InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC settles with app for violating COPPA
On July 1, the FTC announced a settlement with the operators of a coloring book app (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA). The DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint claiming that the defendants, among other things, violated COPPA by collecting and disclosing personal information about children who utilized the app without notifying their parents and obtaining their consent. The FTC claimed that some children, including those under 13, were able to register for accounts and use the app’s social media features. The defendants allegedly received numerous complaints that children were using the app’s social media features, such as posting “selfies” on the app’s “gallery” for public viewing and interacting with other users, including adults. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated final order, the defendants must complete several steps to remedy the alleged violations, including deleting all personal information collected from children under the age of 13 within 60 days, unless parental consent is obtained. The defendants must also offer current paid subscribers a refund if they were under the age of 18 when they registered for the app. In addition, the defendants agreed to notify users about the alleged COPPA violations and the steps that users can take in response to the settlement. The proposed order provides for a $3 million civil money penalty that is suspended upon payment of $100,000 due to the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount. If the defendants sell the app within a year following the order, they are required to remit the net proceeds from the sale to the FTC after debts and other related expenses are paid.
Fed announces flood insurance violations
On July 1, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a Tennessee-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The consent order does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations of the NFIA or Regulation H, and the bank was assessed a $8,000 civil money penalty for an alleged pattern or practice of violations.
District Court rules FTC cannot seek monetary relief in false advertising action under Section 19 of the FTC Act
On June 29, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part parties’ motions for summary judgment with respect to remedies, and in doing so, considered whether the FTC may seek monetary relief under Section 19 of the FTC Act. In 2018, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act, Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), EFTA, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by engaging in false advertising and participating in an unauthorized billing scheme. In 2020, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the FTC on all counts, but reserved ruling on the appropriate remedies until after the Supreme Court issued decisions in the consolidated appeals in AMG Capital Management v. FTC. On April 22, the Supreme Court unanimously held that while Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement,” nothing in its opinion prohibits the FTC “from using its § 5 or § 19 authority to obtain restitution on behalf of consumers.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Following the AMG decision, the FTC stated it was no longer seeking monetary relief under Section 13(b) but argued that it may still seek monetary relief under Section 19 for the defendants’ violations of ROSCA. The defendants countered that remedies for the ROSCA violations were unavailable because the FTC failed to specifically invoke Section 19 remedies in its complaint or timely disclose damage calculations or new witnesses under procedural rules, among other things.
The court observed that Section 19 authorizes the FTC to “seek equitable monetary relief to redress consumer injury resulting from ROSCA violations.” However, the court concluded in this case that the “FTC may proceed to trial on damages for ROSCA violations based only on evidence and witnesses that have been properly disclosed. Because none of the FTC's prior disclosures described its computation of damages for ROSCA violations, however, it appears that the FTC has no evidence to present at trial to support its nascent theory of damages. In the absence of any other theory of monetary relief after AMG, the Court concludes that the FTC cannot recover damages for consumers in this action.” While the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent that the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief, it stated that “because the FTC has authority to pursue a permanent injunction and has shown the likelihood of recurrence of violations of the FTC Act,” it was granting in part the FTC’s motion for summary judgment “to the extent it seeks a permanent injunction against future enumerated unfair and deceptive acts or practices by the [defendants].”
NYDFS announces fair lending settlements with indirect auto lenders
On June 29, NYDFS announced settlements with two New York banks to resolve allegations that the banks violated New York Executive Law § 296-a while engaged in indirect automobile lending. NYDFS alleged that the banks’ practices resulted in members of protected classes paying higher interest rates that were not based on creditworthiness. According to NYDFS, the banks failed to monitor “dealers that were charging members of protected classes, namely race and ethnicity, more in discretionary Dealer Markups than borrowers identified as non-Hispanic White.”
Under the terms of the first consent order, the bank—which had voluntarily discontinued its indirect auto lending program in November 2017—agreed to pay a $275,000 civil money penalty, provide restitution to eligible impacted borrowers, and make a $50,000 contribution to local community development organizations. The second bank agreed to “move to a flat-fee business model in connection with indirect auto lending,” provide restitution to impacted borrowers, and undertake fair lending compliance remediation efforts to increase its monitoring of dealers participating in its indirect auto lending program. The consent order also requires the payment of a $350,000 civil money penalty.
AGs support FTC disgorgement authority
On June 28, a coalition of 28 state attorneys general sent a letter to Congress in support of H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act. The bill would give the FTC authority to seek restitution and disgorgement, among other equitable remedies, for consumer protection and antitrust violations in federal court without first going through a lengthy administrative process. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in April, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, holding that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” The ruling reversed a $1.3 billion restitution award in a case alleging that payday loan companies had deceived and overcharged customers. The coalition urged lawmakers to reinstate the “essential tools that the FTC needs to combat fraud and anticompetitive conduct and protect an honest marketplace.”
