InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit says telemarketing texts sent to mixed-use cells phones fall under TCPA
On October 12, a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a TCPA complaint, disagreeing with the argument that the statute does not cover unwanted text messages sent to businesses. Plaintiffs (who are home improvement contractors) alleged that the defendants used an autodialer to send text messages to sell client leads to plaintiffs' cell phones, including numbers registered on the national do-not-call (DNC) registry. The plaintiffs contented they never provided their numbers to the defendants, nor did they consent to receiving text messages. The defendants countered that the plaintiffs lacked Article III and statutory standing because the TCPA only protects individuals from unwanted calls. The district court agreed, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked statutory standing and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On appeal, the majority disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs did not expressly consent to receiving texts messages from the defendants and that their alleged injuries are particularized. In determining that the plaintiffs had statutory standing under sections 227(b) and (c) of the TCPA, the majority rejected the defendants’ argument that the TCPA only protects individuals from unwanted calls. While the defendants claimed that by operating as home improvement contractors the plaintiffs fall outside of the TCPA’s reach, the majority determined that all of the plaintiffs had standing to sue under § 227(b), “[b]ecause the statutory text includes not only ‘person[s]’ but also ‘entit[ies].’” With respect to the § 227(c) claims, which only apply to “residential” telephone subscribers, the appellate court reviewed whether a cell phone that is used for both business and personal reasons can qualify as a “residential” phone. Relying on the FCC’s view that “a subscriber’s use of a residential phone (including a presumptively residential cell phone) in connection with a homebased business does not necessarily take an otherwise residential subscriber outside the protection of § 227(c),” and “in the absence of FCC guidance on this precise point,” the majority concluded that a mixed-use phone is “presumptively ‘residential’ within the meaning of § 227(c).”
Writing in a partial dissent, one judge warned that the majority’s opinion “usurps the role of the FCC and creates its own regulatory framework for determining when a cell phone is actually a ‘residential telephone,’ instead of deferring to the FCC’s narrower and more careful test.” The judge added that rather than “deferring to the 2003 TCPA Order which extended the protections of the national DNC registry to wireless telephones only to the extent they were similar to residential telephones, a reasonable interpretation of the TCPA, the majority has leaped over the FCC’s limitations to provide its own, much laxer, regulatory framework and procedures that broadly allow anybody who owns a cell phone to sue telemarketers under the TCPA.”
Fed governor “highly skeptical” of U.S. CBDC
On October 14, Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller spoke during the “Digital Currencies and National Security Tradeoffs” symposium presented by the Harvard National Security Journal regarding the U.S. dollar and central bank digital currencies (CBDC). Waller said that he is “highly skeptical of whether there is a compelling need for the Fed to create a digital currency.” Regarding foreign CBDCs, Waller first considered the emergence of foreign CBDCs in a world without the U.S. CBDC. He noted that “advocates for a CBDC tend to promote the potential for a CBDC to reduce payment frictions by lowering transaction costs, enabling faster settlement speeds, and providing a better user experience.” Because of “the well-known network effects in payments,” Waller pointed out that “the more users the foreign CBDC acquires, the greater will be the pressure on the non-U.S. company to also use the foreign CBDC.”
However, Waller considered that the broader factors underpinning the dollar’s international role would not change. Waller further noted the possibility that a foreign-issued CBDC could have the opposite of its intended effect and make companies even less willing to use that country’s currency. Waller further noted that creating a U.S. CBDC “would come with a number of costs and risks, including cyber risk and the threat of disintermediating commercial banks, both of which could harm, rather than help, the U.S. dollar's standing internationally.” He said he believes that a U.S. CBDC would raise many issues, including money laundering and international financial stability. Waller also considered a scenario in which a privately issued stablecoin pegged to a sovereign currency is available for international payments. He stated that they may be more attractive than existing options due to their ability to provide real-time payments at a lower cost and their ability to provide a safe store of value for individuals residing in or transacting with countries with weak economic fundamentals. He further warned that stablecoins “must be risk-managed and subject to a robust supervisory and regulatory framework.” Waller reiterated that "no decisions have been made" at the Fed on CBDCs and noted that his remarks are intended to provide a free and open dialogue on their utility. He also noted that he is “happy to engage in vigorous debate regarding my view,” and “remain[s] open to the arguments advanced by others in this space.”
