InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants motion to approve settlement under federal and CA FDCPA
On November 16, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California granted the parties’ motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement and provisional class certification. The plaintiffs sued under both the federal FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The class action comprises a lead plaintiff as well as approximately 300 individuals.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, a debt collector, left numerous voicemails and text messages between June and October 2021 that failed to disclose the defendant’s identity, and nature of business, and that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt. The plaintiffs also alleged that the communications instilled a “false sense of urgency… by falsely representing or implying that a civil lawsuit would be filed… to collect a defaulted consumer debt” when none was actually filed.
During mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case. Under the terms of the proposed settlement approved by the court, the defendant will pay $51,975 to the plaintiffs, and up to $123,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiffs will each receive no less than $175, while the leading plaintiff will receive $2,000.
District Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss in a class action under FDCPA.
On November 27, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a class action case brought under the FDCPA. The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiffs did not suffer “concrete injury” and therefore did not have standing to sue.
The plaintiffs received debt collection letters from the defendant stating that the defendant might “take additional collection efforts” including sending “a negative credit report” if there was no response within seven days. The plaintiffs alleged the letters were “deceptive” because they violated the defendant’s own policy of credit reporting at 60 days and not seven days. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs suffered no “concrete injury” and therefore did not have standing to bring this case.
Because the plaintiffs did not incur any concrete harm—they did not allege any out-of-pocket expenses or public embarrassment as a result of the collection letters—the plaintiffs instead advanced a “novel” standing argument. Turning to the Supreme Court’s decision, the plaintiffs argued that violation of a traditional tort that Congress had elevated by statute can provide sufficient “concrete harm.” Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that the collection letter violated the “anchor tort” of unreasonable debt collection when Congress had elevated to a statutory basis when enacting the FDCPA.
The court disagreed. In its opinion, the court noted that the plaintiffs had only provided two relevant cases indicating the existence of the unreasonable debt collection tort, both of which were from Texas, the oldest of which was nearly 70 years old. The court held that “a tort that exists in only one jurisdiction is not prevalent enough to be traditional,” and there was no precedent to determine whether a 70-year-old tort was old enough to be “traditional.” Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and granted a motion to dismiss.
CFPB comments on California DFPI licensing provisions, income-based advances
On December 1, the CFPB posted a blog entry sharing its comment letter responding to the California DFPI’s notice of proposed rulemaking for “income-based advances” from earlier this year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DFPI’s proposed regulations would, among other things, clarify licensing provisions and the applicability of the CFL to certain activities. Within the CFPB’s comment letter, it stressed the importance of regulatory consistency of consumer financial products and services across federal and state law. The letter noted the CFPB’s view that companies offering “income-based advances” (also marketed as “earned wage access”) are subject to federal oversight, and the CFPB supports state oversight of such companies as well. Moreover, the CFPB said that DFPI’s particular treatment of income-based advances takes a similar approach to TILA and Regulation Z and that the CFPB plans to issue further guidance regarding the applicability of TILA to these products.
OCC Acting Deputy Comptroller Murphy testifies on OCC’s Office of Financial Technology
On December 5, the Acting Deputy Comptroller of the OCC’s Office of Financial Technology, Donna Murphy, testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion. Her testimony focused on the OCC’s supervision and regulation of new and emerging fintech products.
Created in October 2022, the Office of Financial Technology regulates and supervises all aspects of fintech innovation in the federal banking system, including bank-fintech partnerships, artificial intelligence, and digital assets. Murphy testified that a strong risk management plan against third parties is essential. She referenced the joint guidance issued earlier this year by the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC (previously covered by InfoBytes, here).
Murphy also discussed the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms in banking, highlighting the many ways they can strengthen safety and soundness, enhance consumer protection, improve compliance, address financial crime, and increase fairness and access to the banking system. However, Murphy highlighted the need for banks to focus on software design, testing, security, and data management when implementing artificial intelligence. Lastly, Murphy iterated the OCC’s commitment to reducing inequality in banking and increasing access to financial services for all.
CFPB’s report on Americans’ financial health, post-pandemic.
On December 1, the CFPB released a report titled: “Making Ends Meet in 2023: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey” that discussed Americans’ financial health in 2023 in comparison to 2019 – before the Covid-19 pandemic. From June 2019 to February 2021, consumers benefited from increased savings and expanded unemployment benefits; however, beginning in 2022 and carrying into 2023, consumers experienced an increased strain on their finances. When comparing the last two years to 2019, the CFPB found that: (i) more families are facing greater difficulty paying their bills; (ii) more families are unprepared for a short interruption of income; (iii) access to credit remains difficult; (iv) liquidity remains available to households; and (v) large disparities in financial stability continue.
