Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On January 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Virginia issued a final order and judgment in a class action settlement between a class of consumers (plaintiffs) and a large credit reporting agency (company) to resolve allegations arising from a 2017 cyberattack causing a data breach of the company. After the company announced the breach, many consumers filed suit and were eventually joined into a proposed settlement class. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiffs alleged that the company (i) failed to provide appropriate security to protect stored personal consumer information; (ii) misled consumers regarding the effectiveness and capacity of its security; and (iii) failed to take proper action when vulnerabilities in their security system became known. The company and the plaintiffs later submitted a proposed settlement order to the court.
According to the final order and judgment, the court certified the settlement class of the approximately 147 million affected consumers, finding the class was adequately represented, and approved the “distribution and allocation plan” as fair and reasonable. In the order granting final approval of the settlement the company agreed to, among other things, pay $380.5 million into a settlement fund and potentially up to $125 million more to cover “certain out-of-pocket losses,” $77.5 million for attorneys’ fees, and approximately $1.4 million for reimbursement of expenses. Class members are eligible for additional benefits including up to 10 years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services or cash compensation if they already have those services, as well as identity restoration services for seven years. The company also agreed to spend at least $1 billion on data security and technology in the next five years.
On January 13, Washington state lawmakers announced two bills designed to strengthen consumer access and control over personal data and regulate the use of facial recognition technology. Highlights of SB 6281, the Washington Privacy Act, include the following:
- Applicability. SB 6281 will apply to legal entities that conduct business or produce products or services that are targeted to Washington consumers that also (i) control or process personal data for at least 100,000 consumers; or (ii) derive more than 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data, in addition to processing or controlling the personal data of at least 25,000 consumers. Exempt from SB 6281, among others, are state and local governments, municipal corporations, certain protected health information, personal data governed by state and federal regulations, and employment records.
- Consumer rights. Consumers will be able to exercise the following concerning their personal data: access; correction; deletion; data portability; and opt-out rights, including the right to opt out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising and the sale of personal data.
- Controller responsibilities. Controllers required to comply with SB 6281 will be responsible for (i) transparency; (ii) limiting the collection of data to what is required and relevant for a specified purpose; (iii) ensuring data is not processed for reasons incompatible with a specified purpose; (iv) securing personal data from unauthorized access; (v) prohibiting processing that violates state or federal laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination against consumers; (vi) obtaining consumer consent in order to process sensitive data; and (vii) ensuring contracts and agreements do not contain provisions that waive or limit a consumer’s rights. Controllers must also conduct data protection assessments for all processing activities that involve personal data, and conduct additional assessments each time a processing change occurs that “materially increases the risk to consumers.”
- State attorney general. SB 6821 does not create a private right of action for individuals to sue if there is an alleged violation. However, the AG will be permitted to bring actions and impose penalties of no more than $7,500 per violation. The AG will also be required to submit a report evaluating the liability and enforcement provisions of SB 6281 by 2022 along with any recommendations for change.
- Information sharing. SB 6281 will allow the state governor to enter into agreements with British Columbia, California, and Oregon, which will allow personal data to be shared for joint research initiatives.
- Facial Recognition. SB 6281 will establish limits on the commercial use of facial recognition services. Among other things, the bill will require third-party testing on all services prior to deployment for accuracy and unfair performance, conspicuous notice when a service is deployed in a public space, and will require companies to receive consumer consent prior to enrolling an image in a service used in a public space.
The second bill, SB 6280, will more specifically govern the use of facial recognition services by state and local government agencies, and, among other things, outlines provisions for the use of facial recognition services when identifying victims of crime, stipulates restrictions concerning ongoing surveillance, and requires agencies to produce an annual report containing a compliance assessment.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, last year, New York introduced proposed legislation (see S 5642) that seeks to regulate the storage, use, disclosure, and sale of consumer personal data by entities that conduct business in New York state or produce products or services that are intentionally targeted to residents of New York state. Provisions included in the measures introduced by New York and Washington state differ from those contained in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which took effect January 1. (Previous InfoBytes coverage on the CCPA is available here.)
