InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB seeks to enhance public data on auto lending
On November 17, the CFPB announced it is seeking public comment on its proposal to develop a new data set to monitor the auto loan market. According to the Bureau, more than 100 million Americans have an auto loan, and currently there is approximately $1.5 trillion in outstanding auto loan debt, making it the third-largest consumer credit category. The Bureau explained that financial markets and policymakers have access to mortgage data that has given insight into patterns in lending and risk. But, despite its size, there is less known about the auto lending market. Over the past two years, car prices have risen significantly, which has resulted in higher loan amounts and monthly payments. The Bureau noted that these loan size increases are “beginning to have an impact on consumers and households. Recent data show an increase in auto loan delinquencies, particularly for low-income consumers and those with subprime credit scores.” According to the Bureau, the available data permits market participants to identify and measure certain trends but is insufficiently granular to fully explore the cause of those trends. The Bureau also noted that many auto loans are made to consumers with subprime or deep subprime credit scores from lenders that do not furnish data on those loans to credit reporting agencies. Specifically, for its request, the Bureau is “seeking to build a new data set that will allow for a more robust understanding of market trends,” which may include, among other things, “collecting retrospective data from a sample of lenders that represent a cross-section of the auto lending market.” Comments are due by December 19.
FTC seeks feedback on possible changes to Business Opportunity Rule
On November 17, the FTC announced it is soliciting public comments on possible modifications to the Business Opportunity Rule. According to the FTC’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), the Commission is seeking feedback on the rule’s effectiveness, whether it is necessary, and whether it should be expanded to cover other types of money-making opportunities, such as coaching or mentoring programs, e-commerce opportunities, or investment opportunities. The Business Opportunity Rule prohibits the use of deceptive statements when selling business opportunities, and requires sellers to make several key disclosures to potential buyers, including: (i) the seller’s identifying information; (ii) information supporting claims about possible earnings or profits; (iii) disclosures about whether the seller, its affiliates, or key personnel have been included in certain legal actions; (iv) information on whether the seller has a cancellation or refund policy and any applicable policy terms; and (v) a list covering the past three years of consumers who have purchased the business opportunity. The FTC will also require sellers who conduct business in languages other than English to provide disclosures in the language in which the sale is conducted.
The ANPR also asks commenters to address whether business opportunity practices “disproportionately target or affect certain communities or groups, including but not limited to people living in lower-income communities, communities of color, or other historically underserved communities,” and requests feedback on suggested amendments to address any negative effects. Comments on the ANPR are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
DFPI announces investigation into crypto platform
On November 10, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it is investigating “the apparent failure” of a crypto asset platform, which recently announced that it filed for bankruptcy. According to DFPI, it takes “oversight responsibility very seriously,” and expects “any person offering securities, lender, or other financial services provider that operates in California to comply with our financial laws.”
OFAC sanctions Iranian media corporation
On November 16, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13846 against six senior employees of the Iranian state-run media corporation that has broadcast hundreds of forced confessions of Iranian, dual national, and international detainees in Iran. According to OFAC, the corporation was designated in 2013 and does not act “as objective media outlet but rather as a critical tool in the Iranian government’s mass suppression and censorship campaign against its own people.” OFAC also noted that the corporation has “recently broadcast televised interviews of individuals being forced to confess that their relatives were not killed by Iranian authorities during nationwide protests but died due to accidental, unrelated causes.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons. Persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals or entities designated today may themselves be exposed to designation. Additionally, OFAC warned that “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the individuals designated today could be subject to U.S. sanctions.”
Treasury recommends closer supervision of fintech-bank partnerships
On November 16, the U.S. Treasury Department, in consultation with the White House Competition Council, released a report entitled Assessing Impacts of New Entrant Non-bank Firms on Competition in Consumer Finance Markets. The report is a product of President Biden’s July 2021 Executive Order, Promoting Competition in the American Economy, (covered by InfoBytes here), which, among other things, ordered Treasury to submit a report within 270 days on the effects on competition of large technology and other non-bank companies’ entry into the financial services space. Assessing Impacts of New Entrant Non-bank Firms on Competition in Consumer Finance Markets is the final report in a series of reports that assesses competition in various aspects of the economy. Among other things, the report found that while concentration among federally insured banks is increasing, new entrant non-bank firms, specifically “fintech” firms, are adding significantly to the number of firms and business models competing in consumer finance markets and appear to be contributing to competitive pressure. In addition to enabling new capabilities, fintech firms are also creating new risks to consumer protection and market integrity, according to the report. The report noted that non-bank firms could “pose risks by engaging in harmful regulatory arbitrage, conducting activities in a manner that inappropriately sidesteps safety and soundness and consumer protection law requirements applicable to an [insured depository institution].”
