InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: CFPB Enforcement Action Targets Marketing of Auto Loans, Add-On Products to Servicemembers
This morning, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced enforcement actions against a national bank and its service provider related to alleged deceptive marketing of auto loans and add-on products to active-duty servicemembers. The CFPB claims that the companies failed to disclose or mischaracterized certain fees charged and ancillary products offered through a program developed to finance auto loans to servicemembers. These are the first public enforcement actions by the CFPB related to auto finance, and according to CFPB Director Richard Cordray, were precipitated by a complaint received from an individual servicemember’s relative. The actions demonstrate the CFPB’s focus on auto finance and its increasing coordination with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the individual branches of the military on servicemember protection issues.
Scope of Alleged Violations
The CFPB charges that the bank violated Regulation Z (TILA) by failing to accurately disclose the finance charge, annual percentage rate, payment schedule and total of payments for the subject loans, and also violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition on deceptive acts or practices by (i) failing to accurately disclose the finance charge, annual percentage rate, payment schedule, and total of payments for the subject loans; and (ii) deceptively marketing the prices and coverage of add-on service contracts. Specifically, the bank allegedly failed to inform servicemembers that they would be charged a monthly processing fee for automatic payroll allotments; (ii) failed to disclose that the allotments would be deducted from servicemember paychecks twice per month, but only credited once a month; and (iii) failed to regularly review and validate its vendor’s marketing related to the cost and coverage of add-on service contracts. As with the CFPB’s actions last year related to certain add-on products marketed by credit card issuer vendors, the CFPB focused on the marketing of the products and did not directly address their value. This action also applies the CFPB’s guidance on vendor management, which outlines the CFPB’s expectations for oversight and management of third-party vendors involved in the offering of ancillary products.
The service provider is alleged to have violated the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices by (i) deceptively marketing the prices of an add-on vehicle service contract and an add-on GAP insurance product; and (ii) deceptively marketing the scope of the coverage of a vehicle service contract. The CFPB asserts that the company understated the costs of the vehicle service contract and insurance product and overstated the reach of their coverage.
Resolution
The orders require the companies to cease the alleged practices, improve disclosures, and pay combined restitution of approximately $6.5 million - $3.2 million by the bank, $3.3 million by the vendor. Neither order includes a civil money penalty.
In addition, the bank must (i) develop a comprehensive compliance plan within 60 days; (ii) submit compliance progress reports within 90 days and after one year, as well as within 14 days of receiving a request from the CFPB after the one-year report; and (iii) implement certain recordkeeping requirements. The service provider has 15 days to retain an independent consultant to develop a compliance plan. Within 90 days of when the CFPB approves the consultant, the service provider must submit a compliance management system and written compliance plan. It also is subject to similar reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Application of “Responsible Conduct” Guidance
Earlier this week, as detailed in our prior Special Alert, the CFPB issued guidance setting forth its expectations for companies subject to enforcement activity. Among other things, the CFPB stated that “responsible conduct” may be rewarded by the exercise of its discretion to resolve an investigation with no public enforcement action or to reduce any sanction or penalty imposed. According to the CFPB, in the actions announced today, the companies proactively addressed aspects of the loan program at issue and worked cooperatively with the Bureau to provide refunds to servicemembers. While the matters nonetheless resulted in public enforcement actions, the Bureau states expressly that this “responsible conduct” was one of several factors it considered in electing not to impose civil money penalties.
CFPB’s Focus on Auto Finance & Servicemember Protection
In addition to marketing of loans and add-on products, the CFPB has continued to focus on the fair lending implications of certain practices of indirect auto lenders. Just last week, the CFPB sought to explain to members of Congress its rationale for pursuing auto fair lending claims, largely reiterating the information set forth in the guidance issued in CFPB Bulletin 2013-02, and the CFPB reportedly has several ongoing auto finance investigations. We expect to see additional auto finance actions from the Bureau addressing the marketing and pricing of auto loans and add-on products.
Today’s CFPB announcement notes that the DOD and the Judge Advocate General Corps of each of the service branches assisted the CFPB in this matter. Concurrent with the announcement, the CFPB published information for servicemembers related to military allotments, announced that the DOD has established a working group that will consult with the CFPB and other federal regulators to look at the use of military discretionary allotments, and reiterated the Bureau’s general commitment to working with the DOD on protecting servicemembers in the consumer financial marketplace.”
