InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB reaches $2 million settlement with installment lender for MLA, EFTA violations
On December 30, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Nevada-based consumer lender resolving allegations that the company violated the Military Lending Act (MLA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the CFPA when making installment loans. The settlement is part of “the Bureau’s sweep of investigations of multiple lenders that may be violating the MLA.” According to the Bureau, the company allegedly made loans to active-duty servicemembers and their dependents (covered borrowers) in violation of the MLA by requiring borrowers to repay installment loans by “allotment.” Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the company violated the EFTA by requiring all of its covered borrowers to authorize the company “to initiate an electronic-fund transfer on the first business day after the due date of a payment that has been missed.” This requirement, the Bureau states, violates the EFTA’s prohibition against requiring borrowers to preauthorize electronic-fund transfers as a condition of receiving credit.
Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to pay a $2.175 million civil money penalty, and must also, among other things, (i) provide notice of the Bureau’s consent order to all covered borrowers repaying their loans by allotment, along with notice that they may elect to change their repayment method; and (ii) provide training to employees involved in loan origination. Furthermore, the company is prohibited from accepting payment by allotment without first obtaining signed authorization from the borrower, and is banned from providing any incentives to employees or considering the number or rate of consumers who elect to repay by allotment during performance evaluations.
CFPB reaches settlement with remittance transfer provider
On December 21, the CFPB announced a settlement with a large non-bank remittance transfer provider resolving allegations that the company violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Remittance Transfer Rule by failing to adequately comply with the rules’ requirements. According to the Bureau, the company sent $2.2 billion in remittance transfers from the United States to several countries in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. In sending the remittance transfers, the Bureau claims the company failed to (i) honor cancellation requests or provide cancellation rights; (ii) develop and maintain appropriate error resolution policies and procedures; (iii) promptly investigate whether errors have occurred and make error determinations; (iv) provide consumers with written reports of investigation findings; (v) refund certain fees and taxes when funds were not available on time; (vi) treat international bill pay services as remittances covered by the Remittance Rule; and (vii) make proper disclosures in numerous instances. The consent order requires the company to pay a $750,000 civil money penalty, and prohibits the company from offering or providing remittance transfers without complying with EFTA and Remittance Rule requirements. The company is also required to adopt a compliance plan to ensure that its remittance transfer acts and practices are in compliance with all applicable federal consumer financial laws and the consent order.
CFPB reaches $122 million settlement with national bank to resolve overdraft violations
On August 20, the CFPB announced a settlement with a national bank, resolving allegations that the bank violated the EFTA, CFPA, and FCRA through the marketing and sale of its optional overdraft service. According to the consent order, the bank violated the EFTA and Regulation E by enrolling customers who orally consented to the bank’s optional overdraft program without first providing the customers with written notice, and subsequently charged those customers overdraft fees. The bank also allegedly engaged in abusive practices by, among other things, (i) requiring new customers to sign its optional overdraft notice with the “enrolled” option pre-checked without first providing written notice or, in certain instances, without mentioning the optional overdraft service to the customer at all; (ii) enrolling new customers in the optional overdraft service without requesting their oral enrollment decision; and (iii) deliberately obscuring, or attempting to obscure, the overdraft notice “to prevent a new customer’s review of their pre-marked ‘enrolled’ status” in the optional overdraft service. The CFPB also asserted the bank engaged in deceptive practices by marketing the optional overdraft service as a “free” service or benefit, downplaying the associated fees and disclosures, and by suggesting that the overdraft service was a “‘feature’ or ‘package’ that ‘comes with’ all new consumer-checking accounts, rather than as an option that new customers must opt in to.” However, the bank actually charged customers $35 for each overdraft transaction paid through the service, the CFPB alleged.
With respect to the alleged FCRA and Regulation V furnishing violations, the CFPB claimed the bank failed to establish and implement policies and procedures concerning the accuracy and integrity of the consumer-account information it furnished to two nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (NSCRAs). The bank also allegedly failed to implement policies or procedures for investigating customer disputes related to the furnished information, failed to timely investigate certain indirect customer disputes concerning its furnishing to one of the NSCRAs, and instructed customers who called to dispute furnished information to contact the NSCRA instead of submitting a direct dispute to the bank.
