InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DFPI reminds licensees of March 15 CFL annual report filing deadline
On February 17, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a reminder to all licensees under the California Financial Law (CFL) that annual reports are due to the commissioner by March 15. Forms and instructions for submitting the 2021 annual report are available on DFPI’s CFL webpage. DFPI also warned licensees that the commissioner may suspend or revoke a licensee’s license if an annual report is not submitted by the deadline. Specifically, Financial Code section 22715(a) states that the “commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the license of any licensee if that person fails to file the report required by Section 22159 within 10 days after notice by the commissioner that the report is due and not filed. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days and the hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date.” DFPI also provided a penalty matrix reflecting assessable penalties based on a late-filing date.
Massachusetts settles with auto lender
On February 18, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a national auto lender entered into a settlement with the Commonwealth resolving allegations that the lender did not provide sufficient disclosures to consumers related to its debt collection practices, with over 1,000 borrowers expected to be eligible for relief. According to the Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD), the lender allegedly failed to provide certain consumers with sufficient information about the calculation methods for any deficiencies remaining on their auto loans after their cars were repossessed. The AOD requires the auto lender to pay $5.6 million in restitution to eligible borrowers, and cover administration and investigation costs associated with the matter. According to Massachusetts Attorney General Laura Healey, the “settlement, which combines cash payments with debt relief and credit repair, will help many subprime borrowers in need.”
CFTC orders unregistered respondents to pay $2.6 million for fraudulent solicitations
On February 23, the CFTC announced a $2.6 million settlement with a North Carolina-based company and its president for allegedly acting as unregistered commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators, and for advertising without making required disclosures. Among other things, the respondents allegedly engaged in binary options solicitation and trading fraud through the operation of two webpages and related social media channels. According to the CFTC, the respondents made numerous false statements to solicit business, which claimed that traders could choose from the company owner’s winning strategies to earn significant profits. However, the CFTC stated that the owner was not actually a successful trader and had an overall losing trading record. Additionally, the respondents distributed client testimonials and training videos without providing disclosures required under CFTC regulations. As a result, ten participants lost roughly $410,000 in a managed account trading pool, while approximately 1,600 customers lost at least $945,000 through fraudulent solicitations for binary options signals, trainings, and strategy course offerings. While the respondents did not admit or deny any of the allegations, they agreed to pay $409,965 in restitution, $896,673 in disgorgement, and a $1,306,638 civil monetary penalty. Additionally, the respondents must cease and desist from any further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act or CFTC regulations. The order also permanently bans the respondents from trading on, or trading subject to, the rules of any CFTC-registered entity, and from engaging in any activities requiring CFTC registration. Respondents are also prohibited from, directly or indirectly, entering into any transactions involving commodity interests.
OFAC sanctions network connected to Houthis in Yemen
On February 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 against members of an international network for funding the Houthis’ war against Yemen and threatening civilians and infrastructure in neighboring states. According to OFAC, the group is led by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and a Houthi financier, which has transferred money to Yemen via a complex international network of intermediaries in support of the Houthis’ attacks. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in June 2021, OFAC designated the Houthi financier and members of his network pursuant to E.O. 13224, for their role in generating revenue through the sale of commodities such as petroleum to fund the Houthis. OFAC also noted that “the Houthis continue their destructive campaign inside Yemen, and have repeatedly launched ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that have struck civilian infrastructure in neighboring states, resulting in civilian casualties.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individuals, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by the individuals that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC’s announcement further noted that OFAC regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with designated persons or their blocked property, and foreign financial institutions that knowingly participate in significant transactions related to the designated individuals risk exposure to sanctions that could discontinue their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property or interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.
