InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC, states sue rental listing platform for fraud
On August 30, the FTC announced a lawsuit, together with the attorneys general from New York, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts, against a rental listing platform and its owners for allegedly charging consumers for false endorsements and fake listings. The complaint, which alleges violations of the FTC Act and various state laws, claims that the defendants used both fake reviews and fake listings to lure consumers to its platform and pay for access to so-called “verified and authentic living arrangement listings.” In particular, one of the individual defendants is alleged to have deceptively promoted the platform “by providing tens of thousands of fake four- and five-star reviews” to app stores. That individual defendant stipulated to the entry of a proposed stipulated final order on the same day, which requires the following: (i) cooperation with the FTC’s ongoing action; (ii) informing the app stores that he was paid to post reviews and identify the fake reviews and when they were posted; (iii) a permanent ban from selling or misrepresenting consumer reviews or endorsements; and (iv) payment of a total of $100,000 to the state AGs.
The action is part of the FTC’s on-going efforts to address fake and deceptive reviews, which include a $4.2 million action taken against an online fashion retailer accused of suppressing negative reviews, and warnings issued in 2021 to more than 700 companies announcing that they may face fines over misleading online endorsements (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
FFIEC releases new HMDA tool
On August 30, the CFPB unveiled the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s Quarterly Graphs tool, which permits users to view HMDA mortgage loan data and, for the first time, follow mortgage market trends throughout the collection year. According to the CFPB, the new tool integrates currently available quarterly data submitted by financial institutions who report a combined total of at least 60,000 applications and covered loans (excluding purchased covered loans) for the preceding calendar year. The tool provides graphs for an extensive lists of metrics, including loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, borrower credit scores, denial rates, interest rates, and total loan costs. The tool also allows users to download graphs in a number of formats, including CSV, XLS, PDF, or custom web link. The tool currently contains data for 2019, 2020, 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, with future quarter data being added as it is available.
FTC sues data broker for unfair sale of sensitive data
On August 29, the FTC announced an action taken against a data broker accused of allegedly selling precise geolocation data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that can be used to trace individuals’ movements to and from sensitive locations. According to the complaint, the defendant purchases location information from other data brokers and packages it into customized data feeds that match unique mobile device advertising identification numbers with timestamped latitude and longitude locations. These data feeds allow purchasers to identify and track specific mobile device users with no restrictions on usage and puts consumers at significant risk, the FTC claimed, noting that by failing to adequately protect its data from public exposure, consumers may be identified and face substantial injury. Moreover, people are often unaware that their location data is being purchased and shared by the defendant and have no control over its sale or use, the FTC said in its announcement. The complaint alleges the defendant’s unfair sale of sensitive data violates the FTC Act, and seeks a permanent injunction and any additional relief deemed just and proper.
3rd Circuit vacates dismissal of FCRA lawsuit regarding sovereign immunity
On August 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of an FCRA lawsuit, holding that the federal government does not have sovereign immunity under the statute and can be held liable for reporting requirement violations. The plaintiff sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and a student loan servicer for allegedly reporting two loans as past due even though he claimed both were closed with a $0 balance. The plaintiff notified the relevant consumer reporting agency who in turn notified the USDA and the servicer. When neither entity took action to investigate or correct the disputed information, the plaintiff sued all three parties for damages under Section 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA. The USDA moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity claims, which the district court granted on the grounds that the United States and its agencies are not subject to liability under the FCRA—a decision in line with opinions issued by the 4th and 9th Circuits.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit disagreed, instead siding with opinions issued by the D.C. and 7th Circuits that reached the opposite conclusion. According to the 3rd Circuit, the federal government and its agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from civil suits unless Congress unambiguously waives it within a statute. The FCRA provides that any “person” who either negligently or willfully violates the statute is liable to the consumer for civil damages, the appellate court wrote, noting that the term “person” is defined to include any “government or governmental subdivision or agency.” The appellate court stressed that Congress need not express its intent in any particular way, and that courts need only look at the statutory text to discern Congress’ intent. Where Congress wanted to use a narrower definition of “person” in the FCRA, it did so, the appellate court said, pointing to where the FCRA specifically excludes the federal government from the statutory obligations for persons who make adverse employment decisions based on credit reports. “We presume, therefore, that Congress’s failure to do so in §§ 1681n and 1681o was deliberate and intended to convey the full statutory definition,” the 3rd Circuit wrote, finding that Congress unambiguously waived the government’s sovereign immunity in enacting FCRA.
