InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court orders credit union to pay $5 million to settle overdraft allegations
On June 27, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement, resulting in a defendant credit union paying approximately $5.2 million to settle allegations concerning illegal overdraft/non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees and inadequate disclosure practices. As described in plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the defendant was sued in 2020 for violating the EFTA (Regulation E) and New York General Business Law (NY GBL) § 349. According to plaintiffs, defendant charged overdraft fees and NSF fees that were not permitted under its contracts with its members or Regulation E. Plaintiffs’ Regulation E and NY GBL liability theories are premised on the argument that defendant’s “opt-in form did not inform members that these fees were charged under the ‘available balance’ metric, rather than the ‘actual’ or ‘ledger’ balance metric”—a violation of Regulation E and NY GBL § 349. The plaintiffs’ liability theory was that defendant’s “contracts did not authorize charging overdraft fees when the ledger or actual balance was positive.”
Under the terms of the settlement, defendant is required to pay $2 million, for which 25 percent of the settlement fund will be allocated to class members’ Regulation E overdraft fees, 62.5 percent will go to class members’ GBL overdraft fees, and 12.5 percent will be allocated to class members’ breach of contract overdraft fees. Defendant is also required to pay $948,812 in attorney’s fees, plus costs, and $10,000 service awards to the two named plaintiffs. Additionally, the defendant has agreed to change its disclosures and will “forgive and release any claims it may have to collect any at-issue fees which were assessed by [defendant] but not collected and subsequently charged-off, totaling approximately $2,300,000.”
CFPB releases regulatory agenda
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs recently released the CFPB’s spring 2023 regulatory agenda. Key rulemaking initiatives that the agency expects to initiate or continue include:
- Overdraft fees. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation Z with respect to special rules for determining whether overdraft fees are considered finance charges.
- FCRA rulemaking. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation V, which implements the FCRA. In January, the Bureau issued its annual report covering information gathered by the Bureau regarding certain consumer complaints on the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted that the Bureau “will be exploring new rules to ensure that [the CRAs] are following the law, rather than cutting corners to fuel their profit model.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Insufficient funds fees. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity in November regarding non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees. The Bureau commented that while NSF fees have been a significant source of fee revenue for depository institutions, recently some institutions have voluntarily stopped charging such fees.
- Amendments to FIRREA concerning automated valuation models. On June 1, the Bureau issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations to implement quality control standards mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act concerning automated valuation models used by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Previously, the Bureau released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) outline and report in February and May 2022 respectively. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Section 1033 rulemaking. Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank provides that covered entities, such as banks, must make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning consumer financial products or services that the consumer obtains from the covered entity. Over the past several years, the Bureau has engaged in a series of rulemaking steps to prescribe standards for this requirement, including the release of a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives in advance of convening a panel under the SBREFA and the issuance of a final report examining the impact of the Bureau’s proposals to address consumers’ personal financial data rights. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Proposed rulemaking may be issued in October.
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. The Bureau issued an NPRM last month to extend TILA’s ability-to-repay requirements to PACE transactions. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The proposed effective date is at least one year after the final rule is published in the Federal Register (“but no earlier than the October 1 which follows by at least six months Federal Register publication”), with the possibility of a further extension to ensure compliance with a TILA timing requirement.
- Supervision of Larger Participants in Consumer Payment Markets. The Bureau is considering whether to engage in pre-rulemaking activity next month to define larger participants in consumer payment markets and further the scope of the agency’s nonbank supervision program.
- Nonbank registration. The Bureau announced its intention to identify repeat financial law offenders by establishing a database of enforcement actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule later this year.
- Terms and conditions registry for supervised nonbanks. At the beginning of the year, the Bureau issued an NPRM that would create a public registry of terms and conditions used in non-negotiable, “take it or leave it” nonbank form contracts that “claim to waive or limit consumer rights and protections.” Under the proposal, supervised nonbank companies would be required to report annually to the Bureau on their use of standard-form contract terms that “seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce or exercise their rights” and would appear in a publicly accessible registry. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule later this year.
- Credit card penalty fees. The Bureau issued an NPRM in February to solicit public feedback on proposed changes to credit card late fees and late payments and card issuers’ revenue and expenses. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the CARD Act rules inherited by the Bureau from the Fed, credit card late fees must be “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by the issuer as a result of a late payment. A final rule may be issued later this year.