Under the terms of the consent order, the bank is required to provide approximately $97 million in restitution to roughly 1.42 million consumers and pay a $25 million civil money penalty. The bank has also agreed to (i) correct its optional overdraft service enrollment practices; (ii) stop using pre-marked overdraft notices to obtain affirmative consent from customers; (iii) provide current customers who have remained enrolled in the optional overdraft service with enrollment status details and instructions on how to unenroll from the service; and (iv) establish policies and procedures designed to ensure its furnishing practices comply with the FCRA.
Lender and owner to pay $12.5 million in civil money penalties in CFPB administrative action
On August 4, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that a Delaware-based online payday lender and its CEO be held liable for violations of TILA, CFPA, and the EFTA and pay restitution of $38 million and $12.5 million in civil penalties in a CFPB administrative action. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2015, the Bureau filed an administrative suit against the lender and its CEO alleging violations of TILA and the EFTA, and for engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Specifically, the CFPB argued that, from May 2008 through December 2012, the online lender (i) continued to debit borrowers’ accounts using remotely created checks after consumers revoked the lender’s authorization to do so; (ii) required consumers to repay loans via pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; and (iii) deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans by providing them with contracts that contained disclosures based on repaying the loan in one payment, while the default terms called for multiple rollovers and additional finance charges. In 2016, an ALJ agreed with the Bureau’s contentions, and the defendants appealed the decision. In May 2019, CFPB Director Kraninger remanded the case to a new ALJ.
After a new hearing, the ALJ concluded that the lender violated (i) TILA (and the CFPA by virtue of its TILA violation) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose consumers’ legal obligations; and (ii) the EFTA (and the CFPA by virtue of its EFTA violation) by “conditioning extensions of credit on repayment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers.” Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the lender and the lender’s owner engaged in deceptive acts or practices by misleading consumers into “believing that their APR, Finance Charges, and Total of Payments were much lower than they actually were.” Lastly, the ALJ concluded the lender and its owner engaged in unfair acts or practices by (i) failing to clearly disclose automatic rollover costs; (ii) misleading consumers about their repayment obligations; and (iii) obtaining authorization for remote checks in a “confusing manner” and using the remote checks to “withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts after consumers attempted to block electronic access to their bank accounts.” The ALJ recommends that both the lender and its owner pay over $38 million in restitution, and orders the lender to pay $7.5 million in civil money penalties and the owner to pay $5 million in civil money penalties.
CFPB approves new automatic savings program under CAS Policy
On July 17, the CFPB announced a new Compliance Assistance Statement of Terms Template (CAST Template) under its Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) Policy issued to a company’s program designed to help employees build emergency savings. Specifically, under the approved template, known as “Autosave,” interested employers could help employees build emergency savings by directing a portion of the employee’s pay to an employee-designated account at a financial institution; or if an employee does not designate an account, directing the funds to an “Autosave” account at an employer-designated institution. The Bureau notes that a CAST Template is necessary for this program due to the legal uncertainty around the application of the “compulsory use” prohibition in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Regulation E. However, the applicants assert the Autosave program embodies a “reasonable default enrollment method,” which, according to the Bureau, can be consistent with the consumer choice requirements of the EFTA and Regulation E.
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.
FDIC releases April enforcement actions
On May 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. The FDIC issued 23 orders and 2 notices of changes, which “consisted of 12 Section 19 orders, 3 orders of prohibition, 1 order to pay, 3 consent orders, 1 order to cease and desist, 4 orders terminating consent orders, and 1 order terminating an order of restitution.” Among the actions is a cease and desist order and civil money penalty issued against a Louisiana-based bank for allegedly violating the Bank Secrecy Act, EFTA, RESPA, TILA, the National Flood Insurance Program, and HMDA. The order follows the issuance of a 2019 recommended decision on remand by an FDIC administrative law judge (ALJ), who also found that the bank failed to comply with a majority of the provisions outlined in a 2011 memorandum of understanding entered into with the FDIC two years prior to the filing of this action. Specifically, the recommended decision found that the bank, among other things, “violated the independence requirement of the FDIC’s rules and regulations pertaining to appraisals by allowing a lending officer originating loans to appraise the collateral underlying the loan,” and “allow[ing] a high ranking officer to repeatedly overdraw his bank account without being charged overdraft fees” in violation of Regulation O of the Federal Reserve Board. Other violations included that the bank failed to: (i) conduct independent property evaluations and appraisals; (ii) disclose unauthorized fees or investigate reports of erroneous charges; (iii) assess flood insurance needs or inform borrowers of force-placed flood insurance rules; (iv) file suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports; (v) implement a “meaningful compliance program” to ensure the bank did not engage in foreign financial transactions with prohibited persons identified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control; and (v) “conduct proper compliance training or maintain an effective audit program for consumer compliance matters.” The FDIC’s order affirmed the ALJ’s recommended decision to subject the bank to an order to cease and desist and pay a $500,000 civil money penalty.
