InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed’s Barr speaks at fireside chat, underscores the importance of public comment
On January 9, Fed Vice Chair of Supervision Michael S. Barr delivered remarks at an event held by Women in Housing and Finance, during which he discussed consumer credit, bank supervision, DEI issues, capital issues, bank regulation and more. Barr began by addressing current risks that the Fed is focused on mitigating, which included efforts surrounding the Community Reinvestment Act final rule and the Basel III Endgame proposal. The Fed, he said, has been receiving many comments on the proposal, which will help ensure the “balance” is right on the final capital rule. There is one more week before the comment period closes, he added.
Barr also discussed the second quantitative impact study the Fed is conducting to ensure accuracy and help shape the final version of the Basel III proposal. He noted that the Fed conducted the first study a “few years ago” to inform the first proposal. He mentioned that the Fed is collecting information and will be publishing their aggregated analysis for public comment. Barr also discussed comments considering whether the Fed should adjust for historical losses based on particular firms, or if there should be standardized accountability for all risk.
In response to questions from the moderator, Barr opined that the capital rules in the Basel III proposal would have a modest impact on the affordability and accessibility of mortgage credit and consumer credit. He conceded that the proposal’s impact would create higher costs, but that the impacts on consumers would be “very very small.” Barr also invited commenters to inform the Fed about the impacts. On international competition, Barr also noted that the higher capital standards would not detrimentally impact the U.S. banking system.
When asked about the Fed’s Bank Term Funding Program, made available by the Fed, FDIC, and Treasury last spring, Barr said banks and credit unions are still leveraging the program today. He explained that the “program was really designed in that emergency situation … to make sure that banks[,] and creditors of banks[,] and depositors [in] banks understand that banks have the liquidity they need.”
FinCEN report on identity fraud in 2021 outlines statistics and processes
On January 9, FinCEN published a report titled “Identity-Related Suspicious Activity: 2021 Threats and Trends” which focuses on patterns in reported Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data linked to suspicious activity from 2021. The report is part of a broader set of financial trend analyses conducted by FinCEN under section 6206 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. During 2021, about 1.6 million of all BSA reports (or 42 percent) on suspicious activity were related to identity, equaling $212 billion in suspicious activity.
Key findings in the report included: (i) 69 percent of identity-related BSA reports indicate attackers have impersonated others; (ii) depository institutions have filed the most BSA reports at 54 percent, with the next highest being money services businesses at 21 percent; (iii) general fraud was the most reported typology with 1.2 million BSA reports totaling $149 billion in suspicious amounts, with the next two being false records and identity theft, respectively; and (iv) there were a significant number of identity-related exploitations based on BSA report volumes and dollar values. FinCEN reported three identity-related exploitations, including how attackers (a) impersonate others; (b) dodge or exploit verification processes; and (c) use compromised credentials. A model on page six of the report provides further clarity on how attackers undermine identity processes, such as through bust out schemes (attackers open credit card accounts then max out the cards), check fraud, credit and debit card fraud, and Covid-19 fraud.
SEC approves Bitcoin use in 11 exchange-traded products
On January 10, the SEC issued an order approving 11 exchange-traded products (ETPs) holding Bitcoin to be publicly traded. According to the order, the SEC found that the proposed ETPs are consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically Section 6(b)(5), which requires that the rules prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and protect investors and the public interest. The SEC also found that the 11 proposed ETPs are consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) which states that it is in the public interest to make the ETPs available to brokers, dealers, and investors. The order goes into further detail and outlines how the two subsections of the ‘34 Act are applied.
As previously covered on InfoBytes, the SEC originally denied a similar application from a company but had to reexamine that company’s application following the D.C. Court of Appeals overturning of the SEC’s initial rejection. The appellate court alleged the SEC “acted arbitrarily and capriciously by denying the listing of [the company]’s proposed bitcoin ET[F],” and members of Congress also urged the Chair of the SEC to approve Bitcoin’s use within ETPs in a September 2023 letter (covered in InfoBytes here).
FTC acts against fintech app for misrepresentations made about cash advances
On January 2, the FTC issued a complaint and stipulated order against a personal finance mobile application that offers its users short-term cash advances through “floats.” According to the complaint, the defendant misrepresented its claims to induce users into enrolling in a subscription plan. Specifically, the defendant advertised that its users could instantly receive a cash advance larger than available, claimed cash advance limits would increase over time, and promised to make cash available “instantly” for no extra fee.
According to the complaint, employees have admitted that the defendant company “lie[s]” to users. Users allegedly received misleading advertisements that stated how cash advances or “floats” constitute “free money” when there is actually a $1.99 subscription fee listed in tiny font. Additionally, the defendant advertised that users would receive “money in minutes” for “free” with “no hidden fees” despite having to pay a hidden $4 fee to receive their money instantly. The FTC alleges from user responses that many of them would have not enrolled in this program had they known they would be advanced less than promised. Further, the FTC alleges the defendant discriminates against consumers by categorically refusing to provide cash advances to consumers who receive public assistance benefits or derive income from gig work––even after they pay subscription fees.
Under this order, the FTC found the defendant violated the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), as well as ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B. The stipulated order, which names the company’s cofounders in addition to the company itself, prohibits the company from further misrepresentations, requires implementation of a fair lending program, requires a simple cancellation mechanism, and provides for a monetary judgment of $3 million.
