InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD and mortgage lender reach agreement on Montana fair lending complaint
On May 13, HUD announced an agreement with a mortgage lender to resolve allegations of Fair Housing Act violations. According to the redacted agreement, a complaint was filed with HUD last August accusing the mortgage company of engaging in housing discrimination based on race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complainants claim they faced discriminatory housing terms, were denied housing, and were subject to racially discriminatory notices and advertisements. The mortgage company denied all allegations of discrimination, asserted its commitment to fair housing and equal opportunity, and agreed to a Conciliation Agreement to resolve the matter without admitting any wrongdoing or liability.
The mortgage company agreed to a $65,000 settlement and will commit to upholding its fair lending policies, ensuring applicants on Native American reservations are able to obtain residential mortgage loans without fear of discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Respondent will also contribute at least $30,000 towards initiatives designed to enhance housing conditions, financial literacy, and homeownership education for Native Americans near reservations. During the three-year term of the agreement, HUD may review compliance and conduct fair housing tests, among other oversight methods. The terms of the agreement also required the mortgage company to submit a training curriculum on its fair lending training courses for new employees and perform annual trainings with current employees; additionally, the mortgage company must submit an annual report on the mortgage company’s progress and performance in complying with the public interest provisions of the agreement. The agreement has been approved by the regional director of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
Maryland enacts new powers for regulators to examine third parties
On May 9, the Governor of Maryland approved HB 250 (the “Act”) which will authorize the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to examine third parties that service entities under the supervision of the state’s Office of Financial Regulation (OFR). Such licensed entities include both depository and non-depository financial institutions. Currently, the OFR lacks the authority to examine third parties until the Act goes into effect. The Act will define third-party service providers as a “person who performs activities relating to financial services on behalf of a regulated entity for that regulated entity’s customers,” and include data processing centers, activities that support financial services, and internet-related services. On enforcement, the Act will authorize the OFR to enforce the law against any third party that refuses to submit to an examination, refuses to pay a fee, or engages in “unsafe or unsound” behaviors as determined by the OFR. The Act will outline several authorities of the OFR, including notifying the licensed person, which information the OFR can access, and levying fees. Following a notice and hearing, the Commissioner may issue a cease-and-desist order, suspend or revoke a violator’s license, or issue a penalty of up to $10,000 for the first violation and up to $25,000 for each subsequent violation. The Act takes effect on October 1.
District Court denies mortgage lender’s motion to dismiss against CFPB
On May 2, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a mortgage lender’s motion to dismiss. The CFPB sued the lender in October 2023 for violating HMDA and Regulation C by intentionally misreporting data regarding borrower race, ethnicity, and sex pursuant to a data reporting requirement from a prior consent order. In a sample of the defendant’s data reporting submission, the CFPB allegedly found 51 data errors across seven data fields. The court sided with the CFPB on all four grounds raised in the lender’s motion to dismiss. First, the court found that the CFPB pleaded a plausible violation of the HMDA, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Second, the court rejected the lender’s arguments that HMDA and Regulation C are “unconstitutionally vague” because they established a standard for covered loan data that meets a constitutional standard. Third, the court sided again with the CFPB in finding that the injunctive relief at issue did not qualify as an “obey the law” injunction since it provided reasonable clarity of what was required of the lender. And fourth, the court upheld the funding structure of the CFPB as constitutional, therein following guidance from the Second Circuit in upholding the structure as constitutional.
Student loan servicer and trust could pay more than $5M in enforcement action with CFPB
On May 6, the CFPB filed a complaint against a Pennsylvania-based student loan servicer and 15 student loan trusts for alleged failure to properly respond to various borrower requests in violation of the CFPA. The complaint alleged thousands of borrower requests went unanswered from 2015 to 2021. Many of these requests allegedly sought forms of payment relief including: (i) co-signer release; (ii) extension of forbearance or deferment; (iii) loan settlement or forgiveness; (iv) Servicemember Civil Relief Act benefits; and (v) other forms of payment or interest rate reduction.
