InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC report to Congress suggests legislative enhancements on consumer protection
On April 10, the FTC issued a report addressed to Congress detailing its efforts to collaborate with state attorneys general (AGs) from across the U.S. on consumer protection law enforcement goals. The report, titled “Working Together to Protect Consumers: A Study and Recommendations on FTC Collaboration with the State Attorneys General,” was issued pursuant to the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021 and included legislative recommendations to enhance the FTC’s consumer protection efforts. The report followed a request for information issued by the FTC in June 2023, seeking public comments on how the FTC might improve collaboration with state AGs to protect consumers from fraud and ensure fairness in the marketplace.
The FTC's report was divided into three main sections:
- The first section outlined the existing collaborative practices between the FTC and state AGs, detailing their shared roles in combating frauds and scams, the respective law enforcement authority of the FTC and the AGs, and the ways federal and state enforcers can share the information they gather, including through networks such as the Consumer Sentinel Network consumer complaint database.
- The second section described best practices to ensure effective collaboration between the FTC and state AGs, including strong information-sharing practices and coordination of enforcement actions. It also suggested ways to expand the sharing of technical resources and expertise between federal and state agencies.
- The third section provided legislative recommendations aimed at improving collaboration efforts by providing the FTC with clearer authority to pursue legal actions. This section emphasized a request for Congress to restore the FTC’s authority to seek monetary refunds for consumers who have been defrauded, following a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that such relief was not available to the Commission (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, this section suggested giving the FTC independent authority to seek civil penalties and clear authority to take legal action against facilitators of unfair or deceptive practices.
In its report to Congress, the FTC emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach to consumer protection among enforcement agencies and states, continuing to seek ways to strengthen its ties with state AGs to address future challenges.
FSB report outlines eight recommendations for bank liquidity preparedness
On April 17, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released a consultation report titled “Liquidity Preparedness for Margin and Collateral Calls,” which laid out eight policy recommendations intended to enhance the liquidity preparedness of nonbank market participants in certain markets. These policy recommendations came from several reviews by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions analyzing recent incidents of liquidity stress. The eight recommendations comprised liquidity risk management, liquidity stress testing, and collateral management practices.
The first three recommendations focused on liquidity risk management practices. The first recommendation would amend liquidity risk management and governance frameworks to protect against spikes in margin and collateral calls in liquidity risk management; the second recommendation would ensure liquidity needs by establishing liquidity risk appetites and a contingency funding plan; and the third recommendation outlined the need for regular reviews of liquidity risk frameworks.
The next two recommendations were on liquidity stress testing and scenario design. The fourth recommendation set out the need for conducting liquidity stress tests with respect to margin and collateral calls to identify the sources of liquidity strains. The fifth called for stress tests to cover a range of “extreme but plausible” scenarios.
The last three recommendations focused on collateral management practices. The sixth recommendation called for resilient and effective operational processes and collateral management practices; the seventh set out the need for sufficient cash and readily available diverse liquid assets and collateral arrangements; and the eighth called for active, transparent and regular interactions with counterparties and third-party service providers. The FSB will welcome comments on this report submitted before June 18.
Fannie Mae to issue RFP for Title Acceptance pilot
On April 12, the FHFA announced plans to test a pilot program that would permit lenders to forego a lender’s title insurance policy or an attorney opinion letter for some refinance loans sold to Fannie Mae, aiming to lower closing costs for borrowers. Since the announcement, Fannie Mae has been working with the FHFA to develop a Title Acceptance pilot framework and has received interest from title, settlement service, and technology providers to join the pilot. In light of this, Fannie Mae declared its intention to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) by the end of the second quarter to identify and assess potential suppliers to participate in the pilot.
CFPB supports Connecticut’s bill to ban medical debt on credit reports
On April 15, the CFPB released a letter written by Brian Shearer, the Assistant Director within the Office of Policy Planning and Strategy, throwing the Bureau’s support behind Connecticut’s new bill to bar medical debt on credit reports. The proposed bill, SB 395, has passed its committee in the first chamber. This legislation would align Connecticut with similar legislation in Colorado and New York, and the CFPB noted that the “preemption of state law is narrow under both the [FDCPA] and the [FCRA], and states may… limit the inclusion of information about a person’s allegedly unpaid medical bills on consumer reports.” The CFPB announced in September 2023 its NPRM to prohibit creditors from using medical bills in underwriting decisions (as covered by InfoBytes here). According to the letter, “[m]edical debt is categorically different from most types of consumer tradelines that typically appear on consumer reports. Consumers frequently incur medical bills in unique circumstances that differ from other forms of credit extension, and CFPB research has found that medical debt is less predictive of future consumer credit performance than other tradelines.”
