InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Credit Union National Association: Credit Unions Remain Exempt from the FDCPA
On September 9, the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) sent a letter to the CFPB regarding the CFPB’s initial outline of the proposed rule for third party debt collectors. The letter asserts that, since the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was enacted, credit unions have been exempt from the statute’s rules and that to extend any rulemaking pursuant to the statute to include credit unions would be “unlawful.” The CUNA distinguishes credit unions from for-profit debt collectors subject to the FDCPA, claiming that credit unions’ collection approach is more holistic: “They are not just interested in short-term efforts of collecting a debt; instead, they try to find out the specific cause of their member’s financial challenge.” The CUNA is concerned that certain aspects of the CFPB’s proposal as outlined, including the “highlight technical substantiation and oversight requirements,” would negatively impact credit unions. The CUNA reminded the CFPB that pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), it is required to consider the recommendations in its letter before finalizing any rule.
SEC Appoints New Deputy Associate Director in Division of Investment Management's Rulemaking Office
On September 7, the SEC named Sarah G. ten Siethoff Deputy Associate Director in the Division of Investment Management’s Rulemaking Office. Since joining the SEC in 2008, Ms. ten Siethoff has served in various roles in the Division’s Rulemaking Office, including Assistant Director, Senior Special Counsel, and Senior Counsel. In her new role, Ms. ten Siethoff will, among other things, recommend rulemaking and other policy initiatives under the Investment Company and the Investment Advisers Acts of 1940. Prior to joining the SEC in 2008, Ms. ten Siethoff worked as an associate in private practice.
CFPB Issues Proposed Rule Seeking to Amend Procedures for Disclosing Certain Confidential Information
On August 24, the CFPB published a proposed rule seeking to amend procedures used by persons in the public domain to obtain information from the CFPB under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974 and legal proceedings. In part, the proposal also seeks to revise the 2013 final rule related to the “exchange of confidential supervisory information (CSI) with certain agencies.” Specifically, the CFPB proposes to remove the standard for sharing CSI, thereby utilizing the same standard for sharing information that is not considered CSI and giving the CFPB the discretion to disclose CSI to another agency “to the extent that the disclosure of the information is relevant to the exercise of the [agency’s] statutory or regulatory authority.” Among other things, if accepted, the proposal may allow the CFPB to establish a CSI sharing regime to include state attorneys general and other agencies without supervisory power. Comments are due by October 24, 2016.
Industry Groups Voice Concern that the CFPB's Arbitration Proposal Fails to Provide Protection for Consumers
On August 22, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Banks Association, and the Financial Services Roundtable sent a letter to CFPB Director Cordray regarding the agency’s proposed arbitration rule. According to the Associations, the CFPB’s proposal seeking to impose certain restrictions on the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses is inconsistent with the agency’s March 2015 study of consumer arbitration and fails to meet the Dodd-Frank requirements that it provide consumer protection and satisfy the public interest. Arguing that consumers will “truly suffer if the proposed rule becomes final,” the letter highlights the following concerns: (i) due to the “surge” of additional class actions, consumers, as tax payers, will be forced to pay for the increased costs to the court systems; (ii) as litigants, they will face backlogs as court systems experience delays in administering and resolving the class action suits; (iii) as customers of financial service providers, they will be subject to increased prices and/or reduced services because “the billions of dollars in class action litigation costs will be passed through them in whole or in part”; and (iv) consumers will lose the benefits of arbitration, including efficiency, convenience, and fewer costs. The Associations contend that the proposal, if passed, would be particularly restricting for small dollar “non-classable” claims. The Associations further their argument against the proposal by pointing to various inconsistencies with the conclusions outlined in the CFPB’s March 2015 study. Moreover, the letter asserts that the CFPB’s 2015 study was “incomplete” because it failed to address and analyze several key issues that would further demonstrate the proposed rule’s shortcomings with respect to public interest, including, among other things, consumer satisfaction with arbitration and the potential impact the removal of arbitration would have on consumers and the public. The Association’s recommendation that the CFPB not proceed with finalizing its proposal is one of many submitted to the agency, including a recent letter from various House Republicans expressing concern that the proposal “will choke off access to products and services that help consumers manage their creditworthiness, monitor changes in their credit reports, and protect themselves against identity theft.” The influx of comments on the proposal came at the close of its comment due date, August 22, 2016.
FinCEN Issues Proposed Rule to Remove AML Exemption for Certain Banks
On August 26, FinCEN published a proposed rule that seeks to impose AML program requirements on banks that are without a Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust companies. FinCEN estimates that there are 740 such banks nationwide. The proposal would establish minimum AML program standards for such banks. In addition, if finalized, the proposed rule would expand the reach of FinCEN’s customer due diligence final rule to cover banks that are not already subject to the rule’s customer identification program requirements and beneficial ownership requirements. FinCEN issued the proposal to ensure that Bank Secrecy Act coverage is consistent across the industry. Comments on the proposal must be submitted to FinCEN by October 24, 2016.
