InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB reaches $18 million settlement in credit-report scheme
On May 14, the CFPB filed a proposed stipulated final judgment and order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a mortgage lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in January claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products, but instead, the defendants allegedly resold or provided the reports to companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services. The CFPB further alleged that defendants violated the TSR and CFPA when they used telemarketing sales calls and direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, and falsely represented that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and change their servicer to the Department of Education.
If approved by the Court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would (i) impose an $18 million redress judgment against the mortgage lender, of which all but $200,000 would be suspended due to the lender’s limited ability to pay; (ii) require one of the individuals and his company to disgorge $403,750 in profits to provide redress; (iii) impose a $406,150 judgement against a second individual and his company, which will be suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay; (iv) impose a total $450,001 civil money penalty against the defendants; (v) permanently ban the defendants from the debt-relief industry and from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports; and (vi) prohibit the defendants from on using or obtaining consumer reports for “any business purpose other than underwriting or otherwise evaluating mortgage loans.”
FTC settles with e-commerce telemarketers for $1.2 million
On May 13, the FTC announced a $1.2 million settlement with a group of telemarketing companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”) for an allegedly deceptive e-commerce scheme in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the defendants sold products and services to consumers trying to start at-home internet-based businesses, which the defendants claimed would “substantially increase the visibility of and drive customer traffic to consumers’ ecommerce websites on the Internet.” The defendants would allegedly obtain leads by using a service that produces leads of consumers who have recently registered websites. The defendants would contact the consumers by telephone to sell services and would typically continue to call consumers to “upsell” additional products. The FTC argues that “[c]ontrary to [d]efendants’ representations, many consumers who purchase [d]efendants’ products and services do not end up with a functional website, earn little or no money, and end up heavily in debt.” The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the TSR, and the CRFA by, among other things, (i) making unsubstantiated and false earnings and product claims; (ii) making false claims about business affiliations; and (iii) using contract provisions that restrict consumers’ ability to review or complain about purchased products or services.
The settlement with two of the entities and one owner includes a monetary judgment of over $16 million, which is partially suspended due to an inability to pay, and requires the defendants to surrender over $900,000. In separate settlements with the other two owners, large monetary judgments are also partially suspended due to an inability to pay, with one required to surrender over $100,000, and the other required to surrender over $200,000.
$550 million preliminary settlement reached in biometric privacy class action
On May 8, plaintiffs in a biometric privacy class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California filed a motion requesting preliminary approval of a $550 million settlement deal. The preliminary settlement, reached between a global social media company and a class of Illinois users, would resolve consolidated class claims that alleged the social media company’s face scanning practices violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed class certification and held that the class’s claims met the standing requirement described in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins because the social media company’s alleged development of a face template that used facial-recognition technology without users’ consent constituted an invasion of an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests. According to the motion for preliminary approval, the settlement would be the largest BIPA class action settlement ever and would provide “cash relief that far outstrips what class members typically receive in privacy settlements, even in cases in which substantial statutory damages are involved.” If approved, the social media company must also provide “forward-looking relief” to ensure it secures users’ informed, written consent as required under BIPA.
SEC charges two companies with fraudulent Covid-19 claims
On May 14, the SEC announced separate charges against two companies claiming to offer products to combat the Covid-19 virus in violation of the antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. One of the SEC’s complaints alleges the company issued a press release on March 31 advertising finger-prick Covid-19 tests that could be used at home and in schools, when in actuality the tests could be administered only in consultation with a medical professional and were not intended for home use by the general public. Moreover, the company failed to disclose the product was not authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In the second complaint, the SEC alleges a company and its owner issued press releases claiming to sell, through a public and private partnership, thermal scanning equipment to detect fevers, that would help to “break[] the chain of virus transmission through early identification of elevated fever, one of the key early signs of COVID-19.” However, the SEC argues the company did not have an agreement to sell the product, nor did it have a partnership with any government entities.
In both complaints, the SEC alleges that the false or misleading statements materially affected the price of each company’s stock after the releases were made. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief and civil penalties against both companies.
FTC reports on FCRA education and enforcement
On May 5, the FTC released a report updating Congress on the agency’s FCRA education and enforcement efforts. The report, titled “Efforts to Promote Consumer Report Accuracy and Disputes,” was requested by Congress as part of the 2020 spending bill that funds the FTC. The report details the agency’s efforts to inform consumers and businesses regarding their rights and obligations under the FCRA, including educating consumers on disputing errors and identity theft. For businesses, the report discusses the guidance provided by the FTC for furnishers and users, including the 2016 publication Consumer Reports: What Information Furnishers Need to Know. The report notes that over the last decade. the FTC has brought over 30 enforcement actions under the FCRA against consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), users of consumer reports, and furnishers of information to CRAs. The FTC notes that once supervisory authority over the nationwide CRAs was transferred to the CFPB in 2011, the FTC has focused its FCRA enforcement on other entities in the credit reporting area, noting that 14 of its FCRA cases involved allegations related to handling consumer disputes of inaccurate information or procedures for ensuring the accuracy of information furnished in reports. A complete list of the 14 cases can be found in the report’s Appendix B. The FTC states that it will continue to look for education and enforcement opportunities, citing a joint workshop with the CFPB held last December, which discussed current trends in consumer reporting accuracy and sought public comments to assist the agency in targeting its efforts in the future.
