InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Oregon enacts new consumer finance protections related to wage garnishment
Recently, the Governor of Oregon enacted bill SB 1595 (the “Act”) that amended Oregon’s statutes to provide greater consumer protection rights for Oregonians working to pay back their debts. The Act was mostly comprised of new rights for wage garnishments. Section 10, which updated ORS 18.785, amended what a financial institution must do if it receives a writ of garnishment for a debtor, including checking for federal benefits and analyzing an account holder’s base protected account balance, among other provisions. Additionally, the Act protected $2,500 from a person’s bank account to help them meet basic needs. The law went into effect on April 4.
CFPB and European Commission convene for future oversight of consumer finance products
On April 11, the CFPB Director, Rohit Chopra, and the Commissioner for Justice and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, Didier Reynders, issued a joint statement announcing their intent to begin an informal dialogue between the CFPB and the European Commission on consumer financial protection issues. The agencies have already convened three staff-level meetings on the following topics: (1) BNPL and over-indebtedness, where the U.S. shared the FCRA framework and the European Commission discussed the differences in the BNPL industry’s evolution in their respective jurisdictions; (2) digital payment access and fraud, where they discussed fraud, the issue of nonbanks in payments, Big Tech’s involvement in consumer finance, and digital access for the unbanked; and (3) artificial intelligence, where the European Commission shared four pieces of legislation or regulations and two recent court judgments. The joint statement iterated their inputs: “Our staff have shared expertise, best practices, and lessons learned on an important set of issues. Jointly analyzing the expansion of Big Tech’s financial services offerings, and the attendant risks to consumer privacy and competition, has been highly productive.”
Wisconsin updates licensing and regulation of financial services providers
On April 4, Wisconsin enacted SB 668 (the “Act”) which will amend many provisions to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s (DFI) regulation of non-banks. According to an analysis by the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau, the Act will change how multiple financial practices are regulated and rely on the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). The Act will allow Wisconsin to use NMLS to administer licensing needs concerning consumer lenders, payday lenders, collection agencies, sales finance companies, money transmitters, mortgage bankers and brokers, adjustment service companies, community currency exchanges, and insurance premium finance companies. The amendments were modeled after the Model Money Transmission Modernization Act approved by the CSBS.
The Act will require licensees to provide information directly to NMLS. For collection agencies, the Act will eliminate the requirement that a collector hold a separate license from the one held by his employer, update the definition of collection agency to add the exception for mortgage bankers, and require separate collection agency licenses for each place of business, among others – including repeals. As to consumer lenders, the Act will better define consumer loans, specify provisions governing licensed lenders, and specify which activities require licensure. With respect to sellers of checks and money transmitters, the Reference Bureau noted three provisions governing licensing and regulation of money transmitters will be replaced by the MTMA. This will include registering a license through the NMLS; granting the power to suspend, revoke, or refuse renewal of a license to the DFI; and allowing a licensed money transmitter to conduct business through an authorized delegate; among others. The Act also updated NMLSR requirements and DFI powers concerning payday lenders, sales finance companies, adjustment service companies, community currency exchanges, and insurance premium finance companies.
Kentucky enacts bills: on mortgage liens and unlawful trade practices
On April 9, Kentucky enacted HB 488 (the “Bill”) which will establish when a county clerk admits any amendment, renewal, modification, or extension of a recorded mortgage to record. The Bill will also establish when a county clerk admits affidavits of amendment prepared and executed by an attorney to record. Additionally, the Bill will establish recording requirements and a section to establish when a promise, acknowledgment, or payment of money operates as an extension of a lien in a recorded mortgage or deed. Finally, the Bill establishes recording requirements for extensions on a lien in a recorded mortgage or deed.
On April 4, Kentucky also enacted HB 88 (the “Act”) which will amend provisions related to unlawful trade practices, prohibiting (i) entities that are not banks or trust companies from implying that they are engaged in banking or trust activities, and (ii) entities to use in their marketing materials the name, trademark, logo or symbol of any financial institution or similarly resembling any financial institution, with exceptions for permitted use or disclosure of non-consent.
The Act will also state that residential real property service agreements cannot give rise to rights or obligations lasting longer than two years after their effective date. Additionally, barring exceptions, service agreements cannot (i) be enforceable on future owners of interests in the residential real property or otherwise purport to remain attached to the property; (ii) create or impose a lien, encumbrance, or other real property interest on the residential real property; or (iii) require or permit recording of the agreement or any notice or memorandum of the agreement, among other things.
Kentucky makes wholesale amendments to its financial services code
On April 9, the Governor of Kentucky signed into law HB 726 (the "Act"), an act that will make substantial amendments to the state’s regulation of financial services under Chapter 286 of the Kentucky Financial Services Code. Of note, the Act will update key definitions under the state’s financial services code, including “Bank,” “Company,” “Control,” and “Deposit.” Some of the changes will amend certain powers to the financial commissioner, an appointed position by the Governor, as well as the banking experience requirements for this position. The Act also, among other things, addresses in- and out-of-state trust company rules; banking activities rules for foreign and out-of-state financial companies; bank mergers and reviews by the commissioner; bank closures; bank loan compliance under 12 U.S.C. sec. 371c (prohibiting acceptance of a security from a bank’s affiliate); the commissioner’s rules to remove any officer, director, or employee of a bank via written notice; and mortgage loan license fees, including annual assessments.