- LIBOR transition. In April, the Bureau issued an interim final rule, amending Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update various provisions related to the LIBOR transition. Effective May 15, the interim final rule further addresses LIBOR’s sunset on June 30, by incorporating references to the SOFR-based replacement—the Fed-selected benchmark replacement for the 12-month LIBOR index—into Regulation Z. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Hsu discusses significance of consumer trust in banking
On June 8, acting Comptroller of Currency Michael J. Hsu discussed the significance of consumer trust in banking, and announced the OCC is considering designing and releasing an annual survey to measure the extent of consumer trust in banking. (See OCC’s request for comments on its proposed annual trust survey.) Hsu noted that public trust in banking is imperative to a good relationship with the communities served and to ensure consumers do not rely on risky means for storing funds. Distrust also presents risks for banks, Hsu said, explaining that “banks that have material fairness and compliance deficiencies may face stiff civil money penalties, restrictions on growth, and sustained reputational damage, limiting their capacities to make loans.” Hsu’s focus on trust in the banking system is also inspired by the threatening impact of unfairness and a lack of inclusivity. Therefore, in addition to the survey, the OCC is focusing on methods of consumer protection to underpin public trust in banks. Efforts include strengthening and modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act to create more lending opportunities to those in low- and moderate-income areas, reforming overdrafts by issuing guidance on overdraft protection programs, and addressing bias in the appraisal of homes by issuing a proposed rule to implement quality control standards for automated valuation models.
CFPB says overdraft/NSF revenue has been cut in half
On May 23, the CFPB published another data spotlight reporting on overdraft/non-sufficient fund (NSF) fee trends. Earlier in the month, the Bureau examined low- and moderate-income consumers’ experiences with overdraft programs, finding, among other things, that many consumers were not aware of their financial institution’s overdraft policies and thought protection automatically came with their account, while others were unaware that they could end overdraft protection. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The newest data spotlight reported that overdraft/NSF revenue for Q4 2022 was down nearly 50 percent as compared to pre-pandemic levels, “suggesting an annual reduction of over $5.5 billion going forward.” According to the Bureau, this translates to average annual savings of more than $150 for households that incur overdraft/NSF fees (with many households being able to save a lot more). Still, even with the noticeable reduction, consumers paid more than $7.7 billion in overdraft/NSF fees in 2022. However, the Bureau noted that combined account maintenance and ATM fees remained flat from 2019 to 2022, suggesting that reporting financial institutions are not increasing other fees to compensate for the reduced revenue.
CFPB: Reopening a closed account could be a UDAAP
On May 10, the CFPB released Circular 2023-02 to opine that unilaterally reopening a closed account without a customer’s permission in order to process a transaction is a likely violation of federal law, particularly if a bank collects fees on the account. “When a bank unilaterally chooses to open an account in someone’s name after they have already closed it, this is a fake account,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the announcement. “The CFPB is acting on all fronts to halt the harvesting of illegal junk fees.”
The Bureau described receiving complaints from consumers about banks reopening closed accounts and then assessing overdraft/nonsufficient funds fees and monthly maintenance fees. Such practices, the Bureau warned, may violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices. Consumers may experience substantial injury including monetary harm by paying fees due to the unfair practice, the Bureau said, explaining that because consumers likely cannot reasonably avoid the injury, “[a]ctual injury is not required; significant risk of concrete harm is sufficient.” Aside from subjecting consumers to fees, when a bank processes a credit through a reopened account, the consumers’ funds may become available to third parties, including those that do not have permission to access such funds, the Bureau warned, adding that there is also a risk that banks may furnish negative information to consumer reporting agencies if reopening the account overdraws the account and the consumer does not quickly repay the amount owed. The Bureau further noted that deposit account agreements typically indicate that a financial institution “may return any debits or deposits to the account that the financial institution receives after closure and faces no liability for failing to honor any debits or deposits received after closure.”
The Circular explained that rather than reopening an account when a third party attempts to deposit or withdraw money from it, banks should decline the transactions. This allows customers the opportunity to update their information with the entity attempting to access a closed account while avoiding potential fees. “Reopening a closed account does not appear to provide any meaningful benefits to consumers or competition,” the Bureau said in the Circular. “While consumers might potentially benefit in some instances where their accounts are reopened to receive deposits, which then become available to them, that benefit does not outweigh the injuries that can be caused by unilateral account reopening.”