The CFPB also released two proposed stipulated final judgment orders for the trusts and the servicer to resolve the claims. If agreed upon by the court, the trusts and servicer will have to pay civil money penalties of $400,000 and $1.75 million, respectively, in addition to providing close to $3 million in compensation to impacted consumers. Additionally, the orders required non-monetary relief, such as the approval of outstanding borrower applications, the rectification of credit reports, the suspension of debt collection efforts, and the implementation of a functional process.
DFPI annual report highlights consumer protection efforts and upcoming regulations
On April 25, the California DFPI released its Annual Report of Activity under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), highlighting investigations, public actions, and consumer outreach efforts under the CCFPL. According to the report, the DFPI (i) experienced a 70 percent increase in CCFPL complaints, which predominantly involved crypto assets and debt collectors; (ii) opened 734 CCFPL-related investigations and issued 181 public CCFPL actions; (iii) launched the Crypto Scam Tracker and a new consumer complaints portal; and (iv) advanced two rules, including unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UUDAAP) protections for small businesses and new registration requirements (pending final approval by the Office of Administrative Law) for earned wage access, debt settlement services, debt relief services, and private postsecondary education financing products.
The report emphasized that the new regulations specified that optional payments, such as tips, collected by California Financing Law (CFL)-licensed lenders would be considered charges under the law. According to the DFPI, these updates will reinforce the CFL by blocking potential loopholes and ensuring compliance among CFL-licensed lenders. Once these regulations would be approved, DFPI will oversee these financial service providers. Upon adoption, DFPI says it will be a pioneer in defining “earned wage access” as loans and regulating income advance services and the treatment of tips as charges, all through regulatory measures rather than statutory enactment.
FTC alleges ROSCA, GLBA and FTC Act violations against bill payment platform
On April 25, the FTC announced an enforcement action against a third-party bill payment platform and two of its co-founders (defendants) for allegedly running misleading advertisements that intercepted consumers attempting to reach their billers, using “dark patterns” to manipulate the consumers into using the platform under the false belief that they have reached the biller’s official payment site, charging “junk fees” in connection with the processing of payments, and in some cases sending untimely payments to billers. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company allegedly violated the FTC Act by making false or misleading representations that it was an official payment channel for the consumers’ billers. The FTC also claimed defendants violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by charging consumers for goods or services before clearly and conspicuously disclosing to consumers all material terms of the transaction and obtaining the consumers’ informed consent to be charged, and enrolling consumers into a paid subscription service by automatically ticking a box without warning when consumers clicked on a “User Terms of Service” hyperlink. Additionally, the FTC alleged that the company caused consumers to incur late fees and other inconveniences by failing to make timely payment to consumers’ billers, despite having received timely payment from the consumer. The FTC’s complaint also alleged that defendants used fraudulent statements or representations to obtain consumer information such as bank account numbers, routing numbers, credit card numbers, and debit card numbers in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
The FTC claimed that defendants received tens of thousands of consumer complaints, inquiries from two state attorney’s general offices, and temporarily lost access to a credit card company’s network due to the complaints, among other warnings regarding its practices. The FTC will seek a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other relief.
OCC releases enforcement actions for April 2024
On April 18, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals affiliated with such entities (defined as institution-affiliated parties, or IAPs). The actions against banks include two formal agreements and one cease and desist order against three individual banks. In each instance, the OCC alleged that the banks engaged in unsafe or unsound practices related to some combination of board oversight, liquidity management, capital requirements, or credit risk. With respect to IAPs, the announcement included four enforcement actions against IAPs to “deter, encourage correction, or prevent violations, unsafe or unsound practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty,” The OCC issued prohibition orders, which prohibit the IAP from any participation in affairs of a bank or other institution), for all four IAPs and assessed civil money penalties ranging from $40,000 to $400,000 against three of them. The announcement also included two more prohibition orders against two additional IAPs for criminal activities. More information on the OCC’s enforcement action types can be found here.
