InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Illinois amends Collection Agency Act provisions
On May 27, the Illinois governor signed HB 5220, which makes various amendments to provisions related to the state’s Collection Agency Act. Among other things, the amendments strike language repealing specified provisions and add, amend, and strike certain definitions, including amending “financial institution” to include “consumer installment lenders, payday lenders, sales finance agencies, and any other industry or business that offers services or products that are regulated under any Act administered by the [Director of the Division of Financial Institutions].” The amendments further provide that an adjudicated finding by the FTC or other federal or state agency that shows a licensee violated the FDCPA or its rules is grounds for disciplinary action. Also, at the discretion of the Secretary (after having first received the recommendation of the Collection Agency Licensing and Disciplinary Board), an “accused person’s license may be suspended or revoked, if the evidence constitutes sufficient grounds for such action.” Moreover, the amendments restore language providing that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may obtain written recommendations from the Collection Agency Licensing and Disciplinary Board “regarding standards of professional conduct, formal disciplinary actions, and the formulation of rules affecting these matters.” The Act takes effect January 1, 2023.
Massachusetts amends mortgage lender/broker licensing provisions
Recently, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, Division of Banks announced final amendments effective May 27 to certain provisions of Regulation 209 CMR 42.00, which establishes procedures and requirements for the licensing and supervision of mortgage lenders under M.G.L. c. 255E. (See also redlined version of the final amendments here.) Specifically, the amendments:
- Add and amend certain definitions. The amendments add new terms such as “Bona Fide Nonprofit Affordable Homeownership Organization” and “Instrumentality Created by the United States or Any State,” and amend “Mortgage Broker” to also include a “person who collects and transmits information regarding a prospective mortgage loan borrower to a third party” that conducts any one or more of the following activities: (i) collects a prospective borrower’s Social Security number; (ii) views a prospective borrower’s credit report; (iii) obtains a prospective borrower’s authorization to access or view the borrower’s credit report or credit score; (iv) accepts an application; or (v) issues a prequalification letter.
- Add licensing exemptions. The amendments provide a list of persons that are not required to be licensed in the state as a mortgage broker or mortgage lender. These include: (i) lenders making less than five mortgage loans and persons acting as mortgage brokers fewer than five times within a 12 consecutive-month period; (ii) banks, national banking associations, federally chartered credit unions, federal savings banks, or any subsidiary or affiliate of the above; (iii) banks, trust companies, savings banks, and credit unions “organized under the laws of any other state; provided, however, that such provisions shall apply to any subsidiary or affiliate, as described in 209 CMR 42.0”; (iv) nonprofit, public, or independent post-secondary institutions; (v) charitable organizations; (vi) certain real estate brokers or salesmen; and (vii) persons whose activities are “exclusively limited to collecting and transmitting” certain quantities of specified information regarding a prospective borrower to a third party.
The amendments also specifically provide that “a person who collects and transmits any information regarding a prospective mortgage loan borrower to a third party and who receives compensation or gain, or expects to receive compensation or gain, that is contingent upon whether the prospective mortgage loan borrower in fact obtains a mortgage loan from the third party or any subsequent transferee of such information, is required to be licensed as a mortgage broker.”
Judges disagree that “psychological states” can never support standing under FDCPA
On June 8, a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied a plaintiff-appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc in a case concerning the collection of time-barred debt. In April, the 7th Circuit vacated a $350,000 jury award against a debt collector in an FDCPA action, holding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter offering to resolve her defaulted credit card debt at a discount. The letter included a disclosure stating that “because of the age of the debt” it would not sue or report the debt to a credit agency and that payment or nonpayment would not affect her credit score. The plaintiff sued, claiming the letter “surprised and confused” her and was in violation of Sections 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA. The district court certified a class and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff “reasoning that the misleading nature of the letter risked real harm to the interests that Congress sought to protect with the FDCPA.” A jury awarded the class $350,000 in damages. On appeal, the panel disagreed, explaining that the plaintiff never made a payment as a result of receiving the letter, nor did she “promise to do so or otherwise act to her detriment in response to anything in or omitted from the letter.” Calling the defendant to dispute the debt and contacting an attorney for legal advice “are not legally cognizable harms” and not enough to provide the “basis for a lawsuit,” the court wrote, adding that “[p]sychological states induced by a debt collector’s letter” are not enough to establish standing.