House Democrats Raise Concerns about CFPB Auto Lending Enforcement
On May 28, a group of 13 Democratic Members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray seeking “any and all background information about . . . [the CFPB’s] investigation into alleged practices within the auto lending industry.” As has been reported, earlier this year the CFPB issued guidance to bank and nonbank indirect auto lenders about compliance with federal fair lending requirements, and the CFPB has spent the past several months implementing that guidance through supervision and examination of lenders. In particular, the CFPB is focused on the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the indirect lender’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues. In their letter to Director Cordray, the Members of Congress remind the Director that vehicle ownership can be critical to a consumer’s ability to obtain and maintain employment and find affordable housing, and raise concerns about the impact of the CFPB’s auto lending enforcement activity on consumers’ access to affordable credit for vehicle purchase. The Members ask the Director to provide specific information about allegations stemming from investigations of auto lenders and the methodology the CFPB is employing to determine whether fair lending violations exists. They also seek additional information about the CFPB’s compliance expectations for indirect auto lenders with regard to dealer compensation policies. The letter asks the CFPB to respond by June 7, 2013.
SEC Charges Bank for Understating Auto Loan Losses
On April 24, the SEC released an order charging a financial institution and two senior executives for allegedly understating millions of dollars in auto loan losses during the period leading up to the financial crisis. The SEC stated that an investigation identified an alleged failure by the institution to incorporate internal loss forecasts into financial reporting, resulting in the institution understating loan loss expense. The institution did not admit the allegations, but agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve the charges. The SEC also alleged that the two executives caused the understatements by deviating from established policies and procedures and failing to implement proper internal controls for determining its loan loss expense. The two executives did not admit the allegations, but agreed to pay a combined $135,000 to resolve the investigation, and to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of the relevant federal securities laws.
Michigan Court of Appeals Holds Companies Hired by Automobile Lenders to Arrange for the Repossession of Collateral Need Not Be Licensed as Collection Agencies
On April 11, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the Michigan Occupational Code did not require licensure of companies that contract with automobile lending institutions to handle collection services on delinquent accounts (“forwarding companies”) because the forwarding companies did not directly or indirectly engage in collections activities. Badeen v. Par, Inc., 2013 WL 1489372 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2013). Plaintiffs, licensed debt collectors, filed multiple amended complaints alleging that defendants, automobile lenders and forwarding companies, violated the Michigan Occupational Code by hiring unlicensed collections agencies and indirectly engaging in collections activities. The court of appeals held that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief for their claims that defendants engaged in licensable activity without a license. The court explained that because the forwarding companies hired by the automobile lenders contract out the activities of solicitation of claims and repossession of property to properly licensed collection agencies, and do not themselves “directly or indirectly” engage in the collection of debts, the forwarding agencies are not required to be licensed.
California Appeals Court Enforces Retail Installment Sales Contract Arbitration Agreement.
On March 27, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, enforced an arbitration agreement in a retail installment sales contract. Vasquez v. Greene Motors, Inc., No. A134829, 2013 WL 1232343 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2013). While the court held that the agreement was “procedurally unconscionable” because the agreement “was imposed on [the Defendant] without the opportunity for negotiation, and was therefore adhesive,” it reversed the lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. In so holding, the court reasoned that the level of procedural unconscionability was “minimal” and that there was no significant substantive unconscionability. The court held “the only suggestion of substantive unconscionability . . . was the failure of the clause to permit an ‘appeal’ arbitration in the event a buyer sought and was denied injunctive relief,” but that “this asymmetry is mitigated by the provision permitting a second arbitration if a buyer is denied a monetary recovery.” Finding “minimal unconscionability,” the court reversed the trial court order denying the petition to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to order arbitration.
CFPB Issues Guidance on Indirect Auto Finance
On March 21, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2013-02, which provides guidance to bank and nonbank indirect auto lenders about compliance with federal fair lending requirements, and specifically addresses the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the indirect lender’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues. The CFPB explains that indirect auto lenders are creditors under ECOA and Regulation B if they regularly participate in making credit decisions. Based on information the Bureau has collected to date, it believes the “standard practices” of indirect auto lenders constitute participation in a credit decision.