The report also noted that new entrant non-bank firms or their offerings may pose risks of reliability or fraud issues, in addition to data privacy risks and the potential for new forms of surveillance and discrimination. The report provided recommendations for regulators to encourage fair and responsible competition that benefits consumers and their financial well-being, including: (i) addressing market integrity and safety and soundness concerns by providing a clear and consistently applied supervisory framework for bank-fintech relationships; (ii) protecting consumers by robustly supervising bank-fintech lending relationships for compliance with consumer protection laws and their impact on consumers’ financial well-being; and (iii) encouraging consumer-beneficial innovation by supporting innovations in consumer credit underwriting designed to increase credit visibility, reduce bias, and prudently expand credit to underserved consumers.
DFPI revokes crypto lending company's license; issues notice to suspend a different crypto lending company
On December 19 , the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it has moved to revoke a cryptocurrency lender’s license. According to DFPI revoking the license "is the result of the department’s examination, which found that the New Jersey-based finance lender failed to perform adequate underwriting when making loans and failed to consider borrowers’ ability to repay these loans, in violation of California’s financing laws and regulations." DFPI previously announced on November 18 an order suspending a cryptocurrency lender’s California license for 30 days pending DFPI’s investigation. The suspension follows the DFPI’s notice to suspend issued on November 11, which was prompted by the cryprocurrency lender's November 10 announcement that it would limit platform activity, including pausing client withdrawals. DFPI noted that the cryptocurrency lender confirmed its “significant exposure to [a crypto asset platform]” and affiliated entities. DFPI further noted that the cryptocurrency lender expected “that the recovery of the obligations owed to us by [the crypto company] will be delayed as [the crypto company] works through the bankruptcy process.” According to the cryptocurrency lender, withdrawals would continue to be paused. DFPI also noted that in February 2022, the respondent was ordered to desist and refrain from offering or selling unqualified, non-exempt securities in the form of its interest accounts in California.
Later, DFPI issued an order suspending a different cryptocurrency lender’s license license for 30 days pending DFPI’s investigation into the respondent’s recent announcement to limit its platform activity, including pausing client withdrawals. The respondent had sent a communication to customers signed by the CEO, stating: “I am sorry to report that the collapse of [the cryptocurrency lender that was issued a notice to suspend from DFPI on November 10] has impacted our business. Until we are able to determine the extent of this impact with specific details that we feel confident are factually accurate, we have paused deposits and withdrawals on [its own platform] effective immediately.” DFPI also noted that it is “investigating the extent to which [the cryptocurrency lender] has been affected by the bankruptcy of [the cryptocurrency lender that was issued a notice to suspend from the DFPI on November 10] and related companies.”
9th Circuit says number generator does not violate TCPA
On November 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s dismissal of a proposed TCPA class action, holding that in order for technology to meet the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer), the system must be able to “generate and dial random or sequential telephone numbers under the TCPA’s plain text.” Plaintiff claimed he began receiving marketing texts from the defendant after he provided his phone number to an insurance company on a website. Plaintiff sued alleging violations of the TCPA and asserting that the defendant used a “sequential number generator” to select the order in which to call customers who had provided their phone numbers. This type of number generator qualifies as an autodialer under the TCPA, the plaintiff contended, referring to a footnote in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook v. Duguid (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), which narrowed the definition of an autodialer under the TCPA and said “an autodialer might use a random number generator to determine the order in which to pick phone numbers from a preproduced list.” Defendant countered, however, that its system is not an autodialer, and “that the TCPA defines an autodialer as one that must generate telephone numbers to dial, not just any number to decide which pre-selected phone numbers to call.”
The 9th Circuit was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument, calling it an “acontextual reading of a snippet divorced from the context of the footnote and the entire opinion.” The appellate court pointed out that nothing in Facebook suggests that the Supreme Court “intended to define an autodialer to include the generation of any random or sequential number.” The 9th Circuit further explained that “[u]sing a random or sequential number generator to select from a pool of customer-provided phone numbers would not cause the harms contemplated by Congress.”
