InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
State of the Union Address: President Biden addresses the banking industry
On March 7, President Biden delivered his 2024 State of the Union Address, where he highlighted how his administration is actively working to reduce costs for consumers by addressing issues such as corporate price gouging and alleged “junk fees.” According to a related White House Fact Sheet, the Biden Administration was focusing on corporate practices that may contribute to high prices, urging companies to lower their prices in line with decreasing input costs and stabilize supply chains. Biden highlighted the CFPB’s proposed rule on overdraft fees and the final rule on credit card late fees as progress in reducing alleged “junk fees.”
Furthermore, the fact sheet highlighted the CFPB’s scrutiny of alleged practices by branded retailers and airline credit cards of devaluing points and miles and luring in consumers with misleading deferred interest products.
House Committee report finds broad financial surveillance by federal government using financial institutions data following January 6th events
On March 5, the Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report on how federal law enforcement agencies, in the wake of the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, engaged in financial surveillance by encouraging financial institutions to provide data on private transactions of consumers without a nexus to criminal conduct. The report indicated the consumers particularly targeted were those who tend to hold “conservative viewpoints.” The report cited several whistleblower testimonies and provided email transcripts of the government agents’ requests. One institution allegedly acted “voluntarily and without legal process” and provided the FBI with a dataset of names of those who used that institution’s credit or debit card in the Washington, D.C. region between January 5 and January 7, 2021, but also included those who had ever used that institution’s debit or credit card to purchase a firearm. The report suggested that citizens who did nothing other than go “shopping or exerciz[e] their Second Amendment rights” were placed under a type of financial surveillance between their financial institution and the government, making specific mention of right-leaning individuals now at risk.
The report provided context with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, Section 314(a) of the USA Patriot Act, and the Bank Secrecy Act in mind. While these federal acts were created to protect citizens, the report alleged they “have failed to adequately protect American’s financial information.” The report was particularly critical of the federal government using “informal meetings and backchannel discussions” with financial institutions to devise the best methods for getting Americans’ private financial information, including using merchant category codes and politicized “search terms,” and the federal government disseminating “political materials” to such institutions that were allegedly “hostile” to conservative viewpoints and “treated lawful transactions as suspicious.”
FDIC releases March CRA evaluations for 56 banks, three rated as “Needs to Improve”
On March 4, the FDIC released a list of state nonmember banks evaluated for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for March. The FDIC evaluated 56 banks with four ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. Of the 56 evaluations reported by the FDIC, three banks hold the lowest given ratings as “Needs to Improve.” Most banks were rated “Satisfactory,” and seven banks were rated “Outstanding.” According to the FDIC’s release, a copy of a bank’s CRA evaluation is available directly from the bank, as required by law, or from the FDIC’s Public Information Center.
FTC updates the Telemarketing Sales Rule, proposes tech support rule
On March 7, the FTC announced updates to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to extend fraud protections to businesses and modernize recordkeeping requirements in response to technological advancements. These updates were part of an ongoing review of the TSR, which governs telemarketing practices and includes the Do Not Call Registry (DNC) and issued rules against telemarketing robocalls.
The newly finalized rule broadened the scope of prohibited deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices to include business-to-business calls, which were previously exempt, except in specific cases. The rule also revised the TSR's recordkeeping requirements to reflect changes in technology and telemarketing methods, which included maintaining detailed call records and consent documentation, as well as compliance with the DNC Registry.
In addition to these updates, the FTC proposed a rule that would enhance its ability to tackle tech support scams by extending the TSR's coverage to include inbound telemarketing calls for technical support services. This amendment addressed deceptive tech support schemes and would empower the FTC to seek stronger legal remedies such as civil penalties and consumer compensation. The Commission invited public feedback on a proposed definition of tech support scams.
House Financial Services Committee urges banking regulators to reconsider aspects of Basel III “Endgame” proposal
On March 5, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), along with all Republican members released a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu, and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg recommending they each withdraw from the Basel III “Endgame” proposal and identify better objectives with justifications. The Republican members indicated that the proposal received an “unprecedented number of comment letters,” with more than 97 percent receiving a call for withdrawal, re-proposal, or general concern with the proposal’s elements. Further, the letter pointed out that the agency chairs themselves recognized there was an issue, as shown by the agencies’ comment period extension by more than 45 days. While the members noted a strong desire to change the capital rules for financial institutions, they also expressed frustration with the lack of transparency regarding the whole process: “There has been little clarity . . . with Congress or the American people as to when or how the agencies will release the information collected from the banks or seek comment[.]” The Committee’s letter concluded by stating how the proposal is flawed and called for greater clarity on how agencies plan to account for public comments.