The CFPB contends that by permitting dealer markup and compensating dealers on that basis, lenders may be liable under the legal theories of both disparate treatment and disparate impact when pricing disparities on a prohibited basis exist within their portfolios. As such, the CFPB urges indirect lenders to (i) impose controls on, or otherwise revise, dealer markup and compensation policies, and monitor the effects of those policies and address unexplained pricing disparities on prohibited bases; or (ii) eliminate dealer discretion to mark up buy rates and compensate dealers in some other way.
The guidance also identifies what the CFPB considers to be core aspects of a robust fair lending compliance program, including: (i) an up-to-date fair lending policy statement; (ii) regular fair lending training for all employees involved with any aspect of the institution’s credit transactions, as well as all officers and board members; (iii) ongoing monitoring for compliance with fair lending and other policies and procedures intended to reduce fair lending risk; (iv) review of lending policies for potential fair lending violations, including potential disparate impact; (v) depending on the size and complexity of the financial institution, regular analysis of loan data in all product areas for potential disparities on a prohibited basis in pricing, underwriting, or other aspects of the credit transaction; (vi) regular assessment of the marketing of loan products; and (vii) meaningful oversight of fair lending compliance by management and, where appropriate, the institution’s board.
Insights Into The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Priorities for 2013
On March 20, 2013, Michael Bresnick, Executive Director of DOJ’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force gave a speech at the Exchequer Club of Washington, DC highlighting recent accomplishments of the Task Force and outlining its priorities for the coming year. He began by discussing a number of areas of known focus for the Task Force, including RMBS fraud, fair lending enforcement, and servicemember protection. He then outlined three additional areas of focus that the Task Force has prioritized, including (i) the “government’s ability to protect its interests and ensure that it does business only with ethical and responsible parties;” (ii) discrimination in indirect auto lending; and (iii) financial institutions’ role in fraud by their customers, which include third party payment processors and payday lenders.
The third priority, which was the focus of Mr. Bresnick’s remarks, involves the Consumer Protection Working Group’s prioritization of “the role of financial institutions in mass marketing fraud schemes -- including deceptive payday loans, false offers of debt relief, fraudulent health care discount cards, and phony government grants, among other things -- that cause billions of dollars in consumer losses and financially destroy some of our most vulnerable citizens.” He added that the Working Group also is investigating third-party payment processors, the businesses that process payments on behalf of the fraudulent merchant. Mr. Bresnick explained that “financial institutions and payment processors . . . are the so-called bottlenecks, or choke-points, in the fraud committed by so many merchants that victimize consumers and launder their illegal proceeds.” He said that “they provide the scammers with access to the national banking system and facilitate the movement of money from the victim of the fraud to the scam artist.” He further stated that “financial institutions through which these fraudulent proceeds flow . . . are not always blind to the fraud” and that the FFETF has “observed that some financial institutions actually have been complicit in these schemes, ignoring their BSA/AML obligations, and either know about -- or are willfully blind to -- the fraudulent proceeds flowing through their institutions.” Mr. Bresnick explained that “[i]f we can eliminate the mass-marketing fraudsters’ access to the U.S. financial system -- that is, if we can stop the scammers from accessing consumers’ bank accounts -- then we can protect the consumers and starve the scammers.”
Mr. Bresnick stated that the Task Force’s message to banks is this: “Maintaining robust BSA/AML policies and procedures is not merely optional or a polite suggestion. It is absolutely necessary, and required by law. Failure to do so can result in significant civil, or even criminal, penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, FIRREA, and other statutes.” He noted that banks should endeavor not only to know their customers, but also to know their customers’ customers: “Before they agree to do business with a third-party payment processor, banks should strive to learn more about the processors’ merchant-clients, including the names of the principals, the location of the business, and the products being sold, among other things.” They further should be aware of glaring red flags indicative of fraud, such as high return rates on the processor’s accounts: “High return rates trigger a duty by the bank and the third-party payment processor to inquire into the reasons for the high rate of returns, in particular whether the merchant is engaged in fraud.” (See BuckleySandler’s previous Spotlight on Anti-Money Laundering posts here, here and here.) Mr. Bresnick underscored this point by mentioning a recent complaint filed by the DOJ in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
With respect to the financial institutions’ relationships with the payday lending industry, Mr. Bresnick stated that “the Bank Secrecy Act required banks to have an effective compliance program to prevent illegal use of the banking system by the banks’ clients.” He explained that financial institutions “should consider whether originating debit transactions on behalf of Internet payday lenders – particularly where the loans may violate state laws – is consistent with their BSA obligations.” Although he acknowledged that it was not a simple task for a financial institution to determine whether the loans being processed through it are in violation of the state law where the borrower resides, he suggested “at a minimum, banks might consider determining the states where the payday lender makes loans, as well as what types of loans it offers, the APR of the loans, and whether it makes loans to consumers in violation of state, as well as federal, laws.”
