InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit to rehear en banc whether tribal lenders can arbitrate RICO claims
On June 6, a majority of nonrecused active judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a previously issued opinion that said tribal lenders could arbitrate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) class action claims, saying it will rehear the case en banc. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last September the 9th Circuit panel majority concluded that “an agreement delegating to an arbitrator the gateway question of whether the underlying arbitration agreement is enforceable must be upheld unless that specific delegation provision is itself unenforceable.” The panel reviewed whether California residents who received loans from an online lender were allowed to pursue class RICO claims based on allegations that they were charged interest rates exceeding state limits from lenders claiming tribal immunity. The district court granted class certification and ruled that the entire arbitration agreement, including provisions containing a class action waiver, was unenforceable. On appeal, the panel majority cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, which determined, among other things, that when a party challenges an entire agreement—not just an arbitration provision—deciding “gateway” issues such as enforceability must be delegated to an arbitrator. “[W]hen there is a clear delegation provision, that question is . . . for the arbitrator to decide so long as the delegation provision itself does not eliminate parties’ rights to purse their federal remedies,” the majority wrote. The dissenting judge held, however, that the panel majority “misunderstood the effect of the choice-of-law provisions in the agreements,” arguing that the provisions curtail an arbitrator’s authority by allowing application of “only tribal law and a small and irrelevant subset of federal law,” thus preventing an arbitrator “from applying the law necessary to determine whether the delegation provisions and the arbitration agreements are valid.” He further contended that the panel majority’s decision diverged from decisions reached by several sister circuits, which “have consistently condemned the arbitration agreements embedded in tribal internet payday loan agreements, including those used by the very same lenders as in this case.”
U.S., UK collaborate on privacy-enhancing tech prize challenges
On June 13, the White House announced that the U.S. and UK governments are developing privacy-enhancing technology prize challenges to help address cross-border money laundering. The White House highlighted that the estimated $2 trillion of cross-border money laundering which happens annually could be better detected if improvements were made to information sharing and collaborative analytic efforts. However, research shows that this process “is hindered by the legal, technical and ethical challenges involved in jointly analyzing sensitive information,” the White House said. Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) could play a transformative role in addressing the global challenges of financial crime, the White House explained, noting that PETs can allow “machine learning models to be trained on high quality datasets collaboratively among organizations, without the data leaving safe environments.” Moreover, “[s]uch technologies have the potential to help facilitate privacy-preserving financial information sharing and analytics,” thus “allowing suspicious types of behavior to be identified without compromising the privacy of individuals, or requiring the transfer of data between institutions or across borders.”
Opening this summer, the challenges (developed between the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the UK’s Center for Data Ethics and Innovation, and Innovate UK) will allow innovators to develop state-of-the-art privacy-preserving federated learning solutions to help combat barriers to the wider use of these technologies without the uncertainty of potential regulatory implications. Innovators will engage with the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority and Information Commissioner’s Office and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Acting FinCEN Director Himamauli Das announced that the agency “is pleased to support this important initiative to advance the development of a building block for protecting the U.S. financial system from illicit finance.”
CA approves commercial financing disclosure regs
On June 9, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) proposed commercial financial disclosure regulations. The regulations implement commercial financing disclosure requirements under SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). (See also DFPI press release here.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written, consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances.
Notably, SB 1235 does not apply to (i) depository institutions; (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) a commercial financing transaction in which the recipient is a vehicle dealer, vehicle rental company, or affiliated company, and meets other specified requirements; and (v) a lender who makes no more than one applicable transaction in California in a 12-month period or a lender who makes five or fewer applicable transactions that are incidental to the lender’s business in a 12-month period. The act also does not cover true leases (but will apply to bargain-purchase leases), commercial loans under $5,000 (which are considered consumer loans in California regardless of any business-purpose and subject to separate disclosure requirements), and commercial financing offers greater than $500,000.
California released four rounds of draft proposed regulations between 2019 and 2021 to solicit public comments on various iterations of the proposed text (covered by InfoBytes here). In conjunction with the approved regulations, DFPI released a final statement of reasons that outlines specific revisions and discusses the agency’s responses to public comments.
Among other things, the regulations:
- Clarify that a nondepository institution providing technology or support services to a depository institution’s commercial financing program is not required to provide disclosures, provided “the nondepository institution has no interest, or arrangement or agreement to purchase any interest in the commercial financing extended by the depository institution in connection with such program, and the commercial financing program is not branded with a trademark owned by the nondepository institution.”
- Provide detailed instructions for the content and layout of disclosures, including specific rows and columns that must be used for a disclosure table and the terms that must appear in each section of the table, that are to be delivered at the time a specific type of commercial financing offer equal to or less than $500,000 is extended.
- Cover the following commercial loan transactions: closed-end transactions, commercial open-end credit plans, factoring transactions, sales-based financing, lease financing, asset-based lending transactions. Disclosure formatting and content requirements are also provided for all other commercial financing transactions that do not fit within the other categories.
- Require disclosures to provide, among other things, the amount financed; itemization of the amount financed; annual percentage rate (the regulations provide category-specific calculation instructions); finance charges (estimated and total); payment methods, including the frequency and terms for both variable and fixed rate financing; details related to prepayment policies; and estimated loan repayment terms.
The regulations take effect December 9.
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.”