InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB charges debt-settlement company with TSR and CFPA violations
On December 1, the CFPB announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against a Massachusetts-based debt-settlement company alleging violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). According to the complaint, the company violated the TSR and/or the CFPA by, among other things, (i) requesting and receiving payment of fees for their services before they renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to an agreement or before a consumer had made a payment under their agreement; (ii) misrepresenting to consumers that it would not charge fees for its services until it settled a debt and consumers made payments under the settlement to the creditor; (iii) charging fees based on the amount of debt after enrollment instead of the amount of debt at the time of enrollment; and (iv) failing to disclose the amount of time it would take the company to make a settlement offer or the amount of debt the consumer would need to accumulate to make a settlement offer to each creditor. The complaint seeks an injunction against the company as well as damages, redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of civil money penalties.
District court advances CFPB action against bank for alleged TILA, CFPA violations
On December 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied a national bank’s motion to dismiss a CFPB lawsuit alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and TILA, rejecting the bank’s arguments that, among other things, the CFPB’s claims were time-barred and that the case cannot proceed because the CFPB’s structure violates constitutional separation-of-powers identified in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed suit in January against the bank alleging, among other things, that when servicing credit card accounts, the bank failed to properly (i) manage consumer billing disputes for unauthorized card use and billing errors; (ii) credit refunds to consumer accounts resulting from such disputes; or (iii) provide credit counseling disclosures to consumers. According to the CFPB, the alleged conduct “began in 2010 or earlier and ended, depending on the violation, sometime in 2015 or 2016.” The CFPB also noted that the parties signed agreements tolling all relevant statutes of limitations from February 23, 2017, until January 31, 2020. The bank argued that the CFPB’s claims are governed by section 1640 of TILA with its one-year statute of limitations, but the CFPB countered that its claims were brought pursuant to section 1607 of TILA, which provides a “three-year discovery period.”
In denying the bank’s motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the tolling agreements were valid and that the three-year limit under section 1607 applied because “plain language indicates that § 1640 only governs cases brought by individuals or state attorneys general,” whereas § 1607 “provides the cause of action for federal enforcement agencies such as the CFPB.” Furthermore, the court determined that because § 1607 “does not contain a statute of limitations,” and “instead stat[es] that cases brought by the CFPB ‘shall be enforced under. . . subtitle E of the [CFPA],’ the action is governed by subtitle E’s requirement that cases be brought within three years of discovery by the CFPB.” The court also dismissed the bank’s constitutional claims, ruling, among other things, that the argument is moot following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seila, which held that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert).
SEC announces whistleblower awards totaling over $6.9 million
On December 1, the SEC announced a joint award of over $6 million to two whistleblowers whose information and assistance led to a successful SEC enforcement and related actions. According to the redacted order, the information led to “actions related to a complex [redacted] scheme involving multiple individuals and tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains.” Moreover, the whistleblowers “substantially assisted” the SEC and another agency by “submitting information and documents, participating in interviews, and identifying key individuals involved in the misconduct.”
Earlier on November 19, the SEC announced a whistleblower award of over $900,000 in connection with an ongoing overseas securities investigation. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower provided “significant and timely information” to the Commission, which expanded and expedited the investigation and resulted in Commission charges. Additionally, the whistleblower “identified alleged violations that were occurring overseas, some of which would have been difficult to detect in the absence of [the whistleblower’s] information.”
The SEC has now paid a total of $728 million to 118 individuals since the inception of the program.
FTC charges company with passive debt collection
On November 30, the FTC announced a stipulated order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against a debt collection company and three of its officers (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in passive debt collection in violation of the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and the FCRA. According to the complaint, the defendants would place debts that consumers did not owe or the defendants were not authorized to collect on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumers about the debts. The complaint alleges further that consumers often did not discover these debts until they “threatened to interfere with an important, time-sensitive transaction.” The FTC alleges that each month, after receiving and investigating complaints from consumers, the defendants would determine between 80 to 97 percent of disputed debts were inaccurate or invalid. However, the defendants continued to collect on unauthorized debts “[d]espite the persistent inaccuracies.”
The defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in the settlement order. In addition to the $24,300,000 in monetary relief, which is partially suspended due to the inability to pay (with one officer and corporate defendant required to pay over $56,000), the order also, among other things, (i) prohibits the defendants from furnishing credit information prior to communicating with the consumer; (ii) requires the defendants to request deletion of any debts reported prior to the order; and (iii) bars the defendants from engaging in unlawful debt collection practices.
The vote authorizing the complaint and settlement was 4-1, with Commissioner Chopra voting no, arguing that the agency should work “in concert” with the CFPB for debt collection enforcement in order to “help make victims whole through access to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund and reduce duplicative efforts.”
