InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC and FCC warn VoIP service providers about illegal Covid-19 robocalls
On April 3, the FTC and the FCC sent letters to three Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, warning the companies to stop sending spam robocall campaigns promoting Covid-19 related scams. According to the agencies, “routing and transmitting illegal robocalls, including Coronavirus-related scam calls, is illegal and may lead to federal law enforcement.” The agencies sent a separate letter to a telecommunications trade association thanking the group for its assistance in identifying the campaigns and relaying a warning that the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to begin blocking calls from the three companies if they do not comply with the agencies’ request within 48 hours after the release of the letter.
CFPB fines short-term lender $1.3 million for unfair and deceptive acts and practices
On April 1, the CFPB announced a $1.3 million settlement with a Texas-based short-term lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FCRA, and TILA. The Bureau alleged that while “marketing, servicing, and collecting on high-interest payday, auto-title, and unsecured consumer-installment loans,” the lender made deceptive representations through advertisements and telemarketing calls when promoting purported loan discounts. The Bureau also alleged that the lender engaged in unfair collection call practices by allegedly calling consumers who failed to make payments numerous times—some more than 15 or 20 times a day—even after being asked to stop. In addition, the lender allegedly repeatedly called consumers’ workplaces and references as a tactic to obtain payments and disclosed, or risked disclosing, to third parties the existence of the delinquent debts. According to the Bureau, the lender also violated FCRA by failing to maintain adequate consumer reporting policies and procedures to ensure the “accuracy and integrity” of the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and violated TILA by failing to provide telemarketers guidance on how to lawfully disclose a loan’s annual percentage rate as required by federal law when responding to consumers’ questions about interest and other loan costs.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is required to pay a $1.1 million civil money penalty, $286,675 in consumer redress, and is, among other things, (i) permanently restrained from certain collection practices; (ii) required to ensure employees do not misrepresent discount offers when marketing or selling consumer financial products or services; and (iii) tasked with ensuring employees correctly disclose the APR of loan products.
SEC announces $450,000 compliance-related whistleblower award
On March 30, the SEC announced a $450,000 award to a whistleblower in an enforcement action. According to the formal order, the whistleblower—who had compliance-related responsibilities at the company at issue in the enforcement action—suffered “unique hardships” after first attempting to report concerns within the company’s internal compliance structure. The whistleblower then reported the information to the SEC following the required 120-day time waiting period, which ultimately provided assistance to the SEC’s investigation and successful enforcement action. The SEC stated in its press release that this is the third whistleblower award given to an individual with compliance or internal audit responsibilities. As of March 30, the SEC has awarded 77 individuals a total of approximately $396 million in whistleblower awards since its first award in 2012.
FTC and student loan debt relief operation agree to permanent injunction
On March 30, the FTC announced a settlement with three student loan debt relief companies and their owner for violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act by allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling their debt relief services. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, (i) falsely promised consumers that they could permanently lower or eliminate student loans by enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan for an upfront fee; (ii) offered consumers incentives for positive reviews; (iii) failed to advise consumers to state that they were offered payment for reviews, and failed to disclose that consumers were paid when responding to reviews; and (iv) incorrectly advised consumers on how to report family sizes on applications for student loan debt relief, or falsified consumers’ family size without their knowledge.
According to the FTC, the defendants agreed to a pending stipulated final order that would, among other things, permanently ban the defendants from providing unsecured debt relief services and from making misrepresentations or unsubstantiated claims related to any products and services. However, the defendants will be allowed to continue to assist existing consumers prepare and submit applications to the Department of Education as part of the yearly recertification process, provided the consumers have provided an opt-in confirmation. The stipulated order also requires the defendants to pay $350,000, with the total judgment of approximately $23.9 million suspended due to inability to pay.
Federal Reserve eases quarterly HMDA reporting
On March 31, the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) Division of Consumer and Community Affairs issued a letter regarding HMDA quarterly reporting requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic, which echoed the statement issued by the CFPB on March 26. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB’s HMDA reporting guidance stated that the Bureau will not cite or initiate enforcement actions against mortgage lenders that do not file quarterly HMDA reports. Similarly, the Fed will adopt the same approach in an effort to provide supervised institutions with flexibility to reallocate resources to serving customers, if needed. The statement reminds supervised institutions to continue to collect and record HMDA data for annual data submissions. Information as to when the quarterly reporting requirement will resume will be provided at a later date.
SEC issues multiple whistleblower awards
On March 24, the SEC announced awards of over $570,000 to two whistleblowers for providing “significant information and assistance that helped the Commission bring multiple successful enforcement actions.” According to the formal order, the first whistleblower received an award of approximately $478,000, and the second whistleblower received an award of approximately $94,000. The SEC stated that the first whistleblower’s award was substantially higher because the information (i) helped the SEC bring antifraud charges related to conduct that was ongoing at the time the whistleblower reported the information to the SEC; (ii) played a critical role in the development of the case; and (iii) related to all the enforcement actions. In comparison, the second whistleblower’s information—while important—contributed to charges brought against only one of the respondents, the SEC stated.