The majority of the 7th Circuit agreed with the panel’s ruling and voted not to hold an en banc rehearing. However, four judges dissented, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims “should easily satisfy” standing requirements established by the U.S. Supreme Court. “The emotional distress, confusion, and anxiety suffered by [plaintiff] in response to this zombie debt collection effort fit well within the harms that would be expected from many of the abusive practices,” the dissent said. “That’s true regardless of whether the debtor actually made a payment or took some other tangible action in response to them.” According to the dissent, the majority is “painting with too broad a brush” in finding that “[e]motional distress and other ‘psychological states’ can never support standing under the FDCPA.” This reasoning also overlooks close historical parallels in common and constitutional law that provide remedies for intangible injuries caused by many violations of the FDCPA and other consumer-protection statutes, the dissent added.
9th Circuit affirms lower court’s decision in TCPA suit
On June 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling on summary judgment that an individual’s text messages sent to a financial institution provided the express consent required under the TCPA to be contacted via an autodialer system. According to the opinion, the plaintiff, who was not a customer of the defendant, sent 11 text messages to the defendant’s short code number. Ten of the messages were unrelated to the defendant’s business, and the plaintiff’s messages were replied to with an automated message providing instructions about how to stop receiving text messages and how to contact the defendant. The remaining text message from the plaintiff to the defendant consisted of the word “STOP” to which the defendant replied with the response that plaintiff is not subscribed and will not receive alerts. These reply texts were the only text messages the defendant sent to the plaintiff’s mobile phone. Based on these facts, the plaintiff filed suit in the District of Connecticut, alleging that the defendant violated the TCPA by replying to his text messages using an automatic call-generating capability without obtaining the plaintiff’s consent. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, and plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the suit and subsequently sued in the District of Hawaii under similar facts and claims. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that each of the texts sent to the defendant by the plaintiff constituted prior express consent to receive reply texts. The court also awarded attorneys’ fees to defendant as “costs” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d).
The 9th Circuit agreed with the district court’s determination that the plaintiff “expressly consented to receive reply text messages.” With respect to the awarding of attorney’s fees, the appellate court recognized a circuit split on the issue of whether Rule 41(d) costs included attorney’s fees, and held that, (i) “costs” under Rule 41(d) does not include attorney’s fees as a matter of right and (ii) for purposes of the TCPA, “cost” does not include attorney’s fees because “it is undisputed that the TCPA does not provide for the award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
Acting FDIC Chairman Gruenberg outlines CRA NPRM
On June 13, acting FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg provided remarks before the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In his remarks, Gruenberg discussed “ten important provisions” in the rule proposed by the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC in May. As previously covered by InfoBtytes, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) updates how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. Calling the CRA “the foundation of responsible finance for low- and moderate-income communities in the United States,” Gruenberg noted that the “NPRM would significantly expand the scope and rigor of CRA and assure its continued relevance for the next generation.” To expand the scope of the CRA, he explained that the NPRM would “establish new retail lending assessment areas to allow for CRA evaluation in communities where a bank may be engaging in significant lending activity but where the bank does not have a branch.” He also noted that the NPRM would “raise the bar for CRA performance on the retail lending test in order for a bank to earn an outstanding or high satisfactory rating.” With respect to greater clarity for CRA evaluations, Gruenberg said that the NPRM would “clearly define community development activities by establishing eleven proposed categories of community development.” Regarding minority depository institutions, Gruenberg said that the NPRM “creates a specific community development definition for eligible activities, such as investments, loan participations, and other ventures conducted by all banks with these institutions.” Additionally, he noted that the NPRM would address credit or banking deserts, including rural areas, native lands, and areas of persistent poverty, and would encourage the retention or establishment of branches in low-to-moderate-income communities and low-cost transaction accounts.
CFPB releases guide for accessing HMDA lending patterns
On June 13, the CFPB published a guide to assist a range of stakeholders accessing publicly available HMDA data on lending patterns that may result in racial and economic inequality due to redlining practices or other “unjustified disparities.” Through the Beginner’s Guide to Accessing and Using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, stakeholders can better understand the sources and meanings of various HMDA data types as well as the financial institutions that are required to maintain, report, and publicly disclose loan-level information about mortgage applications and loans. According to the Bureau, HMDA data can provide insights on whether lenders are serving the housing needs of their communities and help guide policy decisions.
