InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
U.S. Supreme Court rules CFPB funding structure is constitutional
On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the funding structure of the CFPB was consistent with the Constitution’s appropriations clause, reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that had called the Bureau’s ability to continue operating without Congressional action into question. The Supreme Court recognized that the CFPB’s funding structure was unique: Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System instead of appropriating funds through the annual appropriations process. However, the Supreme Court found that this unique feature did have constitutional significance. The only question presented was whether the Bureau’s funding mechanism was an “Appropriatio[n] made by Law.” The Supreme Court found that the answer was yes.
Specifically, The Supreme Court held that Congress’s statutory authorization to allow the Federal Reserve System to fund the CFPB satisfied the appropriations clause since “appropriations need only identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes to satisfy the Appropriations Clause,” and both criteria were met. The Supreme Court found the trade associations’ arguments as to why the Bureau’s funding mechanism violated the appropriations clause were unpersuasive.
The CFPB’s constitutionality was challenged following the Bureau’s promulgation of a 2017 regulation on payday lending. In response to a challenge to that regulation, the District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment to the CFPB; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trade associations’ arguments and reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violated the appropriations clause. The Supreme Court has now reversed this decision and remanded the case back to the court of appeals.
CFPB’s credit card late fee rule stayed
On May 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered an opinion and order granting the plaintiffs, comprising several trade organization, its motion for preliminary injunction and placed a stay on the CFPB’s credit card late fee rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a suit was filed against the CFPB by multiple trade organizations to challenge the Bureau’s final rule to amend Regulation Z and limit most credit card late fees to $8.
The court decided not to address the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the CARD Act, TILA, and APA violations due to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion that the CFPB's funding structure was unconstitutional; therefore, any regulations promulgated by the CFPB would be unconstitutional. For that reason, due to the CFPB’s unconstitutional structure found by the 5th Circuit, the District Court decided that all factors weighed in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction and thus staying the final rule.
CFPB to extend 1071 rule compliance deadlines
On May 17, the CFPB announced it is extending the compliance deadlines for the small business lending rule (Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, the “1071 rule”), which will require financial institutions to collect and report data on lending to small businesses to the Bureau (covered by InfoBytes here). Following challenges to the 1071 rule in the U.S. District Court in Texas, the rule was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in CFPB v. CFSA (covered by InfoBytes here). Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision that the Bureau’s funding is constitutional and the district court’s order requiring the CFPB to extend the rule’s compliance deadlines to compensate for the period stayed, the Bureau will issue an interim final rule to extend compliance deadlines as follows:
- Tier 1 institutions (highest volume lenders): The new compliance date is July 18, 2025, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2026.
- Tier 2 institutions (moderate volume lenders): The new compliance date is January 16, 2026, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2027.
- Tier 3 institutions (lowest volume lenders): The new compliance date is October 18, 2026, and the first filing deadline is June 1, 2027.
Connecticut becomes latest state to ban medical debts in credit reporting
On May 9, the Governor of Connecticut approved SB 395 (the “Act”) banning health care providers from reporting medical debt to credit rating agencies. Further, the Act will prohibit hospitals and collection agents from reporting a patient to a credit rating agency, as well as initiating an action to foreclose a lien where the lien was filed to secure payment for health care (retroactive from October 1, 2022), and from garnishing wages for health care collections (also retroactive from October 1, 2022). The Act will go into effect on July 1. The CFPB wrote in favor of this bill’s enactment after the CFPB promulgated its NPRM to prohibit creditors from using medical bills in underwriting decisions, as covered by InfoBytes here.
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.
CFPB and Fed adjust dollar thresholds for Regulation CC
On May 13, the CFPB and the Fed announced inflation-adjusted changes to Regulation CC, which governed the availability of customer funds from bank deposits. The final rule altered the minimum amounts that must be made available for withdrawal by the next business day for certain types of check deposits and modified the funds from certain checks deposited into new accounts that are subject to next-day availability. Mandated by Dodd-Frank, these adjustments were based on the five-year change in the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers from July 2018 to July 2023. The updated thresholds will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
House questions CFPB's rules on NSF fees and impact on small businesses
On May 9, the House Committee on Small Business expressed concerns in a letter addressed to CFPB Director, Rohit Chopra, on a proposed rule that would ban charging insufficient fund fees (NSF fees) on declined transactions (covered by InfoBytes here). The Committee argued this proposed rule could unduly complicate existing UDAAP regulations and impose additional burdens on small financial institutions.
The letter stated the CFPB did not convene a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel and questioned the CFPB’s claims that the rule would not significantly affect a substantial number of small businesses. The Committee suggested that the CFPB’s analysis, which minimizes the impact of NSF fees on small institutions’ revenue, might be flawed and that the rule could have a significant economic impact in terms of reporting requirements and compliance, warranting a review by an SBAR panel. The Committee also challenges the CFPB’s assertion that NSF fees for certain transactions are inherently “abusive,” arguing that the CFPB is overstepping its authority by attempting to ban “business practices” altogether rather than limiting abusive practices. Finally, the Committee requests information from the CFPB on several fronts, including the number of small financial institutions affected by the rule, the compliance burden, the CFPB’s methodology for identifying UDAAP, and the CFPB's stance on disclosures compared to other financial regulations and the FTC's approach.
CFPB reports consumer complaints on credit card rewards programs
On May 9, the CFPB issued a report on credit card rewards programs which highlighted the CFPB’s views on issues affecting millions of consumers. The report opened with a note that the CFPB received over 1,200 complaints regarding credit card rewards in 2023, reportedly a 70 percent increase since before the pandemic, and according to the CFPB, the research found that the benefits of rewards programs “fail to exceed” the costs of credit cards for many borrowers. The report identified four themes: consumers felt misled by vague or hidden conditions that do not match marketing materials from issuers; consumers lost out when card issuers devalue rewards; consumers faced obstacles when card issuers do not resolve redemption issues; and consumers lost rewards when accounts are closed.
In a live panel between the Director of the CFPB, Rohit Chopra, Secretary of the DOT, Pete Buttigieg, and airline trade leaders on credit card reward programs, Chopra noted that there were 550 million credit cards in the U.S. which collectively account for over $1 trillion in consumer debt. Chopra also stated the CFPB will review how it can protect consumers against the devaluation of credit card points. In the panel, Chopra asked the trade groups what they would like the CFPB to do regarding credit card terms and conditions: some organizations asked for greater transparency in points systems, with one suggesting that credit card issuers’ ability to change terms mid-contract should be prohibited.
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.
CFPB reports that complex pricing leads to higher consumer costs
On April 30, the CFPB published a report titled Price Complexity in Laboratory Markets indicating that consumers may pay higher prices for products with complex pricing structures. The report drew on experiments conducted in “simple markets,” where participants engaged in transactions as buyers and sellers. According to the report, these experiments revealed that when product prices were divided into several sub-parts, making them more complicated, participants generally paid more compared to products with a single, comprehensive price.
The study involved participants acting in the roles of buyers and sellers, with transactions involving products priced either as a lump sum or split into eight or 16 separate charges. According to the report, the results showed that in situations with more fragmented pricing, the average selling price increased and buyers found it more challenging to compare prices between sellers. For products with 16 separate charges, the Bureau reported that sellers’ total asking price was typically 60 percent higher than products with one price. In a second experiment, the CFPB investigated the effects of increased competition on market outcomes, finding that increased competition “generally improved, but did not eliminate, the negative effects of price complexity.” The Bureau noted that the findings of this research align with existing studies and evidence suggesting that alleged "junk fees" can lead to higher overall prices than those typically found in a fair and competitive market.