Freddie to consider bank account data in automated underwriting
On October 17, Freddie Mac announced that beginning November 6, borrowers’ bank account data will be included as part of its loan purchase eligibility assessments. This “industry-first capability” will be made available to lenders and brokers through Freddie’s automated Loan Product Advisor (LPA) underwriting system. “With the addition of positive monthly cash flow data, our underwriting system can help with more accurately predicting a borrower’s ability to pay their mortgage because it uses a comprehensive view of how personal finances are managed over time,” Freddie said in its announcement. “Our latest innovation levels the playing field and helps make homes more accessible to borrowers whose lenders might not have qualified them with traditional methods of underwriting. This should particularly help first-time homebuyers and underserved communities.”
Lenders and brokers must obtain borrowers’ permission in order to submit financial data showing 12 or more months of cash flow activity. Data may be obtained from checking, savings, and investment accounts, including those used for direct deposit of income and monthly bill payments, such as rent, utilities, and auto loans, Freddie said, stressing that “account data submitted can only positively affect the borrower’s credit risk assessment.” Lenders and brokers will also be able to obtain financial account data from designated third-party service providers through LPA’s asset and income modeler—the same automated process used to verify assets, income, employment, and on-time rent payments, Freddie explained. Additionally, LPA will advise lenders when a borrower may benefit from the submission of additional account data.
The announcement follows Freddie’s decision to start considering on-time rent payments as part of its loan purchase decisions to increase homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
VA seeks comments on loss-mitigation options for guaranteed loans
On October 17, the Department of Veterans Affairs published a proposed rule in the Federal Register related to the Department’s Loan Guaranty Service. The proposed rule requests public comments regarding the expansion of the VA’s incentivized loss mitigation options that are available to servicers assisting veterans whose VA-guaranteed loans are in default. Specifically, the VA encourages comments regarding “any other topic that will help VA as it explores whether to expand the incentivized loss-mitigation options outlined in VA regulation.” Comments are due by January 17.
House subcommittee asks CFPB for data on crypto-related fraud
On October 14, the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra requesting information and documents on the Bureau’s efforts to combat cryptocurrency-related fraud. In the letter, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) expressed concerns that Congress “may need” to pass legislation to help “bring stability to the digital asset industry.” He also argued that “a lack of a central authority to flag suspicious transactions in many situations, the irreversibility of transactions," and the consumers and investors' limited understanding has made “cryptocurrency a preferred transaction method for scammers.” Among other things, the letter asked the Bureau to provide information by October 28 concerning (i) its efforts to combat crypto-related scams and fraud and inform consumers about the risks related to investments in cryptocurrencies; (ii) its authority to identify and investigate potentially fraudulent digital assets or accounts used on cryptocurrency exchanges associated with illicit activities; (iii) its regulatory authority concerning cryptocurrencies; and (vi) documents setting out the existing framework for interagency cooperation on the regulation of cryptocurrencies. Krishnamoorthi also requested that the Bureau provide answers by October 21 to several questions, such as “what tools, including but not limited to code audits, disclosure requirements, or consumer alerts, could provide consumers with additional information to better assess the risks associated with a digital asset?” and “should cryptocurrency holdings be treated as commodities, securities, or both?”
OFAC issues Russian sanctions alert
On October 14, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published a Russia-related alert, Impact of Sanctions and Export Controls on Russia’s Military-Industrial Complex. The alert, issued by OFAC, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Department of State, is intended to inform the public of the impact of sanctions and export control restrictions targeting Russia’s defense capabilities and warn of the risks of supporting Russia’s military-industrial complex. The alert also, among other things, outlined efforts taken by OFAC and the State Department involving Russia since February 2022, such as issuing approximately 1,500 new and 750 amended sanctions listings. The alert also described the strategic intent and impact of actions, highlighting efforts “to degrade Russia’s ability to wage its unjust war against Ukraine and prevent Russia from projecting military force beyond its borders.” OFAC also published new Russia-related Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 1092, which clarifies that “non-U.S. companies risk exposure to sanctions for providing ammunition or other military goods to Russia or for supporting Russia’s military-industrial complex.”
New York prohibits agencies from assessing additional student debt charges
On October 12, the New York governor signed S7862B, which prohibits state agencies from assessing certain additional collection fee charges on certain outstanding student debts. According to the bill, no state agency is permitted to assess an additional collection fee charge on any debt “owed by a debtor to a state agency for a liability resulting from tuition, fees, room and board, educational benefit overpayments, student loans, or other such charges incurred by a student in furtherance of such student's education,” under certain circumstances. The act is effective April 1, 2023.