FDIC wins dismissal as defendant in NSF fee challenge
On April 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by a trade association and a commercial bank challenging the FDIC’s guidance related to insufficient fund fees (NSF fees). Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged the FDIC’s Financial Institution Letter 32 (FIL 32) as a “legislative rule promulgated without adherence to essential administrative procedures,” and asked the court to permanently enjoin FIL 32 and declare it invalid. As previously covered by InfoBytes, FIL 32 warned financial institutions against charging customers multiple NSF fees on the same unpaid transaction – something the FDIC stated could be an “unsafe or unsound practice.” The plaintiffs alleged four violations of the Administrative Procedure Act: (i) the FDIC allegedly implemented FIL 32 without the APA’s required notice and comment period; (ii) FIL 32 was an arbitrary and capricious agency action; (iii) the FDIC exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to define an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act; and (iv) the FDIC violated its own regulations in releasing FIL 32 since “those regulations prohibit enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance.” The FDIC moved to dismiss all counts, arguing that FIL 32 was not arbitrary and capricious, and that the FDIC acted within its authority. The court agreed that FIL 32 was not a final agency action, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case without prejudice.
5th Circuit reverses District Court’s decision to transfer credit card late fee case
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to transfer a case challenging a CFPB rulemaking to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 5th Circuit’s decision did not examine whether the transfer order was proper, but rather whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the CFPB a change of venue on March 28 because only one of the six plaintiffs resided in Fort Worth. The 5th Circuit found that the lower court erred by granting the CFPB’s motion to change venues instead of ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus and argued the lower court “abused its discretion” by transferring the case while the plaintiffs’ appeal was outstanding, and that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to order the transfer. The 5th Circuit agreed and ruled that once a party appeals a district court’s decision, the district court “has zero jurisdiction to do anything” to change the case. The 5th Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ petition of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order, and ordered the district court to reopen the case.
This case has been brought by multiple trade organizations to challenge the CFPB’s attempt to alter the structure and amount of credit card late fees through its alleged authority under the CARD Act, as covered by InfoBytes here.
FDIC releases comprehensive report on international, systemically important banks
On April 10, the FDIC released a report on the FDIC’s plans and readiness to step in as a receiver for a financial company under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC Chairman said this report was the “most detailed description to date of the FDIC’s preparedness to use its Title II resolution authority.”
The report provided background on resolution-related authorities under Dodd-Frank, highlighted key measures that provided readiness of resolution under Title II authority, reviewed strategic decision-making for the use of such authority, and explained how the Commission expects to undertake a Title II resolution of a Global Systematically Important U.S. Bank (GSIB) using a Single Point of Entry (SPOE) resolution strategy. FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said that such a resolution “will be a challenging process under any circumstance, with a number of steps that need to be taken quickly and in close coordination with a range of stakeholders.”
Under the SPOE resolution strategy, the FDIC would place only the holding company of the GSIB into receivership. The FDIC then would establish a bridge financial company under its control and would transfer the operating subsidiaries to the bridge institution. The bridge institution and its subsidiaries would remain operating while the FDIC performed its receivership duties, including the claims process. The final stage of GSIB receivership would be the implementation of a restructuring and wind-down plan that would aim to maintain value, address the causes of the failure, and transition operations. Chairman Gruenberg also noted that orderly resolution of a GSIB has not been executed before, “so there will be questions on whether it can be done.”
FDIC releases report on bank's past discriminatory lending practices
On April 3, the FDIC made public for the first time its Community Reinvestment Act Performance Evaluation for a bank from September 2022. The bank focused on residential and commercial lending and had $1.15 billion in assets at the time of the review. During its supervision window from 2019 to 2022, the FDIC rated the bank’s CRA rating as “Needs to Improve,” which was a downgrade from its previous rating of “Satisfactory.” Although the FDIC found that the bank “demonstrated satisfactory performance” under the Lending and Community Development Tests, it was found to have violated ECOA and FHFA. Specifically, the FDIC found that the bank engaged in discriminatory lending through alleged redlining practices, the FDIC deemed. The FDIC noted that these violations occurred due to a lack of sufficient oversight and appropriate policies and procedures.
CFPB reports on consumer reporting companies' compliance violations
On April 8, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights on consumer reporting companies (CRC) and furnishers from April to December 2023. With respect to CRCs, the CFPB found deficiencies related to (i) placing identity theft blocks on consumer reports, (ii) blocking adverse items identified by a consumer as the result of human trafficking, and (iii) the accuracy of information in consumer reports.
For identity theft, the CFPB noted that some CRCs automatically declined to implement identity theft blocks based on overly broad, disqualifying criteria that did not support a reasonable determination, in violation of the FCRA. CRCs also failed to properly notify these customers that they declined these identity blocks.
Regulation V required CRCs to block adverse items of information identified by a consumer from human trafficking. While CRCs must block these items within four business days of such request, the CFPB found CRCs either failed to timely block these items or that CRCs blocked some, but not all such items.
In failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports, the CFPB found that CRCs (i) inadequately monitored dispute metrics that may suggest a furnisher would not a reliable source of information about consumers, and (ii) failed to implement procedures to ensure the accuracy of information provided by unreliable furnishers and continued to include such information in reports.
With respect to furnishers, the CFPB similarly found deficiencies in accuracy, dispute investigation, and identity theft requirements. Specifically, CFPB examiners found that furnishers reported incomplete or inaccurate information for several months or even years after determining the information was incomplete or inaccurate. Additionally, furnishers that received direct disputes both continued to report such information and failed to notify CRCs of the disputed information. The report also noted that furnishers who received proper identity theft reports continued to furnish information regarding the consumer before confirming the accuracy of the information with the consumer.