2nd Circuit: Convicted SEC whistleblower cannot claim award
On November 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition from a plaintiff to review a decision by the SEC to not grant him his whistleblower award because he pled guilty to participating in the crime he reported. According to the order, the plaintiff provided information to the SEC that assisted in a successful agency enforcement action with respect to an international bribery scheme. The plaintiff timely filed an application for a whistleblower award in connection with both the action for which he had provided information and another related action. He pled guilty to bribery charges but had not yet been sentenced. The order further noted that because of the guilty plea, the SEC determined that the plaintiff had been “convicted of a criminal violation related to” the bribery scheme that was at issue in both actions. The order noted that, generally, the SEC is required under federal law to pay a monetary award to a whistleblower when that whistleblower “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement” of “any judicial or administrative action brought by the Commission under the securities laws that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.” The order further noted that the SEC may not make an award "to any whistleblower who is convicted of a criminal violation related to the judicial or administrative action for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award.”
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that he was not “convicted” under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(c)(2)(B). The plaintiff also claimed that the fact that he had not yet been sentenced—even though a court has accepted his guilty plea—means that he had not been “convicted.” The appellate court found that he did not raise this issue before the agency and therefore it need not address the plaintiff’s argument about the meaning of “convicted.” But even if it were to excuse the forfeiture, the plaintiff’s argument would fail, the appellate court concluded. The plaintiff also argued that the bribery charges to which he pled guilty were not connected to the actions he was a whistleblower on, and that the SEC did not support its finding of a connection with any substantial evidence. The appellate court disagreed with this argument as well, stating the SEC and the plaintiff interpret the meaning of “related to” differently. The appellate court further explained that “[t]he SEC interprets the term to mean that 'the conduct underlying the criminal conviction must be connected to or stand in some relation to the Covered Action.'" The order stated, “[the plaintiff] suggests that the term requires the whistleblower to have been 'a part of the conduct underlying the ... enforcement action' and to have known about the conduct during its occurrence.’”
FTC sues company for deceptive schemes
On November 16, the FTC announced an action against a company that markets and sells business opportunities for allegedly pitching deceptive moneymaking schemes promising big returns to consumers. Claims were also brought against the company owners. The FTC alleged in its complaint that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by selling business packages and business coaching through an internet retailer under various names that promised consumers they could “generate passive income on autopilot.” However, the FTC claimed the defendants charged consumers between $5,000 and $100,000 for the programs and used fake consumer reviews in their marketing and sales pitches. Few consumers ever made money from these schemes, the FTC said. Additionally, the defendants allegedly charged consumers thousands of dollars to participate in a cryptocurrency investment service, which defendants claimed could generate profits for consumers “while you sleep.” According to the FTC, the defendants harmed consumers by, among other things, (i) deceiving them about potential earnings; (ii) using fake testimonials; (iii) suppressing negative reviews and promising refunds to consumers if they removed their complaints; (iv) threatening to sue dissatisfied consumers and adding language to contracts to prevent consumers from leaving negative reviews; and (v) failing to provide required disclosures when selling their programs.
Under the terms of the proposed stipulated order, the defendants will be prohibited from making deceptive earnings claims and misleading consumers about the nature of their products, including the likelihood of profits. Defendants must also stop engaging in behavior that interferes with consumer reviews and complaints. The defendants will also be required to pay $2.6 million in monetary relief. The proposed order includes nearly $53 million in total monetary judgment, which is partially suspended due to defendants’ inability to pay.
Yellen cites crypto market risks
On November 16, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen issued a statement addressing recent crypto market developments. “The recent failure of a major cryptocurrency exchange and the unfortunate impact that has resulted for holders and investors of crypto assets demonstrate the need for more effective oversight of cryptocurrency markets,” Yellen said, stressing that existing regulations must be rigorously enforced against those who operate in the crypto-asset space. Acknowledging recent actions taken by federal regulators to address crypto risks in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Digital Assets (covered by InfoBytes here), Yellen cautioned that it is imperative for the federal government, including Congress, to move quickly to address regulatory gaps in this space. She warned that while spillovers from recent events in the crypto markets “have been limited,” the interconnections between the traditional financial system and the crypto markets “could raise broader financial stability concerns.”