InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, FTC submit amicus brief in FCRA case
On March 29, the CFPB and the FTC filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the FCRA mandated consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) when a consumer challenged the “completeness or accuracy of any item or information” in their file, must perform a “reasonable reinvestigation.”
In the underlying case, a consumer claimed she identified multiple inaccuracies in her credit report held by the defendant CRA, including issues with her name, address, and Social Security number. She allegedly contacted the defendant three times to dispute these errors, but the defendant directed her to resolve the issues with the misinformation sources and did not conduct its own reinvestigation as the consumer believed was required by the FCRA.
The consumer then filed a lawsuit against the defendant CRA for not performing the reinvestigation. The district court acknowledged that the defendant should have completed the reinvestigation under the FCRA but nonetheless concluded that the defendant did not violate the statute because it did not reasonably interpret that the FCRA did not require a reinvestigation.
The case will now be under the appeal process and the CFPB and FTC have submitted a joint amicus brief arguing that the FCRA required a CRA to reinvestigate a consumer’s dispute about personal identifying information, and that the district court correctly determined that a reinvestigation was required. The brief also argued that the district nonetheless erred in concluding that the defendant did not negligently or willfully violate the FCRA because the defendant’s interpretation of the FCRA was not “objectively reasonable.”
FTC to hold an informal hearing on its proposed “junk fee” rules
On March 27, the FTC published a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of its decision to hold an informal hearing on its proposed rule prohibiting “junk fees.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC released a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) titled “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees” and extended the comment period last October. In the NPRM, the FTC presented the opportunity for any party to present their positions orally. The FTC announced that 17 commenters requested to partake in the informal hearing by presenting oral statements and an administrative law judge for the FTC will serve as the presiding officer. The informal hearing will be presented virtually on April 24 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. The hearing will be presented live to the public on the FTC’s website, and a recording will be placed in the rulemaking record.
State AGs sue to block Biden's SAVE Plan for student loan forgiveness
On April 1, 10 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against President Biden, the Secretary of Education, and the Department of Education seeking to block the enactment of the SAVE Plan. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SAVE Plan was an income-driven repayment plan, intended to calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size, rather than the loan balance, and forgave balances after several years since repayment. According to the complaint, the government released a rule for the new SAVE Plan intended to eliminate at least $156 billion in student debt as the second step in a three-part loan forgiveness initiative. The first step involved an attempt to cancel $430 billion in student loans under the HEROES Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Biden v. Nebraska.
The SAVE Plan assumed $430 billion in loans would be forgiven beforehand, but after the Supreme Court's decision, the defendants allegedly did not revise the cost estimate in anticipation of overturning the case. This oversight led to a significant underestimation of the SAVE Plan's true cost; plaintiffs alleged.
Plaintiffs further claimed that the SAVE Plan was written before the Supreme Court's ruling in Biden v. Nebraska and thus included outdated statements of confidence in the defendants' authority to pursue debt relief. The rule would take effect on July 1, but defendants allegedly have already started forgiving loans for some individuals before this date. The complaint alleged that on February 21, the Department of Education forgave the debt of 153,000 borrowers, which the state attorneys general claimed violated Biden v. Nebraska.
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the Department of Education exceeded its authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 by issuing the rule and that the rule would be arbitrary and capricious since defendants failed to account for the full cost of the rule.
New Hampshire enacts SB 255, a comprehensive consumer privacy bill
Recently, the Governor of New Hampshire signed SB 255 (the “Act”) making New Hampshire the 14th state to enact a comprehensive consumer privacy bill. The Act will apply to entities that engage in commercial activities within New Hampshire or target New Hampshire consumers for their products or services and that during a one-year period either: (i) control or process data of 35,000 New Hampshire consumers (except solely for purposes of completing a payment transaction); or (ii) control or process data of 10,000 New Hampshire consumers and derive more than 25 percent of their revenue from selling the data. Exemptions include entities or data subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Title V, non-profit organizations, and higher education institutions. The legislation will also exempt specific types of data, such as health information that is protected under HIPAA or data subject to the FCRA. The definition of consumer is limited to an individual residing in New Hampshire and excludes both employee and business-to-business (B2B) data.
The Act will define new terms, such as "sensitive data” which could mean “personal data that includes data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health condition or diagnosis, sex life, sexual orientation or citizenship or immigration status.” “Sensitive data” also includes genetic or biometric information, data on children, and precise location details. New Hampshire will now mandate that companies obtain explicit consent from consumers before processing sensitive data.
