InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC charges small-business financing operation with deceptive and unfair practices
On June 10, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCAs), using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants purported “to provide immediate funds in a specific amount in exchange for consumers’ agreement to repay a higher amount from future business revenues” to be “remitted over time through daily debits from consumers’ bank accounts.” However, the defendants allegedly, among other things, (i) made false claims on their websites that their MCAs require “no personal guaranty of collateral from business owners,” when in fact, the contracts included such provisions; (ii) withheld various upfront fees ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars prior to disbursing funds to consumers (according to the complaint, these fees were either poorly disclosed in the contracts or not disclosed at all); (iii) directed agents to charge higher fees to consumers than permitted by the contracts; (iv) required businesses and their owners to sign confessions of judgment (COJs) as part of their contracts, and unlawfully and unfairly used the COJs to seize consumers’ personal and business assets, including in circumstances where consumers could not make payments due to technical issues outside their control, or in instances not permitted by the defendants’ financing contracts; (v) made threatening calls to borrowers, including threats of physical violence or reputational harm, to compel consumers to make payments; and (vi) made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC seeks a permanent 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.”
The same day, the FTC published a blog post highlighting the Commission’s ongoing efforts to combat questionable financing practices targeting small businesses. The FTC also held a forum in 2019 on marketplace lending to small businesses, which analyzed the potential for unfair and deceptive marketing, sales, and collection practices in the industry, and released a follow-up staff perspective paper earlier this year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here). In addition, over the past few years, several states have introduced legislation and advisories on MCAs and small business financing (see prior InfoBytes coverage here).
Fed issues enforcement action for flood insurance violations
On June 9, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a California-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order assesses a $129,108 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H, but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
FTC, Ohio AG reach $8.6 million settlement with payment processor
On June 9, the FTC and the Ohio attorney general announced a settlement with a payment processor and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly facilitating payments for multiple scam operations. The FTC’s 2019 complaint claimed that the defendants, among other things, generated and processed remotely created payment orders or remotely created checks (RCPOs) that allowed third-party merchants—including deceptive telemarketing schemes—the ability to withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, even though the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) prohibits sellers and telemarketers from using RCPOs in connection with telemarketing sales, the defendants allegedly marketed their RCPO payment processing services to telemarketers and other merchants considered “high risk” by financial institutions and card networks, and used RCPOs to process millions of dollars for credit card interest reduction and student loan debt relief telemarketing schemes. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are permanently banned from participating in any payment processing activities and are prohibited from violating the TSR and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. The settlement also imposes a monetary judgment of over $8.6 million, which is mostly suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
CFTC awards $6 million to whistleblower for CEA action
On June 9, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced a more than $6 million whistleblower award to a claimant who reported “specific, credible and timely” information that led to a successful Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) enforcement action. The associated order notes that the claimant voluntarily provided original information leading to the opening of an investigation and the enforcement action, and was under no “legal obligation” to provide the information. The CFTC notes that while five claimants submitted whistleblower award applications to the CFTC in response to the covered action, the CFTC provided the award only to claimant one, as three of the other claimants failed to contest a preliminary determination in favor of the award to the successful whistleblower, constituting a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The order provides limited details on the fifth claimant’s objections to the denial, but notes the CFTC determined that the claimant’s “arguments are baseless.” The order does not provide any other significant details about the information provided or the related enforcement action. The CFTC has awarded over $110 million to whistleblowers since the enactment of the Whistleblower Program under the Dodd-Frank Act, and their information has led to nearly $900 million in monetary relief.
Texas securities regulator halts cryptocurrency investment business
On June 5, the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) issued an emergency cease and desist order against a New York-based cryptocurrency investment business for allegedly violating the state Securities Act by soliciting investments in Texas without obtaining the required state licenses and engaging in fraud connected to the offer of the sale of securities. Among other things, the TSSB alleged that the business’s website advertised false information, including fake photos of its “expert team” and testimonials from purportedly “satisfied clients,” and failed to disclose material facts related to how profits are generated through its purported cryptocurrency mining operation, important security information, and risks associated with cryptocurrency investments. According to the order, the business claimed investors could generate returns between 20 and 75 percent within 24 hours depending on how much is invested in the company’s mining operation. The TSSB also alleged that while the business claimed to possess the appropriate licensure to engage in cryptocurrency mining investments, the business did not have the required registrations or licenses and the investment plans “have not been registered by qualification, notification or coordination at any time material hereto, and no permit has been granted for their sale in Texas at any time material hereto.”
FTC shares 2019 enforcement report with CFPB
On June 4, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2019 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report covers the FTC’s enforcement activities regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Highlights of the enforcement matters covered in the report include:
- TILA and CLA. FTC enforcement actions concerning TILA/Regulation Z and CLA/Regulation M include: (i) efforts to combat deceptive automobile dealer practices; (ii) a payday lending action involving undisclosed, inflated fees; (iii) credit repair and debt relief schemes, including the failure to make clear, conspicuous written disclosures for closed-end financing; and (iv) consumer electronics financing.