OCC, FDIC say some overdraft fees may be unfair or deceptive
On April 26, the OCC and FDIC issued supervisory guidance addressing consumer compliance risks associated with bank overdraft practices. (See OCC Bulletin 2023-12 and FDIC FIL-19-2023.) The guidance highlighted certain practices that may result in increased risk exposure, including assessing overdraft fees on “authorize positive, settle negative” (APSN) transactions and assessing representment fees each time a third party resubmits the same item for payment after being returned by a bank for non-sufficient funds. The agencies provided guidance for banks that may help control risks associated with overdraft protection programs and achieve compliance with Dodd-Frank’s UDAAP prohibitions and section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The FDIC’s supervisory guidance expanded on the 2019 Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights (covered by InfoBytes here), and warned that APSN overdraft fees present risks of unfairness under both statutes as consumers “cannot reasonably avoid” receiving these fees because they lack “the ability to effectively control payment systems and overdraft processing systems practices.” The FDIC cited the “complicated nature of overdraft processing systems” as another impediment to a consumer’s ability to avoid injury. The FDIC also emphasized that risks of unfairness exist both in “available balance” or “ledger balance” methods of assessing overdraft fees, but cautioned that risks may be “more pronounced” when a bank uses an available balance method. Furthermore, the FDIC warned that disclosures describing how transactions are processed may not mitigate UDAAP and UDAP risk. Banks are encouraged to “ensure customers are not charged overdraft fees for transactions consumers may not anticipate or avoid,” and should take measures to ensure overdraft programs provided by third parties comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as such arrangements may present additional risks if not properly managed, the FDIC explained.
The OCC’s guidance also warned that disclosures may be deceptive under section 5 if they fail to clearly explain that multiple or additional fees may result from multiple presentments of the same transaction. Recognizing that some banks have already implemented changes to their overdraft protection programs, the OCC also acknowledged that “[w]hen supported by appropriate risk management practices, overdraft protection programs may assist some consumers in meeting short-term liquidity and cash-flow needs.” The OCC encouraged banks to explore other options, such as offering low-cost accounts and low-cost alternatives for covering overdrafts, such as overdraft lines of credit and linked accounts.
Hsu says OCC focused on fairness in banking
On March 30, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu commented that the safety and soundness of the federal banking system continues to be a top agency priority, as is improving fairness in banking. Speaking at a conference, Hsu discussed several measures taken by the OCC to elevate and advance fairness, particularly for the underserved and financially vulnerable. Explaining that OCC examiners are encouraging bank management to review existing overdraft protection programs and consider adopting pro-consumer reforms, Hsu referred to CFPB guidance issued last October to address unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices associated with “so-called ‘surprise overdraft’ fees.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) He also commented that both the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have cited the risk of violating UDAP in connection with the certain overdraft practices. Hsu noted that not all overdraft practices are equal, stating that “authorize positive, settle negative” and “representment” fees both present heightened risks.
Recognizing the recent decline in banks’ reliance on overdraft fees, Hsu emphasized that most bankers he has spoken to “understand the importance of treating their customers fairly and have been open to learning about best practices.” He noted that “[t]hese bankers are committed to being there for their customers and providing them with short-term, small dollar liquidity when it is needed most. Many customers tell their banks, as well as groups that have studied overdraft practices, that this banking service helps them meet payments when they come due.” Hsu added that the OCC’s intended goal is to “improve the fairness of these programs by making them more pro-consumer, not to eliminate them,” and that “[m]ore fairness means more financially healthy communities, which means more trust in banking.” Hsu also discussed efforts taken by the OCC to combat discriminatory lending practices, including working to enhance supervisory methods for identifying appraisal discrimination.
Biden administration urges states to join fee crack down
On March 8, the Biden administration convened a gathering of state legislative leaders to hold discussions about so-called “junk fees”—described as the “unnecessary, unavoidable, or surprise charges” that obscure true prices and are often not disclosed upfront. While the announcement acknowledged actions taken by federal agencies over the past few years to crack down on these fees, the administration recognized the role states play in advancing this effort. The Guide for States: Cracking Down on Junk Fees to Lower Costs for Consumers outlined actions states can take to address these fees, and provided several examples of alleged junk fees, including hotel resort fees, debt settlement fees, event ticketing fees, rental car and car purchase fees, and cable and internet fees. The guide also highlighted “the banking industry’s excessive and unfair reliance on banking junk fees.” The administration pointed out that a number of businesses have changed their policies in response to the increased scrutiny of junk fees and said several banks have ended fees for overdraft protection. The same day, the CFPB released a new Supervisory Highlights, which focused on junk fees uncovered in deposit accounts and the auto, mortgage, student, and payday loan servicing markets (covered by InfoBytes here).
Additionally, HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge published an open letter to the housing industry and state and local governments, encouraging them to “limit and better disclose fees charged to renters in advance of and during tenancy.” Fudge noted that “actions should aim to promote fairness and transparency for renters while ensuring that fees charged to renters reflect the actual and legitimate costs to housing providers.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta also issued a statement responding to the administration’s call to end junk fees. “Transparency and full disclosure in pricing are crucial for fair competition and consumer protection,” Bonta said, explaining that in February the state senate introduced legislation (see SB 478) to prohibit the practice of hiding mandatory fees.