SEC amends whistleblower rules
On August 26, the SEC adopted two amendments to its whistleblower program rules, which will expand the circumstances in which the Commission can pay whistleblowers for their information and assistance in connection with non-SEC actions, and affirms the Commission’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the purposes of increasing, but not decreasing, an award. Specifically, the final rule amends Rule 21F-3 to allow the SEC “to pay whistleblower awards for certain actions brought by other entities, including designated federal agencies, in cases where those awards might otherwise be paid under the other entity’s whistleblower program.” The expanded circumstances contemplated by the SEC include instances “when the other [federal] entity’s program is not comparable to the [SEC]’s program or if the maximum award that the [SEC] could pay on the related action would not exceed $5 million.” The final rule also amends the SEC’s authority under Rule 21F-6 to ”affirm the [SEC]’s authority … to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the limited purpose of increasing the award.” The amendment “eliminate[s] the [SEC]’s authority to consider the dollar amount of a potential award for the purpose of decreasing the award.” SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated that the amendments “will strengthen [the SEC’s] whistleblower program.” Commissioner Hester M. Peirce in contrast said that while the amendments are “inconsequential” to the success of the whistleblower program, they “carry harmful consequences both for the whistleblower program and for the [SEC]’s rulemaking processes” and “further complicate the already byzantine rules governing [the SEC’s] whistleblower program.”
SEC fines bank $1.7 million over misstating value of real estate loans
On August 24, the SEC issued a cease and desist order to a bank for allegedly misstating representations regarding the securitization of commercial real estate (CRE) loans. According to the order, from the first quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2019, the respondent bank made filings with the SEC in which it reported gains that it received from the sales of loans included in five CRE securitizations. Among other things, the SEC alleged that the bank: (i) “failed to document adequately and incorporate all reasonably available market data into its valuation assumptions for the CRE certificates” it received as consideration in the CRE securitizations, and (ii) “omitted and misstated material information related to the certificates and the assumptions that it had used in valuing those certificates in certain of its quarterly and annual financial statements.” The SEC noted that the bank allegedly improperly used unreasonably low assumptions for the prepayment risks applicable to the CRE certificates. In particular, the SEC alleged that the bank used baseline prepayment assumptions of 0 percent or 5 percent constant prepayment yields (CPY) while not properly documenting why other approaches were not adopted, such as the existing convention of using 100 CPY, or using available market research which indicated comparable loans generally exceeded 30 percent CPY. Without admitting or denying the allegations, the bank agreed to pay a $1.75 million civil penalty. The company will also cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Exchange Act.
California broadens DFPI commissioner’s enforcement authority
On August 26, the California governor signed AB 2433, which broadens DFPI’s unlawful practices oversight and enforcement power over any person currently engaging in or having engaged in the past, in unlicensed activity. Among other things, the bill amends the DFPI commissioner’s enforcement of various laws, such as the California Commodity Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law (CFL), Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Student Loan Servicing Act, and California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. The bill establishes that the commissioner may act “upon having reasonable grounds to believe that a broker-dealer or investment advisor has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill also permits the DFPI to “act upon having cause to believe that a licensee or other person has violated the CFL.” The CFL provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders, brokers, and specified program administrators by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a citation to the licensee or person and to assess an administrative fine, as specified, among other things. The CFL also regulates certain persons acting under the PACE program, including PACE solicitors and PACE solicitor agents. The new bill establishes that “if the commissioner, upon inspection, examination, or investigation, has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or PACE solicitor agent is violating any provision of that law, or rule or order thereunder, the commissioner or their designee is required to exhaust a specified procedure before bringing an action.” Additionally, bill specifies that certain “procedures apply when the commissioner has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or solicitor agent has violated any provision of that law or rule or order thereunder.” The bill also mentions the Student Loan Servicing Act, which “provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the commissioner,” and establishes that the commissioner is required, upon having reasonable grounds after investigation to believe that a licensee is conducting business in an unsafe or injurious manner, to direct, by written order, the discontinuance of the unsafe or injurious practices. This bill specifies “that these procedures also apply if, after investigation, the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill is effective immediately.