- EFTA. The FTC reported 12 new or ongoing cases related to EFTA/Regulation E. These include: (i) negative option plans involving, among other things, companies applying recurring charges to consumers’ debit or credit card numbers for goods or services without obtaining proper written authorization; and (ii) unfair loan servicing practices.
Additionally, the report addresses the FTC’s research and policy efforts related to truth in lending and leasing, and electronic fund transfer issues, including (i) a study of consumers’ experiences in buying and financing automobiles at dealerships; (ii) a small business financing forum to examine “trends and consumer protection issues in the small business marketplace, including. . .online loans and alternative financing products”; and (iii) the FTC’s Military Task Force’s work on military consumer protection issues. The report also outlines the FTC’s consumer and business education efforts, which include several blog posts warning of new scams and practices.
State AGs emphasize the importance of robocall traceback work
On June 4, 52 state attorneys general, through the National Association of Attorneys General, submitted reply comments to the FCC in support of an April final rule, which amends and adopts its rules in accordance with Section 13(d) of the Pallone–Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act) to create a single registered consortium that serves as a neutral third party to manage the private-led efforts to trace back the origin of unlawful robocalls. In the letter, the attorneys general emphasized the importance of traceback efforts to assist law enforcement in identifying and investigating illegal robocallers more efficiently. Moreover, the attorneys general note that traceback investigations help “shed light” on other actors in the “telecommunication ecosystem” that may support robocall scammers. Similarly, in May, the attorneys general, also through the National Association of Attorneys General, published a letter to industry groups asserting their intention to intensify enforcement efforts against illegal robocallers, and urged the US Telecom and the Industry Traceback Group to expand capabilities related to tracebacks in anticipation of growth in the need for data analysis and the number of civil investigative demands and subpoenas that will be issued directly to the Industry Traceback Group (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC settles with app developer for COPPA violations
On June 4, the FTC announced that a children’s mobile application developer agreed to pay $150,000 and to delete the personal information it allegedly unlawfully collected from children under the age of 13 to resolve allegations that the developer violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the developer, without notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent, allowed third-party advertising networks to use persistent identifiers to track users of the child-directed apps in order to send targeted advertisements to the children. The proposed settlement requires the developer to destroy any personal data collected from children under 13 and notify and obtain verifiable consent from parents for any child-directed app or website they offer that collects personal information from children under 13. A $4 million penalty is suspended upon the payment of $150,000 due to the developer’s inability to pay.
In dissent, Commissioner Phillips argued that the fine imposed against the developer was too high, noting that having children view advertisements based on the collection of persistent identifiers “is something; but it is not everything,” under COPPA. Commissioner Phillips argued that because the developer did not “share[] sensitive personal information about children, or publicize[] it” nor did the developer expose children “to unauthorized contact from strangers, or otherwise put [the children] in danger,” the assessed penalty was too large in comparison to the harm.
In response to the dissent, Chairman Simons argued that while “harm is an important factor to consider…[the FTC’s] first priority is to use [] penalties to deter [] practices. Even in the absence of demonstrable money harm, Congress has said that these law violations merit the imposition of civil penalties.”
Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, Securities Division, issues update on operations
On June 5, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, Securities Division, extended through June 26, 2020 an earlier announcement regarding its operations during the statewide “stay at home” order, which we previously covered here. The announcement provides that: (i) paper copies of registration documents and payment of related fees can be mailed to the LOFI, and certain filings can be submitted electronically; (ii) examinations are being conducted remotely using phone and email correspondence in lieu of traditional on-site examinations; (iii) licensing staff continue to process licensing and registration applications through the CRD/IARD systems; and (iv) enforcement staff are limiting in-person contacts with witnesses and regulatory partners, and are using telecommunications technology to complete tasks remotely.
SEC issues $50 million, whistleblower award, highest ever to one individual
On June 4, the SEC announced a nearly $50 million award to a whistleblower in an enforcement action, the largest amount ever awarded to one individual under the SEC’s whistleblower program. According to the SEC’s order, in applying the reward criteria, the SEC determined that the whistleblower (i) provided information that was “highly significant” and contained first-hand observations of misconduct that was previously unknown; (ii) laid out “in detail substantial aspects” of the misconduct and provided a roadmap for the SEC’s investigation; and (iii) provided information that helped the SEC return a significant amount of money to those harmed by the misconduct. The agency’s next largest awards were given in 2018 when the SEC awarded $50 million to two joint whistleblowers in March and $39 million to a single whistleblower in September, covered by InfoBytes here and here.
As of June 4, the SEC has awarded 83 individuals a total of over $500 million in whistleblower awards since its first award in 2012.