CFPB publishes annual report on servicemember complaints
On June 13, the CFPB's Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) released its annual report, which provides an overview of OSA’s activities in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for fiscal year 2021. The report highlights issues facing military consumers based on approximately 42,700 complaints submitted by servicemembers, veterans, and their families (collectively “servicemembers”). Key takeaways from the report include the following:
- Credit or consumer reporting. In 2021, servicemembers submitted over 17,000 credit or consumer reporting complaints, making it the most complained about financial product or service. The report found that the most common issue that servicemembers noted in their credit or consumer reporting complaints concern problems with incorrect information on a report.
- Medical billing. The report found that over half of medical debt collection complaints from servicemembers were about debts the individuals reported they did not owe. Many of these complaints stemmed from breakdowns in communication between private health care providers and TRICARE, the health insurance program for active-duty military. The report also discussed how frequent moves can increase the difficulty in receiving information or resolving the matter.
- Policy developments. The report noted that earlier this year, the VA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending its regulations around the conditions by which VA benefits debts or medical debts are reported to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), and creating a methodology for determining a minimum threshold for debts reported to the CRAs (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the report, the final rule by the VA “set a clear and important precedent for the health care industry.”
- Recommendations. Among other things, the report recommended that there should be “more robust data” on the scope and impact of medical debt on servicemembers, and that “[m]edical providers and third-party billing companies should have adequate systems in place to serve servicemembers.”
OFAC clarifies certain Russia-related prohibitions
On June 9, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the publication of new Russia-related FAQs. Among other things, the FAQs provide information on the previously issued Determination Pursuant To Section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 14071, which prohibits “the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of accounting, trust and corporate formation, or management consulting services to any person located in the Russian Federation” unless licensed or otherwise authorized by OFAC (covered by InfoBytes here). Specifically, FAQ 1063 explains that “[t]he prohibitions imposed by the determination do not distinguish between new and existing trusts and companies.” Additionally, FAQ 1067 provides that “[t]he determination does not prohibit U.S. persons from exporting, reexporting, selling, or supplying, directly or indirectly, software to the Russian Federation.”
DOJ: $4.5 million judgment in case targeting Hispanic homeowners
On June 10, the DOJ announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a consent order against several defendants accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by targeting Hispanic homeowners for predatory mortgage loan modification services. After several Hispanic homeowners filed discrimination complaints with HUD, the agency conducted an investigation, issued charges of discrimination, and referred the matter to the DOJ for litigation. According to the DOJ’s complaint, the defendants targeted Hispanic homeowners with deceptive Spanish-language advertising “that falsely promised to cut their mortgage payments in half” and guaranteed “lower payments in a specific timeframe in exchange for thousands of dollars of upfront fees and continuing monthly fees of as much as $550, which defendants claimed were ‘non-refundable.’” The DOJ further contended that many of the targeted Hispanic homeowners (who had limited English proficiency) were told not to communicate with their lenders and were instructed to stop making monthly mortgage payments; however, the defendants allegedly “did little or nothing to obtain the promised loan modifications,” leading to defaults and foreclosures.
The consent order, reached in partnership with the Civil Rights Division’s Housing Section, enters a nearly $4.6 million judgment (which is mostly suspended) against the defendants to compensate harmed homeowners. Of this amount, $95,000 in total will go to three individuals who intervened as plaintiffs in the DOJ’s lawsuit. Defendants must also pay a $5,000 civil penalty. In addition to monetary relief, the consent order permanently enjoins defendants “from providing any mortgage relief assistance services, including, but not limited to, mortgage loan modification, foreclosure rescue, or foreclosure defense services.” The consent order also imposes training and reporting/recordkeeping requirements for defendants’ other real-estate activities.
OFAC issues Covid-related general licenses and FAQs
On June 10, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Syria General License (GL) 21A, Venezuela GL 39A, and Iran GL N-1, “Authorizing Certain Activities to Respond to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.” Each GL authorizes certain Covid-19-related transactions through June 17, 2023. Additionally, OFAC updated Frequently Asked Questions regarding the purposes of the GLs and provided clarifying information.