On January 7, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced the release of its 2020 Examination Priorities. The annual release of exam priorities provides transparency into the risk-based examination process and lists areas that pose current and potential risks to investors. OCIE’s 2020 examination priorities include:
- Retail investors, including seniors and those saving for retirement. OCIE places particular emphasis on disclosures and recommendations provided to investors.
- Information security. In addition to cybersecurity, top areas of focus include: risk management, vendor management, online and mobile account access controls, data loss prevention, appropriate training, and incident response.
- Fintech and innovation, digital assets and electronic investment advice. OCIE notes that the rapid pace of technology development, as well as new uses of alternative data, presents new risks and will focus attention on the effectiveness of compliance programs.
- Investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, and municipal advisers. Risk-based exams will continue for each of these types of entities, with an emphasis on new registered investment advisers (RIA) and RIAs that have not been examined. Other themes in exams of these entities include board oversight, trading practices, advice to investors, RIA activities, disclosures of conflicts of interest, and fiduciary obligations.
- Anti-money laundering. Importance will be placed on beneficial ownership, customer identification and due diligence, and policies and procedures to identify suspicious activity.
- Market infrastructure. Particular attention will be directed to clearing agencies, national securities exchanges and alternative trading systems, and transfer agents.
- FINRA and MSRB. OCIE exams will emphasize regulatory programs, exams of broker-dealers and municipal advisers, as well as policies, procedures and controls.
On January 7, Representatives Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) and Gregory Meeks D-NY) sent a letter to nine federal financial regulators urging them to strengthen their financial infrastructures against possible cyber-attacks in the wake of recent threats against the U.S. from Iran and its allies following the killing of Iranian official Qasem Soleimani. The letter also requests that the regulators coordinate with law enforcement and regulated entities to increase information sharing surrounding cyber threats, and “communicate a strategy to further mitigate existing cyber vulnerabilities within [the U.S.] financial infrastructure by March.” The letter was sent to the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury Department, SEC, FDIC, CFPB, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Credit Union Administration, and the OCC.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, NYDFS separately issued an Industry Letter on January 4 warning regulated entities about the “heightened risk” of cyber-attacks by hackers affiliated with the Iranian government. The letter provides recommendations for ensuring quick responses to any suspected cyber incidents, and reminds entities they must inform NYDFS “as promptly as possible but in no event later than 72 hours’ after a material cybersecurity event.”
On January 6, the California attorney general issued an advisory explaining consumers’ rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which took effect January 1. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the CCPA here.) These rights include (i) the right to request from businesses what personal information they collect, use, share, or sell; (ii) the right to request that businesses and their service providers delete one’s personal information; (iii) the right to opt out of businesses’ disclosure of one’s personal information via “Do Not Sell” links on businesses’ websites and mobile apps; (iv) the right of children younger than 16 to have businesses disclose their personal information only after receiving the child’s opt-in consent (though parents or guardians may consent for children under 13); and (v) the right to non-discrimination should a consumer exercise his or her privacy rights under the CCPA.
In addition to enumerating these consumer rights, the advisory specifies the types of businesses subject to the CCPA, provides information on the state’s data broker registry, and describes consumers’ private right of action in the event of a data breach.
In January, the NCUA issued a letter to board of directors and chief executive officers at federally insured credit unions outlining the agency’s 2020 supervisory priorities. Top supervisory priorities include:
- Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML). Examinations will continue to focus on customer due diligence and beneficial ownership requirements. The NCUA will also collaborate with law enforcement and banking regulators on initiatives such as updates to the FFIEC’s BSA/AML examination manual and enforcement guidelines, guidance concerning politically exposed persons, and measures for improving suspicious activity and currency transaction report filing procedures.