CFPB, Georgia AG allege debt-relief violations
On June 29, the CFPB announced a stipulated final judgment and order against a financial services company and its owners for allegedly deceiving consumers into hiring the company. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia with the Georgia attorney general, the defendants violated the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act by using telemarketing practices to deceptively induce consumers to hire the company, by, among other things, falsely promising to help them: (i) reduce their credit card debts by advertising to potential customers through direct mailers; and (ii) improve consumers’ credit scores by claiming they could restore their credit scores and that they had a “credit restoration team.” In addition, the defendants “collected millions of dollars in advance fees, claiming that it provided a ‘debt validation’ program that used the debt-verification process set forth in the [FDCPA] to invalidate and eliminate debt and improve consumers’ credit record, history, or rating.” Under the terms of the order, the defendants are banned from the telemarketing of any consumer financial product and selling financial advisory, debt relief, or credit repair services. The defendants must also pay a fine of $150,001, $15,000 of which will be remitted to the state of Georgia, and a penalty of approximately $30 million in consumer redress (full payment of which may be suspended if certain conditions are met).
Special Alert: CFPB specifies pandemic foreclosure protections and signals tight supervision and enforcement around servicer efforts
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Covid-relief mortgage servicing rule issued yesterday steered away from a nationwide foreclosure freeze as initially proposed, instead creating heightened protections for those borrowers who became seriously delinquent during the pandemic. The distinction may not prove to be a game-changer for servicers, however, which will be obligated to carefully document outreach efforts and decisions to advance borrowers into foreclosure — with little margin for error.
The bureau’s final rule, which takes effect Aug. 31, obligates a servicer to continue specifying, with substantial detail, any loss mitigation options that may help the borrower resolve their delinquency. It also largely preserves the proposed streamline modification option on the basis of an incomplete loss mitigation application, although most servicers already have been offering many of these modifications since the early days of the pandemic.
SEC awards $1 million to whistleblower
On June 24, the SEC announced that it awarded a whistleblower more than $1 million for providing information that, according to the redacted order, led to multiple successful SEC enforcement actions. The SEC noted that the whistleblower provided valuable information and ongoing assistance, participated in interviews with enforcement staff, and helped staff understand key players in the investigation. The whistleblower also helped conserve significant staff time and resources by providing information that was otherwise inaccessible to staff and suffered personal and professional hardships. The SEC added that there was also “substantial law enforcement interest in the information.”
The SEC has awarded approximately $938 million to 179 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012.
FDIC releases May enforcement actions
On June 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in May. During the month, the FDIC issued 10 orders and one notice consisting of “two Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalties, four Section 19 Applications, three Orders Terminating Consent Orders, one Order of Prohibition from Further Participation, and Notice of Intention to Prohibit from Further Participation, one Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order to Pay, and Notice of Hearing.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty imposed against an Oregon-based bank concerning allegations of unfair and deceptive practices related to a wholly-owned subsidiary’s debt collection practices for commercial equipment financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank’s subsidiary allegedly violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by, among other things, unfairly and deceptively charging various undisclosed collection fees—such as collection call and letter fees and third-party collection fees—to borrowers with past due accounts. The bank, which did not admit or deny the violations, agreed to voluntarily pay an approximately $1.8 million civil money penalty.
The FDIC also imposed a civil money penalty against an Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank (i) “[m]ade, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “[f]ailed to timely notify the borrower that the borrower should obtain flood insurance, at the borrower’s expense, upon determining that the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan”; and (iii) “[f]ailed to timely purchase flood insurance on the borrower’s behalf when the borrower failed to do so within 45 days of being advised to obtain adequate flood insurance.” The order requires the payment of a $8,000 civil money penalty.
SEC charges liability company with Exchange Act violations
On June 23, the SEC announced charges against a New York-based limited liability firm for Securities Exchange Act violations because the firm allegedly used language in the firm’s compliance manual that prohibited potential whistleblowers from speaking out to regulators. According to the order, over a four year span, the firm’s compliance manual stated that employees were “strictly prohibited from initiating contact with any Regulator without prior approval from the Legal or Compliance Department,” and that violation of this policy may result in “disciplinary action by the Firm.” The order noted, however, that the agency was “unaware of any specific instances” where an employee of the firm was prevented from disclosing to the SEC staff about possible violations. In 2018 and 2019, the firm also provided annual compliance training to its employees that allegedly included similar language. Specifically, a slide in the training contained language that prohibited employees “from initiating contact with any regulator without prior approval from Legal or Compliance, including conversation[s] regarding an individual’s registration status with FINRA.” The SEC further alleged that the firm’s employees were also required to comply with the code of conduct maintained by the firm’s indirect parent company, but acknowledged that the code was not meant to restrict employees’ whistleblower protections, and employees were not prohibited from reporting to government agencies. However, the firm’s manual also noted that “personnel should follow the more restrictive” of the various policies, “absent explicit direction to the contrary.” The order noted that the firm took remedial steps to correct the issues, including altering the language in the compliance manual to instead advise employees of their right to communicate with regulators about possible concerns without obtaining prior approval. The firm communicated the revisions to its employees by administering a compliance alert, which linked to the revised manual. The SEC charged the firm with violating Rule 21F-17 of the Securities Exchange Act and ordered the firm, to cease and desist for committing future violations of Rule 21F-17 and pay a $208,912 penalty.