InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts AG sues auto lender for deceptive loans
On August 31, the Massachusetts attorney general announced an action against a national auto lender for allegedly making unfair and deceptive auto loans and engaging in unfair debt collection practices. According to the complaint, since 2013, the auto lender allegedly made “high-risk high-interest subprime” loans to Massachusetts borrowers who the lender “knew or should have known were unable to repay their loans,” in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the attorney general asserts that consumers were subject to “hidden finance charges,” which resulted in consumers’ actual interest rates being higher than the state’s usury ceiling of 21 percent. Moreover, the lender’s collection employees allegedly “harassed” consumers in default by calling them “as often as eight times a day,” when state law limits collection calls to no more than two calls per week, sent improper repossession notices, and failed to use the correct fair market value when calculating deficiency amounts. Lastly, the attorney general argues that the lender used “false or misleading statements” concerning the characteristics of the loans packaged and securitized to investors.
The attorney general is seeking a permanent injunction, restitution, and civil penalties.
FTC proposes to amend five FCRA rules to apply only to auto dealers
On August 24, the FTC announced several Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) intended to clarify that five Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) rules promulgated by the FTC will now apply only to motor vehicle dealers. The NPRMs also propose non-substantive amendments to correspond to changes made to the FCRA by the Dodd-Frank Act, and will apply to the following rules:
- Address Discrepancy Rule. This rule requires users of consumer reports to implement policies and procedures for, among other things, handling notices of address discrepancy received from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (CRA) and furnishing an address for a consumer that a “user has reasonably confirmed as accurate to the CRA from whom it received the notice.” The proposed amendments narrow the scope of the rule to motor vehicle dealers excluded from CFPB jurisdiction.
- Affiliate Marketing Rule. This rule provides consumers the right to restrict a person from using certain information obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations to the consumer. While the proposed amendments narrow the scope of the rule to “motor vehicle dealers” excluded from CFPB jurisdiction, they retain the substantive provisions of the rule because they “addresses the relationship between covered motor vehicle dealers and their affiliates, which may not be motor vehicle dealers.”
- Furnisher Rule. Under this rule, furnishers are required to implement policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the consumer information they provide to a CRA. The amendments propose changes including narrowing the rule’s scope to entities set forth in Dodd-Frank “that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, excluding those dealers that directly extend credit to consumers and do not routinely assign the extensions of credit to an unaffiliated third party.”
- Prescreen Opt-Out Notice Rule. This rule outlines requirements for those who use consumer reports to make unsolicited credit or insurance offers to consumers. The proposed amendments will narrow the scope of the rule to cover only motor vehicle dealers. The model form is unchanged from the previous model notice and is identical to the model notice used by the CFPB.
- Risk-Based Pricing Rule. Under this rule persons that use information from a consumer report to offer less favorable terms are required to provide a risk-based pricing notice to consumers about the use of such data. Under the proposed amendments, only motor vehicle dealers will be required to comply.
The FTC seeks feedback on the effectiveness of the five rules, including (i) whether there exists a continuing need for each rule’s specific provisions; (ii) what benefits have been provided to consumers under each rule; and (iii) should modifications be made to each rule in order to benefit consumers and businesses or to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions.
Comments are due 75 days after the NPRMs are published in the Federal Register.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance for regulated lenders
On August 20, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner issued updated guidance, previously covered here, for regulated lenders navigating the Covid-19 crisis. The guidance: (1) encourages lenders to work with consumers, including by working out modifications to assist with payments, waiving fees and charges, suspending charged-off accounts, and suspending repossessions of collateral or foreclosure of real property, among other things; (2) reminds lenders of legal requirements for using electronic signatures; and (3) permits lenders to conduct regulated lending activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through September 30, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with borrowers
On August 20, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis (previously covered here, here, here, and here). Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 for licensees, work out modifications for payment difficulties, waive certain charges, and suspend repossessions. The guidance also reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through September 30, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
SCRA’s lease protections expanded for stop movement orders
On August 14, President Trump signed S.3637, which amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to expand the lease protections for servicemembers under stop movement orders in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the SCRA’s lease termination protections are expanded to include situations in which a servicemember executes a residential or motor vehicle lease upon the receipt of military orders for a permanent change of station or deployment and then subsequently receives a stop movement order “in response to a local, national, or global emergency, effective for an indefinite period or for a period of not less than 30 days,” which would prevent the servicemember from occupying the residence or using the vehicle. The amendments are retroactively effective and apply to stop movement orders issued on or after March 1.
Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions extends emergency declarations to non-depository entities
On July 24, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions extended emergency declarations for residential mortgage lenders, check cashers, bond for deed escrow agents and repossession agents, brokers and lenders licensed under the Louisiana Consumer Credit Law and Deferred Presentment and Small Loan Act, and pawnbrokers. The orders were previously covered here. Such entities are granted the authority to temporarily close licensed locations within Louisiana or to temporarily close and/or relocate to another location within the state. Mortgage loan originators are permitted to work from home, whether located in Louisiana or another state, even if the home is not registered with the LOFI. The declarations also provide instructions for notifying the LOFI of a temporary location change. The declarations will remain in effect as long as there is a public health emergency relating to Covid-19, or until rescinded or replaced.
Massachusetts Appeals Court holds deficiency debt notice should be applied retroactively
On July 21, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a 2018 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) decision in Williams v. American Honda Fin. Corp., which resolved a conflict in state law regarding the proper way for a creditor to calculate a consumer’s deficiency debt in an automobile repossession notice, should be applied retroactively. After a consumer defaulted on his car loan, his creditor sent him a presale repossession notice advising him that the amount owed would be reduced by the money received from the sale of the vehicle. This notice was insufficient under Williams, but the creditor argued that the decision should only apply prospectively, and the Superior Court agreed and dismissed the consumer’s complaint. The consumer appealed.
In Williams, the SJC resolved a conflict as to whether the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), G. L. c. 106, §§ 9-600, or the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), G. L. c. 255B should be used to calculate a consumer’s deficiency debt in an automobile repossession notice. While both statutes contain similar elements, they also contain conflicting provisions, which the SJC resolved in Williams by holding that all automobile repossession notices are required to state that the consumer’s deficiency debt will be calculated, in accordance with RISA, based on the difference between the unpaid balance and the vehicle’s fair market value. The SJC further determined that the fair market value language in RISA displaces the UCC’s inconsistent safe harbor provision.
The Appeals Court first noted that decisions in Massachusetts construing a statute are presumptively given retroactive effect. The Appeals Court further held that Williams is intended “to give effect to the clear meaning of a statute designed to protect consumers,” which was “best accomplished through retroactive application.” In agreeing with the consumer, and noting that because Williams does not include a retroactive-prospective analysis, the Appeals Court stated that “there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the presumption of retroactivity.”
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with borrowers
On July 17, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis (previously covered here, here, and here). Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 for licensees, work out modifications for payment difficulties, waive certain charges, and suspend repossessions. The guidance also reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through August 31, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
Kansas issues executive order regarding vehicle registration
On July 8, the Kansas governor issued Executive Order No. 20-55, which amends provisions in Kansas law related to drivers’ license and vehicle registration during the state of disaster emergency. Among other things, the executive order extends the deadline for new Kansas owners that have purchased a new or used motor vehicle on or after January 1, 2020, to make an application for vehicle transfer, certificate of title, and registration. The applicable deadline depends upon when the motor vehicle was purchased.
DOJ settles with Maryland car dealership for ECOA violations
On July 2, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Maryland used car dealership and its owner and manager (collectively, “defendants”) resolving allegations that the defendants violated ECOA by offering terms of credit based on race to consumers seeking to purchase and finance used cars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the DOJ announced it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that between September 2017 and April 2018, compliance testing done by the DOJ concluded that the defendants’ “actions, policies, and practices discriminate against applicants on the basis of race with respect to credit transactions. . .by offering more favorable terms to white testers than to African American testers with similar credit characteristics.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that African American testers were, among other things, (i) told they needed higher down payment amounts than white testers for the same car; (ii) quoted higher bi-weekly payments for “buy here, pay here” financing than white testers for the same car; and (iii) not offered to fund down payments in two installments, as compared to white testers.
The consent order, which is subject to court approval and does not assess a monetary penalty, requires the dealership to, among other things, (i) develop written policies designed to prevent discrimination and ensure compliance with ECOA, including standardizing procedures for all credit applicants to reduce individual discretion in determining terms and conditions of credit; (ii) post and display a non-discrimination notice; (iii) attend ECOA training; and (iv) engage in on-going compliance monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting requirements with the DOJ.