CFPB’s Frotman speaks on medical debt collections and rental financial products
On April 11, the General Counsel of the CFPB, Seth Frotman, delivered a speech at the National Consumer Law Center/National Association of Consumer Advocates Spring Training, highlighting how the FDCPA and the FCRA cover often-overlooked sectors of consumer finance, including medical collections and landlord-tenant debts. As to medical billing, collections, and credit reporting, Frotman noted that the CFPB has received more than 15,000 complaints in the past two years, as explained previously in the CFPB’s most recent FDCPA annual report (covered by InfoBytes here). These complaints led to the CFPB initiating a rulemaking process to “remove medical bills from credit reports.” Frotman highlighted that many states have taken similar initiatives: Colorado and New York both enacted laws prohibiting the reporting of medical debt, and the CFPB encouraged more states to follow their lead; Connecticut recently introduced legislation banning medical debt in SB 395. Of interest, Frotman noted that when the CFPB contacted debt collectors about suspected bills, they often closed the account – suggesting that these collectors “do not have confidence that this money [was] actually owed,” indicating that collectors could be seeking to collect an invalid medical debt from consumers.
On rental collections and credit reporting, Frotman noted an increase in the “financialization” of the landlord and tenant relationship, such as products to finance security deposits or rent and offering rent-specific credit cards. Frotman also noted that corporate landlords, who have increased their share of the rental housing market, have increased the demand for “tenant screening” products that score prospective tenants. Frotman expressed concern that the algorithms relied on by these tenant screening products have been opaque and even discriminatory. The speech highlighted the CFPB’s focus on tenant screening as part of the Bureau’s increased attention toward debt collection and credit reporting companies generally in the rental industry. For instance, the CFPB noted that law firms that operate as “eviction mills” (i.e., firms that “rubber stamp” eviction actions without performing a meaningful review) could be held liable under the FDCPA.
FTC orders mental health service company to pay for privacy and data violations
On April 15, the FTC released its administrative complaint and joint stipulated order against a mental health service provider, requiring the provider to pay a total of more than $7 million, including $5.1 million for consumer refunds and $2 million in civil penalties. According to the complaint, the defendant collected sensitive personal health information and sold online mental healthcare treatments (i.e., telehealth) through its website to “hundreds of thousands” of patients between 2021 to 2022. The FTC alleged the mental health service provider had engaged in deceptive and unfair practices relating to the marketing of its data security practices, like failing to disclose material items, failing to obtain consumers’ express informed consent, and failing to implement adequate data security measures. In addition, the FTC alleged that the provider misled consumers about its cancellation of services, including failure to provide a mechanism to stop recurring charges. The FTC’s complaint specifically found that the company misrepresented how it would use and disclose patients’ personal information, mishandled and exposed “hundreds of thousands” of personal information, and failed to provide a means to cancel subscriptions. The FTC charged the defendant with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act covering deceptive privacy practices, deceptive data security practices, unfair privacy and data security practices, and deceptive cancellation practices – allegedly violating the Opioid Act, and violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).
In the joint stipulated order, although the defendant neither admitted nor denied these allegations, the judgment prohibited the defendant from disclosing any covered information to any third party for advertising purposes, disclosing any covered information to an outside party without obtaining a consumer’s affirmative express consent, and misrepresenting its cancellation policies. The order also required the defendant to implement stronger protections of the private information of individuals and initiate regular assessments of its data security practices. The court ordered the defendant to pay $5,087,252 as monetary relief to consumers and a civil money penalty of $10 million, which the FTC agreed to suspend in exchange for a payment of $2 million, based on the defendant’s inability to pay the full civil money penalty.
Democratic senators pen letter to trade org. that brought suit against CFPB’s credit card late fee rule
On April 14, two Democratic senators, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), wrote a letter to the head of a commercial trade organization that brought a lawsuit against the CFPB, challenging the CFPB’s rule capping credit card late fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the trade organization and other business groups sued the CFPB, challenging its recent final rule limiting most credit card late fees to $8. The senators wrote that the trade organization’s decision to sue was “outrageous and unwarranted” as the senators sought an explanation for the opposition.
The senators stated that the lawsuit was “frivolous,” and argued that the trade organization neglected “Main Street businesses” and instead was “doing the dirty work of its big bank members” who charged these high fees. Bolstering their position that the rule would cover large credit card issuers only, the senators noted that the rule would be expected to apply to less than one percent of the 4,000 financial institutions offering credit cards. Further, the senators argued that this lawsuit was a pattern of the trade organization representing the interests of large corporations, citing a report that found that only 23 of the 28 million small businesses in the U.S. benefited from the trade organization’s litigation. In seeking an explanation, the senators requested answers to a series of questions, including “How did [the trade organization] reach the decision to sue the CFPB to stop the agency from putting this rule in place?” and “Has the [trade organization] conducted an economic analysis of how the CFPB proposal would impact its members?”