The Act also granted consumers the following rights: the right to know, the right to correct, the right to delete, the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for targeted advertising, sales, or profiling of the consumer in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal effects or other effects of similar significance, and the right to data portability. Consumers will also be protected against discrimination for exercising any of the above rights.
The Act contained controller responsibilities, including:
- Limiting the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary;
- not processing personal data for purposes that are neither reasonably necessary to, nor compatible with, the disclosed purposes that were disclosed to the consumer, unless the controller obtains the consumer's consent;
- Establishing, implementing and maintaining reasonable administrative, technical and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of personal data;
- Not processing sensitive data concerning a consumer without obtaining the consumer's consent, or, in the case of the processing of sensitive data concerning a known child, without processing such data in accordance with COPPA;
- Providing an effective mechanism for a consumer to revoke the consumer's consent that is at least as easy as the mechanism by which the consumer provided the consumer's consent and, upon revocation of such consent, ceasing to process the data as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 days after the receipt of such request; and
- Not processing the personal data of a consumer for purposes of targeted advertising, or selling the consumer's personal data without the consumer's consent, under circumstances where a controller has actual knowledge, and willfully disregards, that the consumer is at least 13 years of age but younger than 16 years of age.
The controller also must provide a privacy notice meeting the standards set forth by the Secretary of State. Controllers must conduct data protection assessments for each processing activity that presents a heightened risk of harm to a consumer, including: (i) the processing of personal data for the purpose of targeted advertising; (ii) the sale of personal data; (iii) the processing of sensitive data; and (iv) the processing of personal data for profiling, where profiling presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of consumers, unlawful disparate impact, or undue intrusion upon solitude or seclusion.
The attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the Act. Between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025, the attorney general is required to provide notice of an alleged violation and an accompanying 60-day cure period before commencing an enforcement action. Beginning January 1, 2026, the attorney general has the discretion to provide an opportunity to cure but is not required to provide such an opportunity. The Act does not include a private right of action. The Act will take effect on January 1, 2025.
CFPB sends letters of support for New York’s pending unfair and abusive conduct prohibition
On March 19, the CFPB published a blog post providing input on New York State’s proposed prohibition on unfair and abusive acts, urging passage of A 7138 and S 795, companion bills that are titled the “Consumer and Small business Protection Act” (the “Acts”). The blog post followed the CFPB’s delivery of letters in support of the Act to Governor Hochul, state senators, and state assembly members.
The Acts would expand Section 349 of New York’s general business law to prohibit unfair or abusive acts or practices, in addition to the existing prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Acts would also give the New York attorney general authority to bring an action for unfair, unlawful, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, “regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is directed at individuals or businesses, is consumer-oriented, or involves the offering of goods, services, or property for personal, family or household purposes,” and would give “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” authority to bring “an action to recover one thousand dollars and his or her actual damages, if any, or both such actions, … regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is consumer-oriented, has a public impact or involves the offering of goods, services or property for personal, family or household purposes.”
The Acts defined an act or practice as unfair “when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.” They provided that an “act or practice is deceptive when the act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead a person and the person’s interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances,” and that an act or practice is abusive when “it materially interferes with the ability of a person to understand a term or condition of a product or service,” or “takes unreasonable advantage of: (A) a person’s lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service; (B) a person’s inability to protect his or her interests in selecting or using a product or service; or (C) a person’s reasonable reliance on a person covered by this section to act in his or her interests.” The Bureau’s letters to the state governor and legislature noted that the “reasonable reliance” component of the Acts is “critical,” and like the federal prohibition that “recognizes that people often reasonably expect that certain businesses will help them make difficult financial decisions, and there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of that trust.” The CFPB also mentioned that it has brought numerous actions based on that particular component.
The Acts provided that “standing to bring an action under this section, including but not limited to organizational standing and third-party standing, shall be liberally construed and shall be available to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law.” Further, “[a]ny individual or non-profit organization entitled to bring an action” under the Acts “may, if the prohibited act or practice has caused damage to others similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of himself or herself and such others to recover actual, statutory and/or punitive damages or obtain other relief as provided for in” the Acts. A nonprofit also may bring an action on behalf of itself, its members, or members of the public that have been injured by a violation of the Acts. Nonprofits may seek the same remedies and damages as individuals.
Wisconsin enacts SB 628 to protect vulnerable adults
On March 22, the Governor of Wisconsin signed SB 628 (the “Act”), which “allows financial service providers to refuse or delay financial transactions when financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult is suspected.”