FDIC issues 2021 annual report
On February 17, the FDIC released its 2021 Annual Report, providing an overview of the agency’s goals and agenda over the past year, and describing the financial health of the agency, its funds, and insured financial institutions. The report highlighted areas of focus for the FDIC over the past year, such as:
- Financial inclusion. According to the report, the FDIC “has seen meaningful improvements in recent years in reaching the ‘last mile’ of unbanked households in this country. Based on the results of our biennial survey of households, the proportion of U.S. households that were banked in 2019 – 94.6 percent – was the highest since the survey began in 2009.” The report noted several FDIC-led initiatives related to inclusive banking. In June 2021, the FDIC’s technology lab, FDiTech, announced a tech sprint, Breaking Down Barriers: Reaching the Last Mile of Unbanked U.S. Households, which challenged participants to “explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The FDIC also expanded its #GetBanked public awareness campaign into the Los Angeles, Dallas, and Detroit metropolitan areas in continuation of the agency’s efforts to increase financial inclusion to the unbanked population. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Mission-Driven Banks. According to the report, the FDIC increased Minority Depository Institutions (MDI) representation on the agency’s Community Bank Advisory Committee (CBAC), which “established a new MDI subcommittee of the CBAC to highlight the work of MDIs in their communities and to provide a platform for MDIs to exchange best practices, and enabled MDIs to review potential purchases of a failing MDI before non-MDI institutions are given this opportunity.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, these efforts were incorporated in a Statement of Policy.
- Competitiveness of Community Banking. According to the report, the FDIC held a “rapid phased prototyping competition” where more than 30 technology firms were invited to participate in the competition "to develop tools for providing more timely and granular data to the FDIC on the health of the banking sector while also making such reporting less burdensome for banks. Of those 30 firms, we asked four participants to move forward in the competition by proposing a proof of concept for their technologies – either independently or jointly.” The FDIC also facilitated the development of “a public/private standard-development organization to establish standards for due diligence of vendors and for the technologies they develop.”
- Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). According to the report, the DIF balance increased to a record $123.1 billion in 2021–a $5.2 billion increase from the year-end 2020 balance. No insured financial institutions failed in 2021 and “contingent liability for anticipated failures declined to $20.8 million as of December 31, 2021, compared to $78.9 million as of December 31, 2020.”
FTC provides 2021 ECOA summary to CFPB
On February 23, the FTC announced it recently provided the CFPB with its annual summary of activities related to ECOA enforcement, focusing specifically on the Commission’s activities with respect to Regulation B. The summary discussed, among other things, the following FTC enforcement, research, and policy development initiatives:
- The FTC filed a joint amicus curiae brief with the CFPB, DOJ, and Federal Reserve Board in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last December asserting that the term “applicant,” as used in ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B, includes both those currently seeking credit as well as persons who have sought and have received credit (i.e., current borrowers). (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Last October, the FTC released a staff report, Serving Communities of Color, that discusses the Commission’s enforcement and outreach efforts related to the impact of fraud on majority Black and Latino communities. One of the studies examined disparities related to payment methods received from consumers who live in communities of color compared to consumers who live in majority White communities. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- The FTC’s Military Task Force continued to work on military consumer protection issues, including military consumers’ “rights to various types of notifications as applicants for credit, including for adverse action, and information about the anti-discrimination provisions, in the ECOA and Regulation B.”
- The FTC continued to participate in the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, along with the CFPB, DOJ, HUD, and federal banking regulatory agencies. The Commission also continued its participation in the Interagency Fair Lending Methodologies Working Group to “coordinate and share information on analytical methodologies used in enforcement of and supervision for compliance with fair lending laws, including the ECOA, among others.”
The summary also highlighted FTC ECOA enforcement actions, business and consumer education efforts on fair lending issues, as well as blog posts discussing discrimination and potential bias affecting protected classes and the risks of using artificial intelligence in automated decision-making.
CFPB releases fact sheet on interest rate calculation under QM APR
On February 23, the CFPB released a factsheet on the interest rate that is used for calculating prepaid interest under the price-based General Qualified Mortgage (QM) annual percentage rate (APR) calculation rule for certain adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and step-rate loans. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued the General QM Final Rule in December 2020, which amended Regulation Z and revised the definition of a General QM by eliminating the General QM loan definition’s 43 percent debt-to-income ratio limit and replacing it with bright-line price-based thresholds. The fact sheet, among other things, “describes the interest rate that is used for calculating prepaid interest for purposes of this special APR calculation rule.” Additionally, the fact sheet clarifies, by section, the interest rate used to calculate the APR under the General QM ARMs special rule and the interest rate used to calculate prepaid interest under the General QM ARMs special rule.