FTC amends the TSR on recordkeeping and prohibiting misrepresentations
On April 16, the FTC issued a final rule amending the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to add requirements for telemarketers to maintain transaction records, prohibit misrepresentations, and add a new definition for “previous donor” in the context of robocalls on behalf of charitable organizations. This will be the fifth time the TSR has been amended since its enactment in 1995, with previous amendments creating the National Do Not Call Registry in 2003, prohibiting sellers to use prerecorded messages (i.e., robocalls) in 2008, banning debt relief services from requiring an advance fee in 2010, and most recently, barring certain payment mechanisms used in fraudulent transactions in 2015. The FTC’s new amendments to the TSR will require telemarketers to retain a copy of each prerecorded message, call detail records, records to show an established business relationship, records on charitable donations and the do-not-call registry. On the rule’s efforts to prohibit misrepresentations, marketers will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about the good or service they are selling or false statements to induce a charitable contribution. The final rule also will update the definition of “previous donor” to allow telemarketers to place robocalls on behalf of a charity only to customers who have donated to a charity within the previous two years. The amendment will go into effect on May 16 with mandatory compliance beginning October 16.
FTC issues NPRM to extend TSR coverage for inbound calls on elder fraud
On April 16, the FTC published an NPRM for the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) in the Federal Register to extend the TSR’s coverage to inbound telemarketing calls by consumers to include technical support service – i.e., calls that consumers would make in response to an advertisement. The FTC noted this extension of the TSR would allow the FTC to “obtain stronger relief,” such as civil penalties and consumer redress, when consumers would be affected by tech support scams. The FTC argued that this proposed expansion of the TSR would be necessary given the rise in consumer complaints regarding tech support scams, explaining that consumer complaints rose from 40,000 complaints in 2017 to nearly 115,000 complaints in 2021. Additionally, the FTC explained that in 2018, consumers reported losses totaling over $55 million from these scams and noted that the scams disproportionately affected consumers over 60 years old. The proposed rule would define technical support services as a program or service that would be marketed to repair, maintain or improve the performance and security of electronic devices. The FTC explained that this broad definition will be necessary because scammers purport to offer such services as they evolve with changes to technology and consumer behavior; additionally, scammers would aim to profit from a consumer’s problems or unfamiliarity with technology. In sum, the proposed rule would add “tech support services” to the list of categories excluded from the TSR exemptions for inbound calls, specifically when such calls are in response to an advertisement “through any medium”; this exclusion will also extend to inbound calls in response to “a direct mail solicitation” including email. The FTC will seek comments on its proposed rule, including on nine specific questions, and comments must be received by June 17.
CFPB finalizes rule to change its supervision designation procedures for nonbanks
On April 16, the CFPB issued a procedural rule to change how the Bureau will designate nonbanks for supervision. Under the CFPA, the CFPB was authorized to supervise a nonbank covered person if the Bureau had reasonable cause to determine if the nonbank covered person was engaged in financial services-related conduct that posed a risk to consumers. In 2013, the CFPB issued a rule providing procedures to govern supervisory designation proceedings under this authority; in 2022, the CFPB published a final rule amending the procedural rule to allow it to publicize its resolution of any contested designation proceeding (covered by InfoBytes here). In late February 2024, the CFPB transitioned to a new organizational structure for its supervision and enforcement work, and this rule will reflect the technical changes of the new structure in the context of supervisory designation proceedings.
According to the Bureau, there were small differences between two separate provisions under the 2013 rule that allowed nonbanks to consent to the CFPB’s exercise of supervisory authority. The new procedural rule will combine these provisions and clarify a few points of distinction from the two original provisions, including (i) a consent agreement does not constitute an admission; and (ii) supervision durations following consent agreements can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, instead of applying a default duration of two years.
Regarding the Supervision Director’s notice of reasonable cause, the rule will expand the possible methods of delivery to include other methods that are “reasonably calculated to give notice.” Additionally, the rule states that the initiating official may withdraw a notice, and that they may file a written reply to the notice recipient’s response, neither of which was not contemplated under the previous rule. The Bureau said these changes could allow for more transparency in the decision-making process.
Concerning a supplemental oral response, the Bureau noted under the previous rule, a respondent nonbank entity presented supplemental oral responses to the Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Lending. In light of the elimination of the Associate Director position pursuant to a recent reorganization that split the Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending into a Division of Enforcement and a Division of Supervision, the rule provided that the Director of the Bureau will assume the Associate Director’s adjudicative roles and supervision-related functions. Therefore, the Director will be responsible for issuing a decision and order subjecting an entity to the Bureau’s supervision or terminating a proceeding.
The rule further stipulated that (i) an additional time limit for mail and delivery services are no longer warranted, since email would be “generally instantaneous”; (ii) there will be a 13,000-word limit for the proceeding filings; (iii) any changes to time or word limits can be decided between the initiating official and the respondent with a notice to the Director and will be subject to change by the Director.
Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the rule maintained a process for the CFPB to decide whether to publicly release final decisions and orders, including orders entered as a result of respondent failing to file a response and therefore defaulting. The Bureau did note, however, consent agreements entered into between the initiating official and the respondent will not be subject to public release under the rule.
The rule also established an issue exhaustion requirement, requiring respondents to raise arguments they have in their written response to the Bureau to avoid waiving the argument in future proceedings. The Bureau will invite public comments which must be submitted 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, although the rule will be exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The rule will be effective upon publication to the Federal Register, and it will apply to proceedings pending on the effective date, unless the Director determined that it will be “not practicable.”