The Act would authorize financial service providers to refuse or postpone financial transactions on accounts held by or benefiting a vulnerable adult—a term defined as “an adult at risk or an individual who is at least 65 years of age”—if there is a reasonable suspicion of financial exploitation. The Act would not mandate covered financial service providers, which included financial institutions, mortgage bankers, brokers, and loan originators, among others, to take such action. Additionally, financial service providers were allowed, but not obligated, to act on information from elder-adult-at-risk agencies, adult-at-risk agencies, or law enforcement regarding potential financial exploitation. The Act mandated that financial service providers give notice when transactions are refused or delayed and defined the time limits for such actions. It also permitted financial service providers to refuse to accept a power of attorney if financial exploitation is suspected. Moreover, the Act outlined a procedure for financial service providers to compile a list of contacts that a vulnerable adult authorizes, which can be used if exploitation is suspected, and authorized the financial service provider to share its suspicions with designated individuals, including those on the list. Financial service providers acting in good faith would be granted immunity from any criminal, civil, or administrative liability for actions such as (i) refusing or not refusing a financial transaction; (ii) refusing to accept or accepting a power of attorney; (iii) contacting or not contacting a person to convey suspicion of financial exploitation; and (iv) any action based on a reasonable determination related to these measures. The Act went into effect on March 23.
South Dakota enacts new money transmission law, aligning the law to the Money Transmission Modernization Act
Recently, the Governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, signed into law SB 58, which amended and repealed many parts of the state’s money transmission law enacted in 2023 to bring the law more into alignment with a model Money Transmitter Model Law. South Dakota was one of several states that have enacted the model law since 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here), to harmonize the licensing and regulation of money transmitters between states.
Among many other new provisions, the Act defined “money” to mean a “medium of exchange that is authorized or adopted by the United States or a foreign government” but excluded any central bank digital currency. Additionally, the Act provided for several exemptions, such as the “agent of a payee” exemption, which exempted an agent who collects and processes payment from a payor to a payee for goods and services other than money transmission itself from the Act’s coverage, under certain specified circumstances.
The Act also imposed a licensing regime on persons engaged in the business of money transmission and authorizes and encourages the South Dakota Director of the Division of Banking (Director) to coordinate the licensing provisions with other states and utilize the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System for the license applications, maintenance, and renewals. SB 58 amended the required surety bond amount from $100,000 to $500,000, to the greater of $100,000 or an amount equal to the licensee’s average daily money transmission liability in South Dakota for the most recent three-month period, up to a maximum of $500,000, or if the licensee’s tangible net worth exceeds 10% of total assets, $100,000.
Once a license application is completed, the Director will have 120 days to approve or deny the application. In addition to the license application process, the Act also outlined the criteria for renewing, maintaining, and changing control of the license, as well as the licensee’s responsibility to keep records and maintain permissible investments. Notably, if a licensee is transmitting virtual currencies, then the licensee must “hold like-kind virtual currencies of the same volume as that held by the licensee but that is obligated to consumers” instead of the permissible investments otherwise listed under the Act. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
Utah enshrines two acts to create cybersecurity notification guidelines
On March 19, Utah enacted SB 98 which amended the state’s online data security and privacy requirements. SB 98 will include new protocols that individuals and governmental entities must follow under its data breach reporting requirements. SB 98 will require individuals and governmental entities to provide specific information about the breach, including, among other things: (i) when the data breach occurred; (ii) when the data breach was discovered; (iii) the total number of individuals affected by the breach, with a separate count for Utah residents; (iv) the type of personal data involved; (v) a brief description of the data breach; and only for government entities (vi) the path of means by which access was granted to the system if known; (vii) the individual or entity who perpetrated the breach if known; and (viii) the actions taken by the governmental entity to mitigate the effects of the breach. Additionally, the Cyber Center will be tasked with assisting the governmental entity in responding to breaches. This assistance may include: (a) conducting or participating in an internal investigation; (b) assisting law enforcement with their investigation if necessary; (c) determining the scope of the data breach; (d) helping the entity to restore the integrity of the compromised system; and (e) providing any other necessary support in response to the breach.
On that same day, the governor also signed into law HB 491 which enacted the Government Data Privacy Act. Similarly, the bill will describe the duties of state government agencies related to personal data privacy, including breach notification requirements, limits on data collection and use, and the ability to correct and access personal data. On structure, the bill created the Utah Privacy Governing Board to recommend changes in the state privacy policy, established the Office of Data Privacy to coordinate implementation of privacy protections, and named the Personal Privacy Oversight Commission to the Utah Privacy Commission and amended the commission’s duties. Both SB 98 and HB 491 will go into effect on May 1.