In concluding, Mr. Bresnick said, “It comes down to this: When a bank allows its customers, and even its customers’ customers, access to the national banking system, it should endeavor to understand the true nature of the business that it will allow to access the payment system, and the risks posed to consumers and society regarding criminal or other unlawful conduct.”
The agenda outlined by Mr. Bresnick reinforces ongoing efforts by FinCEN and the FDIC, and adds to the priorities recently sketched out by CFPB and the OCC. Together they describe an ambitious, and increasingly aggressive, financial services enforcement agenda for federal regulators and enforcement authorities.
State Law Update: Georgia Eliminates Double Taxation on Auto Leases
On March 5, Georgia enacted HB 266, which, among other things, eliminates a monthly sales tax on auto leases. The bill responds to a 2012 overhaul of the state’s tax code that mistakenly created a double tax on car leases, requiring payment of a Title Ad Valorem Tax of 6.5% to be paid by both lessees and purchasers of motor vehicles in the state, as well as the monthly sales and use tax to be paid by lessees. This additional tax had the effect of making motor vehicle leases less attractive than purchases, and at the same time likely would have resulted in lower overall taxes payable to the state. The bill also allows the Georgia Department of Revenue to decide whether and how to regulate “buy here, pay here” dealers. If the Department does create such rules, it has discretion to provide those dealers a larger discount from the normal title tax. The bill took effect immediately.
Maryland's Highest Court Holds Auctions that Charge Admission Fee are Private Sales
On March 1, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, answering a question of law certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the sale of repossessed automobiles at an auction where individuals had to pay a refundable $1,000 cash deposit was a “private sale”, and not a “public auction,” under the provisions of Maryland’s Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Act (CLEC). Gardner v. Ally Fin. Inc., Misc. No. 10, 2013 WL 765013 (Md. Mar. 1, 2013). The court determined, based on legislative history, that one purpose of 1987 amendments to the CLEC was to protect the debtor against “favored buyer private sales that are not . . . commercially reasonable.” The court held that although the sale of the automobiles in this case was publicly advertised and open to the public for competitive bidding, the admission fee, which was charged to all participants, even those who merely wanted to observe the proceedings, “obscured transparency” and “shielded the process used to sell [the] cars from observation and, thus, could not constitute a ‘public auction’ under CLEC.” Thus, the court held that the creditors were subject to the more stringent post-sale disclosure requirements required for “private sales” under the CLEC.
California Appeals Court Holds No Actual Damages Necessary to Sustain Claims Against Dealer, Finance Company Under State Auto Finance Act
On January 15, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that an auto buyer need not plead actual damages to sustain a claim under the state’s auto finance act, and that there is no statutory protection from contract rescission afforded a dealer or its assignee for substantial compliance with the act. Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. No. B235956, 2013 WL 156561 (Cal. App. Ct. Jan. 15, 2013). The plaintiff bought and financed a car with a dealer, agreeing to a deferred down payment schedule, which he claims the dealer failed to properly reflect on the retail installment sales contract. The dealer and the finance company to which it had assigned the loan, succeeded on demurrers in the trial court, obtaining dismissal of the buyer’s claims that the dealer’s mischaracterization of the down payment violated the state’s Rees-Levering Act, which requires a detailed and truthful itemization of a buyer’s down payment, and allegations that the mischaracterization violated the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act and constituted an unfair business practice. On appeal, the court held that “the purpose and history of Rees-Levering establish that [buyer] need not have suffered actual damage from [the dealer’s] violation of the statute’s disclosure requirements,” and that a common law substantial compliance rule has been statutorily removed. As such, the buyer could state a claim for relief under the act even for apparently “trivial” misstatements. The court also held that while the buyer’s allegations of injury are vague and do not support the assertions made regarding violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unfair business practices, the buyer should have the right to amend his claims. The court reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.