District Court rules model validation is not required under FDCPA
On October 13, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted a debt collector’s motion to remand a case back to state court in an FDCPA suit. According to the order, the plaintiff collected unpaid debts for a hospital (defendant) for approximately 15 years. The terms of the formalized agreement established a one-year term that was set to renew automatically so long as the parties agreed to its terms. The agreement required the plaintiff to comply with various laws and regulations, including the FDCPA, and regulations by the CFPB. In November 2021, Regulation F, promulgated by the CFPB, took effect, which clarified a provision of the FDCPA by requiring debt collectors to convey in their initial communications with debtors the debtors’ right to dispute the debt. The order further noted that after the Bureau “provided notice of its intent to enact Regulation F and the public comment period ended, [the plaintiff] ‘began working with its third-party software provider and third-party letter printer to modify [the plaintiff’s] initial contact letter to reflect the safe harbor model in Regulation F.’” However, the defendant was not able to ensure the changes were made before the regulation took effect. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter declaring that it was in breach of the agreement since it failed to use the safe-harbor model language. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s “failure to use the safe-harbor model amounted to a violation of Regulation F and the FDCPA.” The letter requested that the plaintiff terminate all collection activity on the defendant’s accounts. The plaintiff filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the letter it was using complied with the FDCPA. The defendant removed the case to federal court, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The court found that using model notice language is not required under the FDCPA or Regulation F. The court noted that “[a] debt collector may comply by using a different form so long as the required information is provided in a clear and conspicuous manner.” The court further noted that the alleged federal issue in the claim “is not substantial enough” to warrant keeping the case in federal court and granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court.
Fed, FDIC to consider enhancing large bank resolution requirements
On October 18, the FDIC Board of Directors approved the publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on whether new requirements should be drafted to enhance the regulators’ ability to resolve large banks in an orderly way should they fail. The jointly proposed FDIC/Federal Reserve Board ANPRM seeks feedback on several new possible requirements, including a long-term debt requirement, that could be used for the orderly resolution of domestic large banking organizations in Categories II and III (which generally exceed a threshold of $250 billion in total consolidated assets) to help prevent customer and counterparty disruption. According to a Fed memo, the regulators are exploring whether certain bank resolution standards applicable to global systemically important banks (GSIBs) should be extended to other large banks that, while not as large as GSIBs, “could have very large or complex operations” and have expanded in size due to mergers and “organic growth.” The ANPRM, among other things, also seeks comment on the costs associated with such a proposal, recognizing that “a long-term debt requirement could impact the cost and availability of credit.” The regulators are also evaluating whether they should establish separability requirements, “such as the sale, transfer, or disposal of significant assets, portfolios, legal entities or business lines on a discrete product line or regional basis,” for some or all large banks to aid recovery or resolvability. Comments on the ANPRM are due within 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
“As the banking system changes, policymakers must continuously evaluate whether resolution-related standards and prudential standards for large banks keep pace,” Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr said in an announcement issued by the Fed earlier in the week. He explained that the regulators are evaluating whether capital requirements for large banks (including GSIBs), as well as other elements of the prudential framework, should be updated.
Expressing support for the joint ANPRM, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu stressed that “[e]xploring the development of a rule that can ensure the resolvability of large, domestically-systemic banks will promote financial stability by guarding against the rise of non-GSIBs that may become too-big-to-fail, while enabling true competition amongst the largest banks.” CFPB Director and FDIC Board Member Rohit Chopra also expressed his support for the ANPRM. However, Chopra cautioned that if rulemaking is pursued, it “should not serve as a rationale for continuing a lax and opaque merger review process.” Chopra also advised that efforts “to reduce the risk of bailouts or increased concentration upon the failure of domestic systemically important banks should be complemented by efforts to reduce the probability of their failure,” and that the “increased attention on domestic systemically important banks should not be interpreted to mean that it is ‘mission accomplished’ when it comes to” GSIBs.
Agencies finalize TILA, CLA 2023 thresholds
On October 13, the CFPB and Federal Reserve Board finalized the annual dollar threshold adjustments that govern the application of TILA (Regulation Z) and the Consumer Leasing Act (Regulation M) (available here and here), as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The exemption threshold for 2023, based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, will increase from $61,000 to $66,400, except for private education loans and loans secured by real or personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of a consumer, which are subject to TILA regardless of the amount. The final rules take effect January 1, 2023.