- Consumer Financial Protection. Based on a rotating regulation review cycle, NCUA examiners will review compliance (at a minimum) with the following regulations: the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Gramm-Leach-Bailey (Privacy Act), Payday Alternative Lending and other small dollar lending, Truth in Lending Act, Military Lending Act, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
- Cybersecurity. In 2020 the NCUA will continue conducting cybersecurity maturity assessments for credit unions with assets over $250 million and will begin to assess those with assets over $100 million. In addition, the NCUA intends to pilot new procedures—scaled to an institution’s size and risk profile—to evaluate critical security controls during examinations between maturity assessments.
- LIBOR Cessation Planning. Examiners will assess credit unions’ planning related to the discontinuation of LIBOR. According to the NCUA, credit unions should “proactively transition away from instruments using LIBOR as a reference rate.”
Other areas of focus include credit risk, current expected credit losses, liquidity risk, and modernization updates. The extended examination cycle will continue to apply to qualifying credit unions.
Mortgage broker allegedly violated federal laws by posting customers’ personal information on website
On January 7, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with a California mortgage broker and his company to resolve alleged violations of the FTC Act, FCRA, Regulation P, and the Safeguards Rule. According to a complaint filed by the DOJ on behalf of the FTC, the defendants published the personal information of customers who posted negative reviews on a public website, including customers’ “sources of income, debt-to-income ratios, credit history, taxes, family relationships, and health.” The alleged posts containing negative financial information violated the defendants’ responsibilities under Regulation P (Privacy of Consumer Financial Information) as the required privacy disclosure provided to the customers stated that the defendants would not share personal information with any third party. Regulation P also “prohibits financial institutions from disclosing to any nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information about a customer unless it has provided the customer with an opt-out notice, . . . a reasonable opportunity to opt out of the disclosure, and the customer has not opted out.” In this instance, customers were not given the opportunity to opt out of disclosure of their personal financial information in response to online consumer reviews, the complaint asserts. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants also violated the FTC Act by causing unfair or deceptive acts or practices that “deprived consumers of the ability to control whether and to whom they disclosed sensitive information.” The defendants also allegedly violated the FCRA by using consumer reports for impermissible purposes, and the FTC’s Safeguards Rule by failing to implement or maintain an adequate information security program. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay a $120,000 civil penalty and are prohibited from (i) misrepresenting their privacy and data security practices; (ii) using consumer reports for anything other than a permissible purpose; (iii) not providing required privacy notices; and (iv) improperly disclosing nonpublic personal information to third parties. Among other things, the company is also prohibited from transferring, selling, sharing, collecting, maintaining, or storing nonpublic personal information unless it implements a comprehensive information security program; and must obtain independent third-party assessments of its information security program every two years.
On January 7, the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection noted that the Commission has made “three major changes” in its data security orders to “improve data security practices and provide greater deterrence” by focusing on specificity, accountability, and responsibility. The first change increases the specificity of data security orders to “make the FTC’s expectations clearer” and “improve order enforceability.” The second change increases the accountability of the third-party assessors who review the comprehensive data security programs that the orders exact, by requiring assessors to include specific evidence for each determination and to accommodate requests from the FTC to review the assessments. The third change emphasizes executive responsibility. Yearly, companies will be required to present their data security programs to board and senior company executives who must certify the company’s compliance to the FTC. The announcement also pointed to a number of 2019 orders to demonstrate the “significant improvements” the agency has made with the three changes.