Fed releases enforcement action against Wyoming-based bank holding company
On April 4, the Federal Reserve released an enforcement action against a Wyoming-based bank holding company as part of a September 2023 inspection that found alleged deficiencies related to the “fintech business strategy, board oversight, capital, earnings, liquidity, risk management, and compliance.” The consent order with the bank holding company requires the holding company to: (i) serve as a source of strength to its bank subsidiary; (ii) submit a written plan to strengthen board oversight, including a staffing assessment and succession plan; (iii) submit a written plan to strengthen its risk management program, including adopting written policies and procedures to manage compliance and fraud risks; (iv) submit an enhanced liquidity risk management program, a capital plan, and a written business plan to improve earnings; and (v) ensure compliance with regulations governing affiliate transactions. The consent order additionally placed limits on the holding company’s fintech activities and required the holding company to submit a wind-down plan for fintech-related business. According to the consent order, following the September 2023 inspection, the holding company had voluntarily stopped pursuing its fintech business strategy and had been winding down all related activities.
District Court grants full remedies to CFPB, State AGs
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order granting the plaintiff state attorneys general and CFPB’s requested remedies in full against a defendant accused of violating consumer protection laws in administering “immigration bonds” for indigent consumers facing deportation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2021 the CFPB, and the Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia State Attorneys General filed a 17-count complaint against the defendant, a subsidiary of a bond service for non-English speaking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. The complaint accused the defendant of misrepresenting the cost of immigration bond services and deceiving migrants into continuing to pay monthly fees by making false threats of deportation for failure to pay. Last May, the court entered default judgment against defendants (covered by InfoBytes here). In the court’s most recent order, it granted the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, stating that the CFPB met the standard for injunctive relief under the CFPA, and it would “undoubtedly serve the public interest.” The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ claims supported injunctive relief under state laws as well. The order also included (i) $230.9 million in restitution to the CFPB; (ii) a $111 million civil money penalty to the CFPB; (iii) a $7.1 million civil money penalty to Virginia; (iv) a $3.4 million civil money penalty to Massachusetts; and (v) a $13.89 million civil money penalty to New York.
FDIC’s Consumer Compliance report outlines most frequently cited violations and observations
On March 28, the FDIC released its March 2024 version of the Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights from the previous year, a report that enhanced transparency regarding the FDIC’s consumer compliance supervisory activities. The FDIC reported 16 formal enforcement actions and another 16 informal enforcement actions to address consumer compliance examination findings. The report highlighted how the FDIC conducted almost 900 consumer compliance examinations. The top five most frequently cited violations of moderate severity (levels two and three out of five of supervisory concern), which represented 74 percent of the total violations, included, in order from most frequently cited to least: TILA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z; the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and its implementing regulation, Part 339; EFTA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation E; TISA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation DD; and Section 5 of the FTC Act. The report noted how Section 5 of the FTC Act dropped from the second most frequently cited to the fifth.
The FDIC’s report outlined the most significant consumer compliance examination observations including the misuse of the FDIC’s logo, advertising of credit builder products, electronic fund transfer (EFT) error resolutions by third parties, mortgage broker relationships, and fair lending compliance. On the misuse of the FDIC’s logo, the FDIC found “a number of third parties” misrepresented the FDIC’s deposit insurance in violation of Section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act. On substantiating claims in the advertising of credit builder products, the FDIC found that institutions collaborated with fintech companies on credit builder products and falsely advertised “these products would improve” one’s credit score, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. On EFTs handled by third parties, the FDIC identified an issue with a security program in validating customer transactions in violation of Regulation E of EFTA. On payments for mortgage brokerage services, the FDIC found RESPA Section 8 violations involving mortgage broker relationships. On oversight of third parties, the FDIC identified issues with an institution that partnered with third-party lenders to offer unsecured consumer loans, finding the institution violated Section 39 of the FDI Act. Last and on fair lending, the FDIC found that most of the DOJ’s referral matters pertinent to discrimination related to redlining, automobile financing, and credit underwriting.