FTC alleges data broker company mishandled consumer location data
On January 9, the FTC released a proposed order and complaint against a data broker that sells consumer location data to companies. According to the complaint, which alleges seven violations of the FTC Act, the data broker company had no policies or procedures in place to remove any of the raw data from the location data sets that it sold, which could be used to identify sensitive personal information. The FTC alleges that because of this, the data broker company failed to provide “necessary technical safeguards” to ensure that consumers’ privacy choices were honored. The FTC also alleges that the data broker’s contracts with entities to purchase the data were “insufficient to protect consumers from the substantial injury caused by the collection, transfer, and use of the consumers’ location data” as they visit sensitive locations, such as churches, healthcare facilities, and schools.
The data broker company collected 10 billion location data points daily worldwide throughout its apps, but it failed to inform its consumers that it sold this data to advertisers, employers, or government contractors. The FTC further alleges that the data broker’s business practices are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers due to its lack of reasonable data security measures.
According to the proposed order, the company must comply with FTC mandates that include requiring it to prohibit misrepresentations using the data, prohibit the use, sale, or disclosure of sensitive location data, and implement a sensitive location data program. The data broker neither admits nor denies any wrongdoing and the FTC did not levy a money judgment.
Agencies adjust civil money penalties for 2024
Recently, the CFPB, NCUA, FDIC, FTC, and OCC provided notice in the Federal Register of adjustments to the maximum civil money penalties due to inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Each notice or final rule (see CFPB here, FDIC here, OCC here, FTC here, and NCUA here) adjusts the maximum civil money penalties available and documents the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts associated with the penalty tiers for each type of violation within a regulator’s jurisdiction. For violations occurring on or after November 2, 2015, the OCC’s adjusted maximum penalties go into effect as of January 8; the CFPB and FDIC’s adjustments go into effect January 15; and the FTC and NCUA’s adjustments go into effect January 10.
FTC, Connecticut file complaint against auto dealer for deceptive and unfair practices
On January 4, the FTC and the State of Connecticut issued a joint complaint against an auto dealer and its owner for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the dealership allegedly imposed additional fees, including certification fees, add-on charges, and government charges, without consumers’ explicit consent. The FTC alleged that the dealership made misrepresentations regarding advertised prices, charging consumers additional fees when they would attempt to purchase vehicle, and charged customers for certification fees for vehicles that had been advertised as “certified.” The complaint also alleged that the dealership would charge consumers for add-ons, such as GAP insurance, service contracts, maintenance contracts, and total loss protection with or without express consent, and at times after the consumer specifically declined the add-on. The complaint further alleged that the dealership often stated in advertisements that a vehicle was certified but did not report the sale of that vehicle or pay the certification fee to the manufacturer, so consumers did not receive the actual benefits. The complaint seeks consumer redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten money, civil penalties, and a permanent injunction.
Oregon amends money transmission law with respect to a required security device
On January 9, the State of Oregon enacted a new bill on money transmission licensing, specifically stating that “each license application shall be accompanied by a security device in the amount of $25,000.” A security device is defined by Oregon law as a surety bond or an irrevocable letter of credit. If an applicant engages in business at more than one location, the security device will increase by $5,000 per location, with a maximum of $150,000. The bill further states that in place of security devices, an applicant could deposit securities such as interest-bearing stocks, bonds, notes, etc., and be held under the same obligations as the security device. The bill concludes that the security device will remain in effect until its cancellation and remain in place no longer than five years following a licensee ceasing its money transmission operations in Oregon. In the event of the bankruptcy of the licensee, the security device will be held in trust for the benefit of purchasers and holders of the licensee’s outstanding payment instruments.
Idaho Department of Finance publishes proposed rule changes on its Mortgage Practices Act
On January 3, the Idaho Department of Finance published a bulletin on proposed rule changes to Vol. 23-10 of the Idaho Administrative Bulletin, specifically to section 12.01.10 – Rules Pursuant to The Idaho Residential Mortgage Practices Act; a redline of the bill’s section changes is here. According to the bill, the rule changes aim to “reduce regulatory burden by removing outdated requirements,” and the rulemaking changes were made pursuant to Executive Order 2020-01.
There were several changes to the bill. First, the section on “Deceptive Advertising” was struck from the bill. Second, and under “Written Disclosures,” the portion on “Receipt of an Application” was struck from the bill. Third, and under “Prohibited Practices” and further under “Engage in Deceptive Advertising,” the proposed changes include the addition of two subsections: one on engaging in bait and switch advertising; and another on misleading someone to believe a solicitation is from a person’s current mortgage holder, or government agency, among others. Fourth, the section on “Borrowers Unable to Obtain Loans” was struck entirely.
Federal court grants California DFPI motion for summary judgment on commercial financing disclosure requirements
Recently, the California DFPI announced it was granted a summary judgment by a federal court to uphold the DFPI’s commercial financing disclosure requirements applicable to small businesses as implemented by SB 1235, including the amount of funding provided, APR, finance charges, and payment amounts. The bill was adopted in 2018 and was previously covered by InfoBytes here, as well as when the California Office of Administrative Law approved the DFPI’s commercial financial disclosure regulations here in June 2022.
In this case, the plaintiff is an advocacy organization that sued the Commissioner of the DFPI, asserting two claims: (i) that the DFPI violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of the First Amendment; and (ii) that the DFPI’s regulation is preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The DFPI disagreed and sought summary judgment on three grounds: (i) the plaintiff lacks the standing to challenge the regulations; (ii) the regulations do not violate the First Amendment; and (iii) the regulations are not preempted by TILA.
The court granted the DFPI’s motion for summary judgment because it found that although the plaintiff had standing to bring suit, the DFPI’s disclosure requirements were lawful under the First Amendment and were not preempted by federal law.