GAO Report Finds CFPB Meets Requirements for Conducting SBREFA Panels; Panelists Say There's Room for Improvement
On August 10, the GAO released a report titled “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Observations from Small Business Review Panels.” The report summarizes the findings from the GAO’s review of the four Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panels that resulted in final rulemakings as of April 2016. Specifically, GAO conducted a performance audit from October 2015 through August 2016 to examine the “extent to which CFPB solicited, considered, and incorporated small entity inputs into its rulemakings.” GAO interviewed 57 of the 69 small entity representatives who participated in the SBREFA panels. Although the report concludes that the CFPB completed the statutory requirements for conducting SBREFA panels, it also identifies certain areas where panelists voiced needs for improvement. While panelists voiced a panoply of concerns, including concerns that they did not have adequate time to prepare responses to CFPB information requests, a majority of representatives felt like their views were at least partially considered in the rulemaking process. However, according to the report, only seven of the 57 expressed satisfaction with the CFPB’s final rules.
CFPB Proposes to Amend Annual Privacy Notice Requirement Under Regulation P
On July 1, the CFPB issued a proposed rule to amend Regulation P, which implements the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and requires, among other things, financial institutions to provide their customers with an annual notice that describes their privacy policies and procedures. The proposed amendment would implement a December 2015 statutory change in Section 75001 of the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act). Pursuant to the FAST Act, the GLBA was amended so that financial institutions meeting certain criteria no longer need to send annual privacy notices. The CFPB’s recently issued proposed rule would amend Regulation P to implement the GLBA amendment. The CFPB’s proposed rule would further amend Regulation P to (i) provide timing requirements for the delivery of annual privacy notices for a financial institution that may originally qualify for the annual notice exception but then later changes its policies or practices so that it no longer meets the exception criteria; (ii) remove the Regulation P provision that allows financial institutions to post privacy notices online because the CFPB “believes the alternative delivery method will no longer be used in light of the annual notice exception”; and (iii) make a technical correction to one of its definitions.
Department of Education Proposes Rule to Protect Student Borrowers from Alleged Predatory Practices by Postsecondary Institutions
On June 16, the Department of Education’s (Education) proposed rule to amend the regulations governing the Direct Loan program was published in the Federal Register. The proposal seeks to clarify and expand upon existing regulations intended to protect student borrowers from alleged predatory practices by postsecondary institutions. Specifically, Education proposes to amend existing regulations by, among other things, (i) establishing a more accessible and consistent borrower defense standard and streamlining the borrower defense process to ensure protection from institutions’ alleged predatory actions and omissions resulting in loan discharges; (ii) requiring certain institutions provide Education-issued plain language warnings to prospective borrowers and enrolled students on its Web sites and in all promotional materials and advertisements; (iii) prohibiting the requirement to use arbitration to resolve claims brought by a borrower against the school or waivers of his/her right to initiate or participate in a class action lawsuit regarding such claims; and (iv) prohibiting the requirement for students to engage in internal institutional complaints or grievances before contacting accrediting or government agencies with authority over the school regarding such claims. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by Education on or before August 1, 2016.
FTC Submits Comment to the FCC on Proposal Relating to Debt Collection Robocalls
On June 6, the FTC submitted a comment to the FCC on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) regarding the implementation of recent changes to provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that permit robocalls “made solely to collect a debt owed or guaranteed by the United States.” Recommending that the FCC proceed cautiously with the expansion of permissible robocalling, the FTC instructed the FCC to establish standards for the collection of government debt that are consistent with the FDCPA, Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Specifically, the FTC’s comment advises the FCC to limit permitted robocalls to only (i) those relating to debts in default status; (ii) persons who actually owe the debts; (iii) those relating to the collection of the government debt; and (iv) collection purposes exclusively. In addition, the FTC’s comment on the NPR suggests that the FCC (i) maintain reasonable security practices over the data collected during covered robocalls; (ii) limit robocalls to the hours of 8:00 am to 9:00 pm; and (iii) require covered callers to “transmit caller ID information that includes a caller number that connects to a live agent representing the debt collector.”
Update Regarding CFPB Proposed Rule on Arbitration Agreements
As previously announced, the CFPB published its proposed rule on arbitration agreements in the Federal Register on May 24. To clarify prior summaries, the proposed rule seeks to impose two restrictions on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by covered providers of certain consumer financial products and services. First, the proposed rule would prohibit covered providers from using pre-dispute arbitration agreements to bar consumer class actions in court and would require providers to include a provision in their pre-dispute arbitration agreements reflecting this limitation. Second, the proposed rule would require covered providers to submit certain records related to arbitral proceedings to the CFPB if the covered provider uses pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Comments to the proposed rule must be received by the CFPB on or before August 22, 2016.