3rd Circuit: District Court erred in applying ascertainability precedent when denying class action certification
On August 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a ruling denying class certification in an action concerning inaccurate consumer reports, holding that the district court misinterpreted Section 1681g(a) of the FCRA and erred in applying the appellate court’s ascertainability precedent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant, a consumer reporting agency (CRA), provided inaccurate consumer reports as part of a rental application process. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant refused to correct the information on the reports unless plaintiffs “obtained proof of the error from [the defendant’s] sources” despite failing to provide the identity of the sources to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs responded by filed a putative class action alleging the defendant “violated its obligation under the FCRA to disclose on request ‘[a]ll information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request’ and ‘the sources of that information.’” However, the district court denied class certification on the grounds that class members “failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements and that their proposed class and subclass were not, in any event, ascertainable.”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit closely reviewed when the provisions of § 1681g(a) were applicable. The appellate court first determined the disclosure requirements of § 1681g(a) could only be triggered by a direct request from a consumer, and not a third-party request as the plaintiffs had argued. In so doing, the appellate court found that the district court was “right to distinguish between consumers who made direct requests under § 1681g and consumers who received courtesy copies of the property managers’ Rental Reports,” and affirmed the denial of the “All Requests” class sought by plaintiffs. The appellate court next determined that the district court incorrectly narrowed the disclosure requirements of § 1681g(a) to where a request was specifically made for a consumer’s “file” as opposed to a request for a “report.” The appellate court concluded that “[n]othing in the statute’s text, context, purpose, or history indicates that any magic words are required for a consumer to effect a ‘request’ under § 1681g(a) or that a consumer’s request for ‘my consumer report’ is any less effective at triggering the CRA’s disclosure obligations than a request for ‘my file.’” As a result, the appellate court vacated the district court’s finding as to the predominance requirement of class certification and remanded for the district court “to consider whether Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements are satisfied with respect to” consumers in a purported subclass who had made a direct request for a report or file.
The appellate court concluded by determining the district court had additionally errored in its analysis of ascertainability of the proposed class by requiring too high a standard for administrative feasibility. The district court had ruled that where identification of putative class members would require a file-by-file review, ascertainability was “not administratively feasible.” The appellate court disagreed, stating that ascertainability does not mean that “no level of inquiry as to the identity of class members can ever be undertaken,” as it “would make Rule 23(b)(3) class certification all but impossible.” The appellate court instead held that “a straightforward ‘yes-or-no’ review of existing records to identify class members is administratively feasible even if it requires review of individual records with cross-referencing of voluminous data from multiple sources.”
District Court approves class action settlement against securities trading platform and broker-dealer
On May 16, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement in a class action against a securities trading platform and broker-dealer (defendant) for allegedly allowing unauthorized users access to customers’ accounts. As described in plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement, class members alleged the defendant “lacked security measures used by other broker-dealer online systems,” which allowed “thousands of [the defendant’s] customer accounts [to be] accessed by unauthorized users.” Based on these allegations, class members brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of various state consumer privacy, competition, and advertising laws. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant must provide cash payments of up to $260 each to settlement class members who submit a claim, up to a total amount of $500,000. Additionally, among other things, the defendant must “provide two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to those who elect to receive it,” must “maintain improvements to its security protocols and policies to decrease the risk of unauthorized access to its customers’ accounts,” and must “respond effectively to instances of potential unauthorized access” in the future.
Fed’s FedNow instant-payments platform to launch mid-2023
On August 29, the Federal Reserve Board announced that its FedNow service will launch mid-year 2023, targeting May to July as the production rollout window for the anticipated instant-payments platform. The FedNow pilot program is scheduled to enter technical testing in September with more than 120 organizations taking part. As covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in May, the Fed issued a final rule for its FedNow service that offers more clarity on how the platform will work. According to the Fed, the FedNow service will be accessible to financial institutions of any size to help expand the reach of instant payments to communities nationwide. FedNow pilot program participants “will complete a certification process to ensure operational and messaging readiness and then move into production once the service is launched,” the Fed said, noting that as the pilot program moves into the testing phase, it will engage non-pilot financial institutions and service providers interested in being early adopters.
“Just as the Federal Reserve has made a substantial commitment to our new instant payment infrastructure, we are calling on industry stakeholders to do the same,” Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard said during a speech at the FedNow Early Adopter Workshop. “The shift to real-time payment infrastructure requires a focused effort, but the shift is inevitable. The time is now for all key stakeholders—financial institutions, core service providers, software companies, and application developers—to devote the resources necessary to support instant payments.”