On January 4, NYDFS issued an Industry Letter warning regulated entities about the “heightened risk” of cyberattacks by hackers affiliated with the Iranian government following the killing of Iranian official Qasem Soleimani, and strongly encouraging entities to undertake preparations to ensure quick responses to any suspected cyber incidents. Specifically, NYDFS recommends that regulated entities (i) patch/remediate all vulnerabilities (especially publicly disclosed vulnerabilities); (ii) ensure employees are adequately able to handle phishing attacks; (iii) “fully implement multi-factor authentication”; (iv) “review and update disaster recovery plans”; (v) and quickly respond to further alerts from the government or other reliable sources, even outside regular business hours. The letter notes that NYDFS’ cyber regulation 23 NYCRR 500.17 (previously covered by InfoBytes here), requires regulated entities to notify NYDFS “‘as promptly as possible but in no event later than 72 hours’ after a material cybersecurity event.”
On December 30, President Trump signed S. 151—the “Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act” (TRACED Act)—which, among other things, grants the FCC authority to promulgate rules to combat illegal robocalls and requires voice service providers to develop call authentication technologies. The TRACED Act, Public Law No. 116-105, also directs the FCC to issue regulations to ensure that banks and other callers have effective redress options if their calls are erroneously blocked by call-blocking services.
Highlights of the TRACED Act include:
- STIR/SHAKEN implementation. Within 18 months of enactment, the FCC must require voice service providers to implement “STIR/SHAKEN” caller ID authentication framework protocols at no additional charge to consumers. Providers will be required to adopt call authentication technologies to enable telephone carriers to verify the authenticity of the calling party’s calls. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Increased enforcement authority. The FCC will be able to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, with additional penalties of as much as $10,000 for intentional violations. The TRACED Act also extends the window for the FCC to take enforcement action against intentional violations to four years.
- FCC requirements. The TRACED Act directs the FCC to (i) initiate a rulemaking to protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls or texts from callers who use unauthenticated numbers; (ii) initiate a proceeding to protect parties from “one-ring” scams “in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the called party to return the call, thereby subjecting the called party to charges”; (iii) submit annual robocall reports to Congress; and (iv) establish a working group to issue best practices to prevent hospitals from receiving illegal robocalls.
- Agency collaboration. The TRACED Act directs the DOJ and the FTC to convene an interagency working group comprised of relevant federal departments and agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, FTC, and CFPB, which must consult with state attorneys general and other non-federal entities, to identify and report to Congress on recommendations and methods for improving, preventing, and prosecuting robocall violations.
- Criminal prosecutions. The TRACED Act encourages the DOJ to bring more criminal prosecutions against robocallers.
Earlier on December 20, the FCC issued a public notice seeking industry input on current practices for blocking unwanted calls as part of a study required by last June’s declaratory ruling and proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here; Federal Register notice here). The FCC will use the information collected in an upcoming report on the current state of call blocking efforts. Comments will be accepted until January 29, and reply comments are due on or before February 28.
- Andrew W. Schilling to moderate "Expectations of in-house counsel from their law firm partners" at the ACI's 7th Annual Advanced Forum on False Claims and Qui Tam
- Sasha Leonhardt to discuss "Cybersecurity basics for compliance staff" at a NAFCU webinar
- Buckley Webcast: Tips for navigating changes to the FHA recertification process
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "A 20/20 view on 2020’s legislative and regulatory outlook" at the ACAMS Anti-Financial Crime and Public Policy Conference
- Kari K. Hall and Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Overdrafts and regulatory trends" at the CLE Alabama Banking Law Update
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "Industry open forum session on NMLS usage" at the NMLS Annual Conference & Training
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "Regulating innovative consumer lending products" at the NMLS Annual Conference & Training
- Daniel P. Stipano to moderate "Washington update" at the 17th Puerto Rican Symposium of Anti Money Laundering 2020 conference
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "Private flood insurance updates" at the MBA's Servicing Solutions Conference & Expo 2020
- APPROVED Checkpoint Webcast: CFL overview
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Pathway of the SARs: Tracking trajectories of suspicious activity reports from alerts to prosecution" at the ACAMS moneylaundering.com 25th Annual International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Which bud’s for you? A deep-dive into evolving marijuana laws" at the ACAMS moneylaundering.com 25th Annual International AML & Financial Crime Conference