FDIC releases October enforcement actions
On November 27, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in October. During the month, the FDIC issued eight orders and two notices consisting of “one consent order, one order to pay a civil money penalty, one section 19 order, one removal order, two orders terminating consent or cease and desist orders, two orders modifying removal orders, one notice of assessment, and one notice of charges.” The consent order, issued against a Wisconsin-based bank, relates to alleged violations of 12 C.F.R. Part 339, which implements the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claims that the bank failed to (i) obtain an adequate amount of flood insurance at the origination of several loans; (ii) provide notice to borrowers of the insufficiencies or follow force-placement requirements; or (iii) provide notice to borrowers about the availability of flood insurance under the NFIA. The consent order requires the payment of a $12,841 civil money penalty.
CFPB releases enforcement database
On November 25, the CFPB announced a refreshed website that includes an “interactive enforcement database” to assist the public in tracking the Bureau’s enforcement actions. According to a blog post accompanying the announcement, the enforcement database identifies each public enforcement action by its initial filing date and provides the specific consumer relief associated with each resolution, including the estimated number of consumers or consumer accounts eligible to receive relief, and the total amount of civil money penalties ordered. The data does not include any non-public information about consumer relief and penalties, such as the monetary amounts actually paid and whether those funds are paid to consumers or disgorged.
Additionally, the website updates include a page for petitions for rulemaking, allowing users to search for and find petitions in one centralized location. The Bureau has also archived content that is older than two years old. The archived materials are still accessible, but will be identified as archived and include a note that they may not be the most up-to-date resources offered by the Bureau.
CFPB charges debt-relief company and owners
On November 20, the CFPB announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a debt-relief company and its two owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. According to the complaint, between 2011 and April 2019, the defendants allegedly misrepresented material aspects of their student loan debt-relief services, by, among other things, falsely representing that the services would reduce or eliminate payments, stop wage garnishment, lift tax liens, and improve credit scores. Additionally, the Bureau alleges the defendants violated the TSR by requesting and receiving payment of fees for their services before they renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered the terms of at least one debt pursuant to an agreement. Moreover, the defendants’ fees were allegedly not proportional to or a percentage of the amount saved as a result of their services. The complaint seeks injunctions against the defendants as well as damages, redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of civil money penalties.
FTC reaches $62 million settlement with student loan debt relief operation
On November 19, the FTC entered into a settlement with defendants accused of engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling student loan debt relief services. As part of its enforcement initiative, Operation Game of Loans (covered by InfoBytes here), the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, charging illegal up-front fees to enroll consumers in debt relief programs, accepting monthly payments that were not applied towards student loans, and collecting monthly fees that consumers believed were being applied to their loans but instead were going towards unrelated “financial education” programs (see previous InfoBytes coverage here). Under the terms of the order, the defendants are permanently banned from providing secured and unsecured debt relief products and services, and are prohibited from (i) engaging in unlawful telemarketing practices and violating the TSR; (ii) misrepresenting financial products and services; (iii) making unsubstantiated claims; and (iii) collecting, or assigning any right to collect, payments from consumers for products sold by the defendants. The defendants are also ordered to pay $62 million in monetary relief.
CFPB settles with auto loan company over deceptive sales practices
On November 20, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Florida-based nonbank and the nonbank’s founder (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by making misleading statements in disclosures and advertisements for their auto loan payment accelerator program. According to the Bureau, the defendants’ program automatically deducts partial payments on a bi-weekly basis from consumers’ bank accounts and then forwards those payments every month to consumers’ lenders or servicers. As a result, enrolled consumers end up making the equivalent of 13 monthly payments each year instead of 12. While the program is marketed as an opportunity for consumers to save money, the Bureau claimed that the defendants misrepresented the amount consumers would save by not disclosing a $399 enrollment fee in the savings calculations presented to consumers. Due to the enrollment fee, the program’s costs “ordinarily exceed[ed] any savings,” the Bureau alleged, noting that the defendants had no basis for claiming that thousands of consumers saved money by enrolling in the program.
The consent order requires the defendants to pay a $1 civil money penalty and $9.3 million in consumer redress, which is suspended upon payment of $900,000 based on the defendants’ demonstrated inability to pay the full judgment. The Bureau noted in its press release that harmed consumers may be eligible to receive additional relief from the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. The defendants are also prohibited from making any deceptive misrepresentations about the payment program or any other payment accelerator programs.
FTC says mobile banking app is deceptive
On November 18, the FTC filed a complaint against a mobile banking app operator alleging the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceiving users about their high-interest bank accounts and falsely promising users “24/7” access to their funds. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants represented that users would receive “‘minimum base’ interest rates” of at least 0.2 percent or 1.0 percent, but that users actually received a starting interest rate of 0.04 percent and stopped earning any interest if they requested that their funds be returned. Additionally, the complaint claims that while the defendants promised users 24/7 access to their funds and represented they could make transfers out of their accounts and receive the requested funds within three to five business days, some users waited weeks or months to receive their funds despite submitting repeated complaints to the defendants. Other users claimed they never received their money. Moreover, some users claimed that the defendants blamed the failure to deliver the requested funds on “unspecified issues with unspecified ‘banking partners’ or ‘technology partners’ and promised the delays were temporary.
The FTC seeks an injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief including “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.”