CFPB releases 2023 Ombudsman report
On November 30, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office published its annual report, which detailed inquiries handled by the office, included a new FAQ section, and described the second year of the Ombudsman’s post-examination survey of supervised entities. The Ombudsman reviewed some pertinent topics the CFPB faced in the past year, including recognizing imposter scams, distinguishing between new and duplicate consumer complaints, assisting consumers with diminished capacity, and helping the public contact the CFPB.
In detail, and on recognizing imposter frauds, the Ombudsman provided CFPB resources and posted a blog on scam awareness in English and Spanish. On distinguishing between new and existing complaints, consumers expressed concern that the CFPB closed their cases without providing a reason or that the CFPB mistakenly identified complaints as duplicative. The report described the CFPB’s process for identifying duplicate complaints, noted consumers’ concerns, and indicated that the CFPB continues to review this issue. On assisting consumers with diminished capacity, the Ombudsman discussed challenges with third-party entities assisting with a case, as well as offering resources on power of attorney questions. And on helping the public contact the CFPB, the Ombudsman identified contact points that could improve, such as the CFPB’s website and telephone switchboard, and asked the CFPB to update the contact points.
FHFA announces increases in 2024 conforming loan limits
On November 28, FHFA announced that it will raise the maximum conforming loan limits (CLL) for mortgages purchased in 2024 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $726,200 to $776,550 (the 2023 CLLs were covered by InfoBytes here) for most of the United States. In Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the maximum loan limit for one-unit properties will be 1,149,825. According to the FHFA, due to rising home values (up 5.56 percent since 2022), CLLs will be higher for all but five U.S. counties.
FTC to send refunds to service providers implicated in false claims enforcement action
On November 28, the FTC announced it is sending more than $3 million in refunds to businesses from an enforcement action against a Colorado-based digital marketplace company. In 2022, the FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging, among other things, that the defendant made false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims regarding the quality and source of the leads it was selling to service providers, such as general contractors and small lawn care businesses (covered by InfoBytes here). As a result of its January proposed order, FTC will disperse 110,372 refunds to eligible home service providers, and is sending out 91,273 claims forms to businesses that paid for one of defendant’s services.
CFPB obtains stipulated judgment ordering student financing company to pay over $30 million in damages
On November 20, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered a stipulated judgment in favor of the CFPB and 11 other state enforcement agencies in connection with an adversary proceeding against a vocational training program. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the education firm (company) engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting its income share agreement as not a loan and not debt, and misleading borrowers into believing that no payments would need to be made until they received a job offer. According to the CFPB, the company trained consumers to become sales development representatives, an entry-level role that requires “little or no prior sales experience or training,” and made promises it could not deliver on, such as promising a “6-figure” career in software sales. The company also initially priced its services at $2,500 in 2018, and then increased it to $15,000 the following year without any value justification. The company would recoup its payment through income share agreements (ISA). The CFPB alleged multiple causes of action against the company, including violations of the CFPA, TILA, and the FDCPA, among others. The stipulated judgment includes orders requiring the company to refund student borrowers, cancel outstanding loans, and permanently shut down.
FDIC OIG makes recommendations based on material loss report
On November 28, the OIG for the FDIC delivered a material loss review report. The report’s objectives were twofold: first, to determine why a bank’s issues led to a material loss to the deposit insurance fund; and second, to review the FDIC’s supervision of the bank and make recommendations to prevent similar losses in the future.
The report outlined 11 recommendations for the FDIC to implement so it can improve its supervision process over the banking sector. The recommendations include: (i) to evaluate if and why banks may wait to issue CAMELS ratings downgrades until they issue a Report of Examination; (ii) to identify whether the training curriculum should be adjusted to emphasize why timely ratings changes are important; (iii) to review FDIC examination guidance to determine if enhancements are necessary to highlight when a bank’s practices do not align with its policies, and make recommendations; (iv) to evaluate and update examination guidance to require supervisory actions when it violates its risk-appetite statement metrics; (v) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual for any updates to the examination guidance pertinent to evaluating the stability of uninsured deposits; (vi) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual to determine if any updates are required to the examination guidance pertinent to banks’ deposit outflow assumptions for liquidity stress testing; (vii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required for monitoring other banks, horizontally, for similar risk characteristics; (viii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required regarding incorporating shared risk characteristics that lead to risk in the FDIC’s supervisory approach; (ix) to explore research methods to monitor large bank reputational risk; (x) to evaluate if Chief Risk Officers should place more consideration on unrealized losses and declines in fair value; and (xi) to work with other federal regulators on evaluating necessary rule changes, such as the adoption of noncapital triggers.