InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Director Testifies Before House Committee, Promises CARD Act Ability to Repay Rule
On September 20, CFPB Director Richard Cordray appeared before the House Financial Services Committee in connection with the CFPB’s Semiannual Report issued July 30, 2012. During the House hearing the Director faced questions on topics covered during prior committee hearings, including (i) the status and potential impact of the CFPB’s qualified mortgage/ability to repay (QM) rule, (ii) whether that rule will provide a safe harbor or a rebuttable presumption, (iii) whether the CFPB will commit to a definition of “abusive” practices, and (iv) whether the CFPB will raise the threshold for banks exempt from compliance with new CFPB remittance rules. Mr. Cordray reiterated that the QM rule will be finalized before the end of 2012, and that while the final regulations are still under consideration, the CFPB intends to provide bright line standards to help limit litigation risk. He continued to avoid offering a definition or description of abusive practices and did not express a willingness to revisit the remittance standards. Mr. Cordray also revealed that the CFPB has determined that it cannot resolve through the issuance of guidance a problem with the application of the Federal Reserve Board’s credit card ability to repay rule that is restricting access to credit for stay-at-home spouses. Mr. Cordray committed to releasing a proposed rule to remedy the problem prior to Congress’ return following the November elections.
CFPB Seeks Input on Conflict Between State and Federal Gift Card Laws
On August 16, the CFPB issued a Notice that it intends to make a preemption determination with regard to two state gift card laws. The CFPB is seeking public comment to inform its response to requests that the CFPB address conflicts between the EFTA’s gift card expiration provisions and those in Maine’s and Tennessee’s laws. The Notice explains that Maine’s and Tennessee’s laws presume gift cards to be “abandoned” and release businesses from the obligation to honor the gift cards after two years of inactivity, while federal law generally prohibits the sale of a gift card with an expiration date under five years. The CFPB requests public comment on whether there is any inconsistency between the identified state and federal expiration date provisions and, if so, on the nature of the inconsistency. The CFPB also seeks comment on whether card issuers could comply with the federal and state laws as they currently exist, and whether the Maine and Tennessee laws provide greater consumer protection than the federal law.
House Members Seek Delay of CFPB Remittance Rule
On August 16, a group of thirty-two Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray asking that the Bureau delay the effective date of recently adopted remittance transfer rules and examine the potential impact of the rules on consumers. The legislators state that the rules, which are set to take effect in February 2013, include “arbitrary and unworkable requirements . . . that will drastically curtail the availability of international transfers to consumers.” Specifically, the letter argues that the final rule (i) includes disclosure requirements that are infeasible for the majority of financial institutions, (ii) will work against the statutory mandate that policymakers expand the use of the automated clearinghouse system, and (iii) risks increasing fees for consumers.
CFPB Modifies Final Remittance Rule to Exempt Small Banks
On August 7, the CFPB released a final rule supplementing and modifying a previously issued rule that amends Regulation E and requires remittance transfer providers to (i) deliver written pre-payment disclosures of the exchange rates and fees associated with a transfer of funds, as well as the amount of funds the recipient will receive, and (ii) investigate consumer disputes and remedy errors. With the previous final rule, the CFPB sought comment on additional revisions that would (i) set a specific safe harbor for remittance transfer providers that do not provide such services in the “normal course of business” and (ii) apply the new disclosure and cancellation requirements in cases where the request is made several days in advance of the transfer date. In response to those comments, the modified rule now exempts institutions that do not provide transfers in the “normal course of business” if they consistently conduct 100 or fewer remittance transfers per year. The final rule also modifies several aspects of the prior rule regarding remittance transfers that are scheduled before the date of transfer, including preauthorized remittance transfers.
FTC Submits Staff Comments on CFPB's Proposed Prepaid Card Regulation
On July 30, the FTC released staff comments submitted in response to the CFPB’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the regulation of prepaid cards. The CFPB issued the Notice in May, noting its intention to extend Regulation E to cover general purpose reloadable gift cards and seeking comment, data, and information about such cards. In response, the FTC staff comments review the current regulation of payment cards, and identify for the CFPB’s consideration several consumer protection issues that may arise with regard to prepaid cards, including (i) liability limits, (ii) disclosure and fees expiration dates, (iii) error resolution procedures, (iv) authorization standards for recurrent payments, and (v) consumer access to account information.
Federal Court Ruling on Placement of ATM Fee Notice Favors Consumers
On July 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to a consumer alleging that the placement of an ATM fee notice on the inside of a “hooded ATM” was not “prominent and conspicuous” as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Brown v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 11-1362 2012 WL 3030294 (D. Minn. Jul. 25, 2012). The consumer, on behalf of a putative class, alleged that the ATM fee disclosure was placed on the inside of the hood protecting the screen, and not in a more conspicuous position. The consumer did not contest that the disclosure was provided electronically on the screen, as also required by the EFTA, and that he was aware before completing the transaction that he would be charged a fee. Because the EFTA does not define “prominent and conspicuous,” the court looked to other consumer protection statutes to determine that the disclosure must be displayed such that a reasonable person ought to have noticed. In this case, the court held that a reasonable person would not conclude that the notice was prominent and conspicuous because (i) the disclaimer was not in capital letters, (ii) the type and background of the notice were in a coordinating, not contrasting color, (iii) the notice was placed inside the hood as opposed to on top of the machine, and (iv) the notice generally did not stand out relative to other information on or near the ATM. While the court granted the consumer’s motion for summary judgment on the EFTA claims, the court disposed of his claim for unjust enrichment, and refused to certify the class, holding that the consumer failed to meet the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or (b). As we have reported in recent weeks, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would eliminate the physical fee disclosure requirement, and instead require that ATM operators only provide an on-screen notice.