CFPB blog post tackles mortgage closing costs, seeks consumer feedback
On March 8, the CFPB published a blog post seeking consumer input on experiences with the closing process of consumer mortgages, and in particular, closing costs. The blog post posited that closing costs significantly impact a borrower’s financial commitment and, potentially, monthly payments and identified a “noticeable increase” in closing costs, with median total loan expenses on home purchase loans increasing by 21.8 percent between 2021 and 2022. In particular, the Bureau singled out title insurance fees and credit reporting fees. It labeled title insurance as a fee that borrowers are charged and for which they have no control over the cost, alleging that “the amount that borrowers pay for lender’s title insurance is often much greater than the risk.” With respect to credit reports, the Bureau remarked that the highly concentrated industry dictates the price of credit reports, citing anecdotal evidence of cost increases of 25 to 400 percent.
The blog post also indicated that borrowers with smaller mortgages, including those with lower incomes, first-time homebuyers, and individuals residing in Black and Hispanic communities, are often disproportionately affected by closing costs, because they are typically fixed costs and do not change based on the size of the loan. The Bureau requested that consumers provide input on their experience with mortgage or closing costs, signaling that it will continue to analyze and if necessary “issue rules and guidance to improve competition, choice, and affordability.”
Department of Energy discontinues crypto mining survey following a settlement agreement
On March 1, a cryptocurrency company (plaintiff) and the U.S. Department of Energy submitted a settlement agreement to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to discontinue an emergency crypto mining survey once approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
According to the settlement agreement, the Department of Energy initiated an emergency three-year collection of a Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities Survey in January, which the plaintiff claimed did not comply with various statutory and regulatory requirements for the emergency collection of information. Following the court’s approval of the plaintiff’s temporary restraining order, which protected plaintiffs from completing the survey issued by the Department of Energy and protected any information they may have already submitted, the Department of Energy discontinued its emergency collection, and said it will proceed through notice-and-comment procedures for approval of any collection of information covering such data. As a result of the discontinuation of the emergency collection request, no entity or person is required to respond to the survey.
As part of the settlement agreement, the Department of Energy will destroy any information it had already received from survey responses. In addition to a $2,199.45 payment for the plaintiffs’ litigation expenses, the Department of Energy also agreed to publish a new Federal Register notice of a proposed collection of information and withdraw its original notice.
New York State bill requires disclosure of beneficial owners of limited liability companies
On March 1, a newly enacted bill from New York State, S8059, (the “Act”) was signed by the governor and amended New York State law governing limited liability companies by mandating New York LLCs to file beneficial ownership information with the New York Department of State. The Act set a deadline for new LLCs to file the required ownership information within 30 days of their establishment; for existing LLCs, the bill required them to comply with the new requirements by January 1, 2026. The Act demanded that exempt companies, defined as LLCs or foreign LLCs not otherwise defined as a reporting company that met a condition for exemption in 31 U.S.C. §5336(a)(11)(B), electronically declared their statuses and the basis for their exemptions shortly after formation. It further imposed an annual requirement on all limited liability companies to update or confirm their ownership or exempt status. Additionally, access to the beneficial ownership reports was restricted to law enforcement under certain conditions. The Act enforced compliance with the requirements by imposing up to $500 daily fines for late submissions, the possibility of companies being marked as delinquent, and the threat of dissolution for persistent non-compliance.
7th Circuit says plaintiffs should have produced evidence to prove concrete injury
On February 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that while an interruption of self-employment can cause a concrete loss for a plaintiff to sue, that loss must be established by evidence at summary judgment. The loss in question involved a consumer debt in arrears sold by a bank to a debt collection agency. Two individual plaintiffs owing the underlying debt sued the debt collection agency under 15 U.S.C. §1692e of the FDCPA when the debt collection agency attempted to collect on the debt owed without relaying that the bank had not verified the balance of the debt. The judge opined that rather than claiming they had incurred any concrete loss (e.g., a loss of income, payment of funds, etc.), plaintiffs instead filed an affidavit to state that the debt had “interrupted my self-employment” because they were focused on thinking about the debt and spent time working through records to confirm the debt owed. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that debt collection efforts can very well cause a delay in receiving self-employment income, which is a “form of loss”; however, the judge also held that plaintiffs must show evidence of injury at the summary judgment stage, as this is the “put up or shut up” stage in litigation. Ultimately, the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence that debt collection efforts caused them concrete harm, other than interrupting a productive day of work.
Ginnie Mae now requires issuers to disclose cybersecurity incidents within 48 hours
On March 4, the President of Ginnie Mae released All Participants Memorandum (APM) 24-02, which set forth a new requirement applicable to all issuers, including issuers that subservice loans for others. The memo mandated that all approved issuers must notify Ginnie Mae of any significant cybersecurity incident within 48 hours of detection. Ginnie Mae defined a “Cyber Incident” as “an event that actually or potentially jeopardizes, without lawful authority, the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information or an information system; or constituted a violation or imminent threat of violation of security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies and has the potential to directly or indirectly impact the Issuer’s ability to meet its obligations under the terms of the Guaranty Agreement.” If a Cyber Incident has occurred, issuers must it report to Ginnie Mae via a specified email address and must include (i) the date and time of the incident, (ii) a summary of the incident, and (iii) points of contact responsible for coordinating any follow-up questions regarding the incident. These requirements are also now reflected in Chapter 03, Part 18 of the Mortgage-Backed Securities Guide, 5500.3, REV-1.