Earlier on March 23, the SEC announced an award of over $1.6 million to a whistleblower in an enforcement action. According to the SEC’s press release, the whistleblower “provided helpful assistance early in the investigation, preserving Commission time and resources,” and “helped form part of the basis for charges brought in a successful enforcement action.” The formal order—which acknowledged that the allegations reported by the whistleblower “would have been hard to detect”—stated, however, that while the whistleblower “unreasonably delayed” reporting the allegations, the SEC chose not to factor in the delay as severely as it might have done had the delay occurred entirely after the Dodd-Frank Act established the whistleblower award program.
The SEC’s March 24 press release states that it has awarded 76 individuals a total of approximately $396 million in whistleblower awards since its initial award in 2012.
FTC issues statement on consumer protection during Covid-19 crisis
On March 26, the FTC Chairman issued a statement reiterating that the FTC is working closely with federal and state law enforcers and other stakeholders and is “devoting significant resources to tackling scammers and unfair and deceptive business practices” particularly with respect to the Covid-19 outbreak. The FTC notes that while it will remain flexible and reasonable in enforcing compliance requirements that may hinder the provision of important goods and services to customers, it will not “tolerate companies deceiving consumers, using tactics that violate well-established consumer protections, or taking unfair advantage of these uniquely challenging times.”
OCC issues interim rule and order to extend short-term investment fund maturity
On March 22, the OCC announced the release of a short-term investment funds (STIF) interim final rule. The rule—which is effective immediately—revises the OCC’s STIF rule “for national banks acting in a fiduciary capacity” and “allows the OCC to authorize banks to temporarily extend maturity limits of these funds” for financial market disruptions that prevent banks from complying with required STIF maturity limits. Comments on the interim rule must be received by May 9.
Along with the interim final rule, the OCC issued OCC Bulletin 2020-22 regarding its March 21 order which temporarily extends maturity limits for STIFs that have been affected by financial market disruptions as a result of Covid-19. According to the order, a bank will be considered to be in compliance if (i) “the STIF maintains a dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of 120 days or less”; (ii) the STIF maintains a dollar-weighted average portfolio life maturity of 180 days or less”; (iii) “the bank determines that using these temporary limits would be in the best interests of the STIF under applicable law”; and (iv) “the bank makes any necessary amendments to the written plan for the STIF to reflect these temporary changes.” The temporary limits will be in effect until July 20, unless extended by the OCC.
CFPB releases HMDA FAQs
On March 6, the CFPB released seven updated FAQs to assist reporting institutions in complying with HMDA and Regulation C. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s issued the 2020 edition of the “Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting It Right!” in February. The FAQs offer guidance for reporting the following data points: (i) universal loan identifier (ULI); (ii) legal entity identifier (LEI); (iii) ethnicity, race, and sex; (iv) discount points; and (v) construction and construction/permanent transactions. Highlights are listed below:
- Regulation C does not “require a financial institution to provide the ULI on loan documents.” It requires a financial institution to “collect, record, and report a ULI for applications for covered loans that is receives, covered loans that it originates, and covered loans that it purchases for each calendar year.”
- “For applications taken by telephone…a person collecting the race or ethnicity information [is required] to orally state the information in the collection form unless the information pertains uniquely to applications taken in writing, for example, the italicized language in the sample data collection form.”
- “[A] financial institution should not correct the race or ethnicity as reported by the applicant, even if the applicant has entered clearly incorrect or inappropriate information.”
- “Where a natural person applicant does not provide ethnicity, race, or sex information for a mail, internet, or telephone application, and a financial institution does not have an opportunity to collect this information during an in person meeting during the application process, the financial institution may report either that the information was not collected on the basis of visual observation or surname (code 2) or that the requirement to report this data field is not applicable (code 3).”
- “For construction and permanent loans where the construction loan is a separate transaction, the financial institution reports only the loan term of the permanent loan. Because the separate construction loan is designed to be replaced by permanent financing, it is excluded as temporary financing.”
FTC obtains default judgment in student debt relief operation
On March 10, the FTC announced that it obtained default judgments of over $10.7 million against three defendants in a student loan debt relief operation that the FTC alleged violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Act. The defendants were alleged to have deceptively marketed services to reduce or eliminate student loan debt and to have tricked borrowers into paying illegal upfront fees for these services. In its order granting the default judgment, in addition to the monetary penalties, the court permanently enjoined the defendants from (i) participating in telemarketing; (ii) selling secured and unsecured debt relief products and services; and (iii) making misrepresentations related to financial products and services.