CFPB report looks at junk fees; official says they remain agency focus
On March 8, the CFPB released a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights focusing on junk fees uncovered in deposit accounts and the auto, mortgage, student, and payday loan servicing markets. The findings in the report cover examinations completed between July 1, 2022 and February 1, 2023. Highlights of the supervisory findings include:
- Deposit accounts. Examiners found occurrences where depository institutions charged unanticipated overdraft fees where, according to the Bureau, consumers could not reasonably avoid these fees, “irrespective of account-opening disclosures.” Examiners also found that while some institutions unfairly assessed multiple non-sufficient (NSF) fees for a single item, institutions have agreed to refund consumers appropriately, with many planning to stop charging NSF fees entirely.
- Auto loan servicing. Recently examiners identified illegal servicing practices centered around the charging of unfair and abusive payment fees, including out-of-bounds and fake late fees, inflated estimated repossession fees, and pay-to-pay payment fees, and kickback payments. Among other things, examiners found that some auto loan servicers charged “payment processing fees that far exceeded the servicers’ costs for processing payments” after a borrower was locked into a relationship with a servicer selected by the dealer. Third-party payment processors collected the inflated fees, the Bureau said, and servicers then profited through kickbacks.
- Mortgage loan servicing. Examiners identified occurrences where mortgage servicers overcharged late fees, as well as repeated fees for unnecessary property inspections. The Bureau claimed that some servicers also included monthly private mortgage insurance premiums in homeowners’ monthly statements, and failed to waive fees or other changes for homeowners entering into certain types of loss mitigation options.
- Payday and title lending. Examiners found that lenders, in connection with payday, installment, title, and line-of-credit loans, would split and re-present missed payments without authorization, thus causing consumers to incur multiple overdraft fees and loss of funds. Some short-term, high-cost payday and title loan lenders also charged borrowers repossession-related fees and property retrieval fees that were not authorized in a borrower’s title loan contract. The Bureau noted that in some instances, lenders failed to timely stop repossessions and charged fees and forced consumers to refinance their debts despite prior payment arrangements.
- Student loan servicing. Examiners found that servicers sometimes charged borrowers late fees and interest despite payments being made on time. According to the Bureau, if a servicer’s policy did not allow loan payments to be made by credit card and a customer representative accidentally accepted a credit card payment, the servicer, in certain instances, would manually reverse the payment, not provide the borrower another opportunity for paying, and charge late fees and additional interest.
CFPB Deputy Director Zixta Martinez recently spoke at the Consumer Law Scholars Conference, where she focused on the Bureau’s goal of reigning in junk fees. She highlighted guidance issued by the Bureau last October concerning banks’ overdraft fee practices, (covered by InfoBytes here), and commented that, in addition to enforcement actions taken against two banks related to their overdraft practices, the Bureau intends to continue to monitor how overdrafts are used and enforce against certain practices. The Bureau noted that currently 20 of the largest banks in the country no longer charge surprise overdraft fees. Martinez also discussed a notice of proposed rulemaking issued last month related to credit card late fees (covered by InfoBytes here), in which the Bureau is proposing to adjust the safe harbor dollar amount for late fees to $8 for any missed payment—issuers are currently able to charge late fees of up to $41—and eliminate a higher safe harbor dollar amount for late fees for subsequent violations of the same type. Martinez further described supervision and enforcement efforts to identify junk fee practices and commented that the Bureau will continue to target egregious and unlawful activities or practices.
CFPB reports drop in overdraft/NSF revenue from pre-pandemic levels
On February 7, the CFPB published a “Data Spotlight” reporting that bank overdraft/non-sufficient fund (NSF) fee revenue has declined significantly compared to pre-pandemic levels. According to the Bureau, recent analysis found that overdraft/NSF fee revenue (i) was 43 percent lower in the third quarter of 2022 than in the third quarter of 2019 (representing a suggested decrease of $5.1 billion in fees on an annualized basis); (ii) was 33 percent lower over the first three quarters of 2022 when compared to the same period in 2019; and (iii) has declined each quarter since the fourth quarter of 2021. The report presented snapshots of overdraft/NSF fee revenue by quarter between Q1 2019 and Q3 2022, and discussed changes in banks’ consumer deposit account revenue from other listed fees. The Bureau observed that there has been a lack of correlating increases in other listed checking account fees, which may suggest that banks are not replacing overdraft/NSF fee revenue with other checking account fees such as periodic maintenance fees and ATM fees. The Bureau noted that it will continue to monitor overdraft/NSF fees and said it is considering related rulemaking activities. The agency announced it also intends to track other listed account fees to determine whether and to what extent these fees may be creating barriers to account access.