InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit affirms summary judgment finding in favor of debt collector in lawsuit over retail card debt collection
On August 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of a district court to throw out a pair of consolidated punitive class action lawsuits brought against a nationwide debt collector company that alleged the company unlawfully attempted to collect debts incurred on retail-branded credit cards. A three-judge panel held that the debt collector did not “intentionally” violate provisions of the FDCPA when it circulated collection letters that did not disclose the time-barred natures of the debts under Oregon law and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the district court had erred in granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The 9th Circuit noted that “mistakes about the time-barred status of a debt can be bona fide errors” and that the debt collector company presented evidence indicating that its failure to disclose that certain Oregon debts were time-barred were not intentional. Moreover, the 9th Circuit rejected plaintiff’s claim that a four-year statute of limitations applied to store-branded credit card accounts at the time the collection letters were sent, in part because the debt collector had sound reason to take the position that a six-year statute of limitations applied for an “account stated” under Oregon law. Ultimately, the applicable statute of limitations in this scenario remains “unsettled” under Oregon law. This, along with the fact that the 9th Circuit agreed that the company’s alleged violations were unintentional, resulted in the court’s decision to affirm the summary judgment finding in favor of the debt collector.
California governor signs executive order on GenAI
On September 6, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an Executive Order (E.O.) instructing state agencies to evaluate how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may impact the State and its residents. Specifically, the E.O. requires certain state agencies to provide a report to the Governor which will examine “the most significant, potentially beneficial uses” of GenAI tools by the state. The report must also discuss “the potential risks to individuals, communities, and government and state government workers” from GenAI tools. Certain California agencies, including the Department of Technology, must perform a “risk analysis of potential threats to and vulnerabilities of California’s critical energy infrastructure by the use of GenAI.” The E.O. also requires that the State issue “general guidelines for public sector procurement, uses, and required training for use of GenAI,” and consider pilots of GenAI projects to be tested in “sandboxes.” Lastly, the E.O. directs the State to pursue a formal partnership with certain California higher education institutions to study the impacts of GenAI and support its safe growth.
California AG announces settlement with mortgage servicer
On September 1, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta announced a settlement with a mortgage servicer for its alleged failure to properly process and grant mortgage deferment requests from California military reservists called to active duty. California’s Military and Veterans Code, which includes the California Military Families Financial Relief Act, allows reservists to delay paying mortgages, credit cards, property taxes, car loans, utility bills, and student loans. To defer payment, they must submit a written request and their military orders to the entity to which their payments are due. The AG noted that the California Department of Justice investigated the mortgage servicer’s processes for handling mortgage deferment requests and found that the servicer delayed granting the deferment requests, requested information for eligibility review outside of the 30-day timeframe to do so, and improperly denied deferment requests, on at least 10 occasions. Furthermore, the servicer allegedly attempted to collect payment from some borrowers during the requested deferral period by making calls and sending notices that warned that the servicer would foreclose on the borrowers’ properties if they failed to pay. The servicer also allegedly incorrectly charged some borrowers late fees and other charges for nonpayment of payments that should have been deferred. Finally, the servicer allegedly provided incorrect negative credit information to credit reporting agencies.
Under the terms of the settlement, the servicer agreed to, among other things, (i) pay $58,000 in civil money penalties; (ii) “remediate consumer harm”; (iii) disclose deferment request status to borrowers; and (iv) provide annual reports to the AG documenting compliance with the injunctive terms.
California appeals court reverses dismissal of Rosenthal Act class action
On August 30, a California Appeals Court (Appeals Court) reversed a lower court’s ruling that a mere alleged debt, whether or not actually due or owing – as opposed to a debt that is, in fact, actually due or owing – is insufficient to state a claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). Enacted in 1977, the Rosenthal Act aims “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts.” Plaintiff purchased a home with a previously-installed solar energy system. The previous homeowner and plaintiff reached an agreement whereby the prior homeowner would purchase the energy produced through the system through monthly payments. However, the defendant, the provider of the solar energy system, sent late payment notices to plaintiff demanding that he make monthly payments. Although plaintiff did not engage in a “consumer credit transaction” with the defendant, the Appeals Court found that the plaintiff’s receipt of statements and notices from the defendant constituted money “alleged to be due or owing,” as required to state a claim under the Rosenthal Act. In holding that the plaintiff’s claim “has merit,” the Appeals Court emphasized that the Rosenthal Act was specifically designed to “eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid,” and “[i]t is difficult to conceive of a more unfair debt collection practice than dunning the wrong person”.
CFPB contests Kentucky banks' motion to block enforcement of Small Business Lending Rule
On September 5, the CFPB filed an opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction made by a group of Kentucky banks (plaintiff banks) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiff banks filed their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order to enjoin the CFPB from enforcing the Small Business Lending Rule against them for the same reasons that a Texas district court enjoined enforcement of the rule (Texas decision covered by InfoBytes here). The CFPB argues that the plaintiff banks have not satisfied any of the factors necessary for preliminary relief, including that they have not shown that their claim is likely to succeed on the merits, and they have not shown that they face imminent irreparable harm. The Bureau also argues that the plaintiff banks are factually wrong in asserting that the Rule would require lenders to compile “‘scores of additional data points’ about their small business loans,” and that the additional data requirements are consistent with the Bureau’s statutory authority to require such additional data if it assists in “‘fulfilling the purposes of [the statute].’” The CFPB argues, among other things, that the “outlier ruling of the 5th Circuit” in the Texas case does not demonstrate that the plaintiff banks are entitled to the relief they seek.