California Supreme Court: No jury trial for UCL and FAL claims seeking civil penalties in addition to injunctive or other equitable relief
On April 30, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the False Advertising Law (FAL), government enforcement actions seeking civil penalties in addition to injunctive or other equitable relief should be decided by a judge instead of by a jury. The decision overturns a Court of Appeal decision holding that a jury must weigh in when civil penalties are involved. The decision stems from a suit filed in 2015 by the California Department of Business Oversight and several district attorneys (collectively, “People”) against a national debt payment service operation for alleged violations of the UCL and FAL. While the debt payment service operation demanded a jury trial, the People filed a motion to strike, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court decision, holding that under certain provisions of the California Constitution the debt payment service operation had a right to a jury trial.
The California Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal concluding that, among other things, (i) the causes of action established by the UCL and FAL at issue in this case are equitable rather than legal actions, which should be tried by a court rather than by a jury; and (ii) the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tull v. United States, relied upon by the Court of Appeal, does not govern this case for various reasons, including that the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the civil jury trial provision of the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies only to federal court proceedings—not state court proceedings—and that the “constitution right to a jury trial in state court civil proceedings is governed only by the civil jury trial provisions of each individual state’s own state constitution.” (Emphasis in the original.)
OFAC issues Finding of Violation to company for issuing prepaid card to SDN
On April 30, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a Finding of Violation to a travel-related services company for alleged violations of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, the company allegedly issued a prepaid card to, and processed 42 transactions totaling more than $35,000 on behalf of, a Specially Designated National (SDN) due to human error and screen system defects. When issuing the Finding of Violation, OFAC considered the fact that, among other things, (i) the company did not engage in willful or reckless behavior; (ii) there is no indication that the company was aware that it provided a card to an SDN or that its risk engine could be overridden; (iii) the company took remedial action in response to the violations to prevent similar reoccurrences; (iv) the company cooperated with OFAC and voluntarily disclosed the violations; and (v) OFAC has not issued a penalty notice or Finding of Violation to the company in at least five years prior to the alleged violations. A civil monetary penalty was not issued to the company.
FCC changes TCPA enforcement under TRACED Act
On May 1, the FCC issued an order announcing the Commission will no longer send entities outside its jurisdiction warnings prior to commencing an enforcement action related to TCPA robocall violations. Specifically, the order, as mandated under Section 3 of the TRACED Act (covered by InfoBytes here), (i) removes provisions that previously required the FCC to issue a warning prior to imposing penalties for making robocalls; (ii) increases the maximum fine that the FCC can assess for robocall violations to $10,000 per intentional unlawful call, in addition to a forfeiture penalty amount; and (iii) extends the statute of limitations to four years for the FCC to investigate and take enforcement action against an entity that violates the TCPA. The order takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB issues 2019 fair lending report to Congress
On April 30, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress, which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2019 to fulfill its fair lending mandate. According to the report, in 2019 the Bureau continued to focus on promoting fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, highlighting several fair lending priorities that continued from years past such as mortgage lending, student loans, and small business lending. The Bureau also highlighted three policies released over the last year to promote innovation and to facilitate compliance: the No-Action Letter Policy, the Trial Disclosure Program Policy, and the Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the report discussed the Bureau’s efforts in encouraging consumer-friendly innovation to expand access to unbanked and underbanked consumers and communities. These include: (i) using alternative data in credit underwriting to expand credit access responsibly; (ii) issuing a request for information on the use of “Tech Sprints” (covered by InfoBytes here) to encourage regulatory innovation and stakeholder collaboration; (iii) continuing to enforce fair lending laws such as ECOA and HMDA, including reaching a settlement with one of the largest HDMA reporters nationwide to resolve HMDA reporting allegations; and (iv) engaging with stakeholders to discuss fair lending compliance, issues related to credit access, and policy decisions. The report also provides information related to supervision, enforcement, rulemaking, and education efforts.
SEC issues $2 million whistleblower award
On May 4, the SEC announced a nearly $2 million award to a whistleblower in an enforcement action. According to the SEC’s press release, the whistleblower’s “information and assistance helped the agency bring a successful enforcement action and allowed investors to recover much of their money.” The formal order also states that the whistleblower, among other things, provided new information regarding an investigation into ongoing fraud, which informed the SEC’s need to “expeditiously seek a temporary restraining order and asset freeze to prevent further investor loss.” The whistleblower also suffered hardships.
As of May 4, the SEC has awarded 82 individuals a total of approximately $450 million in whistleblower awards since its first award in 2012.