Trade groups sue Colorado Attorney General to block enforcement of law limiting out-of-state bank charges on consumer credit
On March 25, three trade groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, against the Colorado Attorney General and the Administrator of the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code to prevent enforcement of Section 3 of House Bill 23-1229, which was signed into law last year to limit out-of-state bank charges on consumer credit (the “Act”). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Act amended the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code to opt out of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) provision that allowed state-chartered banks to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of the location of the borrower and regardless of conflicting out-of-state law. The Act would go into effect on July 1.
According to the complaint, the Act “far exceed[s]” the authority Congress granted Colorado under DIDMCA and would be deemed “invalid on its face.” Plaintiffs alleged that Colorado ignored the federal definition of where a loan was deemed to be “made,” imposing “its state interest-rate caps on any ‘consumer credit transaction[] in’ Colorado,” including “any loan to a Colorado consumer by any state-chartered bank that advertises on the internet in Colorado.” Plaintiffs further alleged that the Act’s opt out “is preempted by DIDMCA and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to expand the federally granted opt-out right to loans not actually ‘made in’ Colorado under federal law,” and “violates the Commerce Clause because it will impede the flow of interstate commerce and subject state-chartered banks to inconsistent obligations across different states.” The Plaintiffs also alleged that Colorado’s stated goal of combatting “predatory, payday-style lending” will not be accomplished through the opt out, as plaintiffs’ members are not payday lenders and offer “a wide variety of useful, familiar, everyday credit products” that “are provided at a range of rate and fee options, which sometimes—to account for credit risk—are above Colorado’s rate and fee caps, but within the rate caps allowed by DIDMCA.” Furthermore, plaintiffs warn that the Act “will prevent Plaintiffs’ members from offering these mainstream products to many Colorado consumers,” while “national banks will still offer these very same loan products to Colorado residents at interest rates in excess of Colorado’s interest-rate and fee caps.” Plaintiffs urged the court to issue a ruling stating that the Act “is void with respect to loans not ‘made in’ Colorado as defined by applicable federal law” and to enjoin Colorado from enforcing or implementing the Act with respect to those loans.
Nacha’s new rules intends to reduce business fraud that uses credit-push payments
On March 18, Nacha announced rule amendments intended to reduce the incidence of frauds that leverage credit-push payments, such as vendor impersonation and business email compromise (BEC). While, importantly, the rules will not shift liability for ACH payments as between the parties, they will establish obligations on originating financial institutions (ODFIs) and receiving depository financial institutions (RDFIs) to monitor the sending and receipt of payments for potential fraud, and they will empower the same to flag potentially fraudulent payments for action. Specifically, the rule amendments will allow “the originating financial institution (ODFI) to request the return of the payment for any reason, the RDFI to delay funds availability (within the limits of Regulation CC) to examine the payment more closely, and the RDFI to return a suspicious transaction on its own initiative without waiting for a request or a customer claim.”
As part of the amendment announcement, NACHA cited the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center’s 2023 annual report, noting that BEC, vendor impersonation, and payroll impersonation are examples of fraudulent activities “that result in payments being ‘pushed’ from a payer’s account to the account of a fraudster,” and that there were 21,489 BEC complaints totaling $2.9 billion in reported losses in 2023, making BEC the second-costliest cybercrime category.
The first set of rule amendments are effective October 1, which, among other things, allow an RDFI to use return code R17 for potential fraud, including for “false pretenses,” and an ODFI to request a return from an RDFI for any reason, including fraud. The first set of amendments also provided RDFIs “with an additional exemption from the funds availability requirements to include credit entries that the RDFI suspects are originated under false pretenses,” subject to Regulation CC. Finally, the RDFI will be required to promptly return any unauthorized consumer debit by the 6th banking day after it reviewed a consumer’s signed Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit.
The first set of rule amendments will be followed by subsequent (phase 1 and phase 2) amendments. The phase 1 amendments, effective March 20, 2026, will, among other things, require ODFIs, and non-consumer originators, third party providers, and third party senders with an annual ACH origination volume of six million or more to implement or enhance appropriate risk-based process and procedures to identify fraudulent transfers. Under phase 1, NACHA will also require RDFIs with ACH receipt volumes of 10 million or more to establish risk-based processes and procedures to identify fraudulent activity. The second phase, effective June 19, 2026, will require fraud risk monitoring for the remaining non-consumer originators, third party providers, and third-party senders.