Fed announces enforcement action against Kansas bank for operational deficiencies
On September 5, the Fed announced a cease and desist order (the “order”) against a Kansas bank holding company and its subsidiary bank (collectively, the “bank”) for having significant operational deficiencies, including deficiencies related to staffing, internal controls, credit risk management, lending and credit administration, capital, information technology and information security, books and records, regulatory reporting, liquidity and funds management, earnings, interest rate risk management, third-party risk management, and other deficiencies such as compliance with federal laws related to AML/BSA requirements.
The order directs the bank to, among other things, (i) strengthen board oversight; (ii) engage a third party to conduct an assessment of the bank’s corporate governance and staffing; (iii) improve lending and credit administration policies and procedures; (iv) correct the identified information technology and information security deficiencies; (v) revise its allowance for credit losses methodology to comply with supervisory guidance; (vi) enhance interest rate risk management practices; (vii) improve internal controls; (viii) submit a written plan to maintain sufficient capital; (ix) enhance liquidity risk management; and (x) improve the bank’s earnings and overall condition. The order also directs the Bank to improve its BSA/AML compliance program and internal audit program, and to take all necessary steps to correct all violations of law or regulation and to ensure future compliance.
FDIC announces launch of new examination portal
On September 5, the FDIC announced the launch of a new Banker Engagement Site (“BES”) through FDICconnect. The BES will provide a secure and efficient electronic portal through which financial institutions may exchange documents, information and communications for consumer compliance and Community Reinvestment Act examinations. BES will not be used for other FDIC examinations, including safety and soundness examinations. The announcement notes that the FDIC’s existing tool to exchange examination information, the Enterprise File Exchange, will continue to be used when the pre-planning for consumer compliance and CRA activity initiated prior to the availability of BES and also may be utilized in some additional circumstances.
Federal and state financial regulatory agencies issue joint statement on the effects of Hurricane Idalia on supervisory practices
On September 1, the FDIC, Fed, NCUA, OCC and CSBS issued a joint statement recognizing the serious impact of Hurricane Idalia on the customers and operations of many financial institutions in the effected area.
The guidance discusses the following aspects of financial institution operations:
- Lending: The agencies encourage financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers in affected communities, including prudent efforts to adjust existing loan terms, and declares that the agencies will not subject such efforts to examiner criticism. “The agencies recognize that efforts to work with borrowers in communities under stress can be consistent with safe-and-sound practices as well as in the public interest.”
- Temporary Facilities: The agencies understand that many financial institutions face staffing, power, telecommunications, and other challenges in re-opening facilities and will expedite, as appropriate, any request to operate in temporary facilities.
- Publishing Requirements: The agencies understand that the damage that the hurricane caused may affect compliance with publishing and other requirements for branch closings, relocations, and temporary facilities. Impacted institutions should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator.
- Regulatory Reporting Requirements: Impacted institutions that expect to encounter difficulty meeting the agencies' reporting requirements should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator to discuss their situation.
- Community Reinvestment Act: Financial institutions may receive CRA consideration for community development loans, investments or services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas.
- Investments: The agencies encourage financial institutions to monitor municipal securities and loans affected by the hurricane, including those related to local government projects.
CFPB posts guidance on RESPA
On September 1, the CFPB posted guidance to its website that affirms guidance on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that the Department of Housing and Urban Development previously issued. In 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred responsibility for RESPA from HUD to the CFPB. At the time, the Bureau stated that it would apply “the official commentary, guidance, and policy statements” that HUD had issued on RESPA “pending further CFPB action” and would give “due consideration” to other (i.e., informal) guidance and interpretations. Although the Bureau has issued certain consent orders and other statements that may cast doubt on whether it interprets RESPA in the same manner that HUD did, in the most recent posting, the Bureau confirms that the list of documents posted by the Bureau generally “continue to be applied today by the CFPB.”
FDIC’s CRA evaluation rates fintech bank “needs to improve” for alleged FTC Act violations
On September 5, the FDIC released the list of nonmember banks examined for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is intended to “encourage insured banks and thrifts to meet local credit needs.” Included in the list was a fintech bank that the FDIC rated as “Needs to Improve” for reasons involving its overall record of helping meet the credit needs of underserved communities. According to the FDIC’s CRA performance evaluation of the Utah-based bank, the FDIC adjusted the CRA rating from “Satisfactory” to “Needs to Improve” due to illegal credit practices that resulted in violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices that were present during the time of the evaluation period. The FDIC found that the bank’s actions impacted a significant number of customers across the bank’s fuel card programs, and that the practices were sustained for multiple years. The FDIC also noted that, after the bank was notified of the violations, it implemented corrective measures, including customer restitution.