the CFPB to extend the rule’s compliance deadlines to compensate for the period stayed, the Bureau will issue an interim final rule to extend compliance deadlines as follows:
- Tier 1 institutions (highest volume lenders): The new compliance date is July 18, 2025, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2026.
- Tier 2 institutions (moderate volume lenders): The new compliance date is January 16, 2026, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2027.
- Tier 3 institutions (lowest volume lenders): The new compliance date is October 18, 2026, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2027.
Maryland enacts child consumer protection laws
On May 9, the Governor of Maryland approved SB 571 (the “Act) to provide consumer online protections for children. The Act will afford protections from online products aimed at children or that are likely accessed by children. Specifically, the Act will require companies that provide online products “reasonably likely to be access[ed] by children” to prepare a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) for the online product. The DPIA will identify the purpose of the online product, how the product uses children’s data, determine if the product would be in children’s best interests, and include a description of the compliance steps the company will have taken to comply with the duty to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of children, among other requirements. The Act outlined several violations, including against processing data not in children’s best interests, profiling children, processing geolocation, using of dark patterns, or monitoring of children’s activities without first notifying the parent/guardian. The Act will go into effect on October 1.