CFPB releases comment letter on FTC enforcement action
On February 18, the CFPB released a comment letter in response to the FTC’s request for comments on its proposed order with a business credit reporting agency alleging that the respondent engaged in deceptive and unfair practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here). In commending the FTC, the CFPB noted that “there are troubling conflicts of interest when the purveyor of credit reports also sells ancillary services.” The CFPB also discussed that the FCRA “may not have contemplated the serious challenges that small businesses face with respect to business credit reports and associated services such as the provision of credit scores,” and that small business “may not benefit” from the FCRA. The Bureau noted that “[b]usiness credit reporting companies should not be able to unfairly harm a small business’s and their owner’s or operator’s financing opportunities.” In supporting “greater remedial authorities for the FTC to be more in line with other civil law enforcement agencies,” the comment letter argued that “[s]tronger authorities for the FTC may help to remediate this full range of harms,” and that the Bureau “stands ready to work with the FTC and other federal and state law enforcement partners to examine whether there are other unlawful practices related to small business credit reporting by other providers.” According to the CFPB, the Bureau will be working with the FTC “to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly when it comes to accessing loans.” The CFPB also noted that it is “working on a rule to shine more light on small business lending, by gathering more data about whether and how small businesses are able to access credit,” and will provide regulators the opportunity “to understand the landscape of credit availability to small businesses that for too long have had to rely on opaque business credit reporting agencies as gatekeepers of financing,” according to the comment letter.
District Court approves $14.8 million cloud subscription settlement
On August 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a $14.8 million class action settlement resolving claims that a major technology company allegedly misled users about its cloud storage practices. In 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging the company breached its agreement with customers by hosting user data on third-party servers without providing proper notice, which resulted in overcharges. The plaintiffs alleged that the “selection of a cloud storage provider is a significant and material consideration as it involves entrusting all of a user’s stored data—including sensitive information like photographs, documents of all kinds, and e-mail content—to be stored by the cloud storage provider,” and that “users have an interest in who is offering this storage and taking custody of their data.” Plaintiffs claimed that, while the company assured users that it was the provider of the purchased cloud storage service, it was actually reselling cloud storage space on other third parties’ cloud facilities and charging users a “premium” for believing their data was being stored by the company. Approximately 16.9 million class members will receive individual settlement payments based on the overall payments made by each user for his or her cloud subscription during the class period. In granting final approval of the settlement, the court noted that the deal is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
California Privacy Protection Agency plans to finish rulemaking by Q4 of 2022
On February 17, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board held a public meeting to provide an update on the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA or the Act) rulemaking process. According to sources, the CPPA, which was established under the CPRA, stated it intends to finalize rulemaking in the third or fourth quarter of 2022. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last September, the CPPA formally called on stakeholders to provide preliminary comments on proposed CPRA rulemaking. The Act (effective January 1, 2023, with enforcement delayed until July 1, 2023) was approved by ballot measure in November 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here) and amended the existing California Consumer Privacy Act. The invitation for comments highlighted several areas of interest for the CPPA, including topics concerning cybersecurity audits and risk assessments, automated decision-making, consumer privacy rights and requests to know, sensitive personal information, and dark patterns. While the CPRA established a July 1, 2022 deadline for rulemaking, CPPA Executive Director Ashkan Soltani stated during the meeting that the rulemaking process will extend into the second half of the year. Soltani noted that preliminary and informational proceedings will take place sometime this March and April, and will include instructive sessions with various subject matter experts and public sessions to obtain stakeholder input, and will take into account responses from the comment solicitation period that ended November 8, 2021. Following these proceedings, the Board will begin the formal rulemaking process during the second and third quarters, with final rules being finished by the end of the year. Soltani acknowledged that while the Board is behind schedule with respect to the July deadline, the CPPA expects to use the extra time to fill open positions at the agency.