Additionally, the FDIC entered a consent order against an Illinois-based bank relating to alleged weaknesses in its Bank Secrecy Act compliance program.
FTC temporarily halts payday lending enterprise
On May 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a temporary restraining order against a group of 11 defendants operating a payday lending enterprise for allegedly deceptively overcharging consumers and withdrawing money from consumers’ accounts without permission. According to the complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants advertised loans with fixed payback terms, but in many cases, the payback terms would default to debiting the financial fee only. In some circumstances, consumers would receive an email with payback options, including “full payoff, loan extension, and loan buy down,” but the defendants would still require the consumer to notify them three days in advance if they wanted to pay off the entire loan amount, if not, only the “financial fee” would be debited. The FTC argues that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TILA/Regulation Z, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act/Regulation E by, among other things, (i) marketing loan products as having a fixed number of payments when funds were only being applied to finance charges and payment withdrawals continued beyond the promised number of payments; (ii) failing to make the required loan disclosures; (iii) failing to obtain proper authorization for reoccurring bank account withdrawals; and (iv) unlawfully using remotely created checks. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, contract rescission, restitution, and disgorgement.
CFPB issues final remittance rule extending safe harbor and providing compliance exceptions
On May 11, the CFPB issued final amendments to the Remittance Transfer Rule (Final Rule), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and imposes requirements on insured institutions that handle international money transfers—also known as remittance transfers—on behalf of consumers. The Final Rule follows a notice of proposed rulemaking issued last December (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the Final Rule grants a permanent safe harbor from exact remittance cost disclosures to insured institutions that do fewer than 500 remittances annually in the current and prior calendar years.
The Final Rule also addresses anticipated compliance challenges following the July 21 expiration of an existing exemption that allows certain insured institutions to disclose estimated exchange rates and third-party money transfer fees. Specifically, the Final Rule adopts a new, permanent exception that permits insured institutions to estimate the exchange rate for a remittance transfer to a particular country if, among other things, the remittance payment is made in the local currency of the designated recipient’s country and the insured institution processing the transaction made 1,000 or fewer remittance payments to that country in the previous calendar year. A second permanent exception will allow insured institutions to estimate covered third-party fees for remittance transfers to a recipient’s institution provided, among other things, the insured institution made 500 or fewer remittance transfers to the recipient’s institution in the prior calendar year. While the adopted final amendments will take effect July 21, the Bureau is adopting a transition period for both exceptions that will allow insured institutions that exceed the 1000-transfer or 500-transfer thresholds to “provide estimates for a reasonable period of time while they come into compliance with the requirement to provide exact amounts.”
The Bureau also reminded institutions of its April 10 policy statement (covered by InfoBytes here), which established a temporary exception allowing institutions providing remittance transfers to estimate these fees to consumers in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. From July 1 until January 21, 2021, the Bureau will not cite supervisory violations or initiate enforcement actions against certain institutions for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates.
CFPB partially grants confidentiality request and modifies CID’s notification of purpose
On April 13, the CFPB released a Supplemental Decision and Order partially granting a payment technology company’s request for confidential treatment of its petition that sought to set aside a 2019 CID seeking information related to, among other things, the company’s payment processing activities. The CFPB noted in its supplemental decision and order that while the company’s initial confidentiality arguments were rejected, it provided the company an opportunity to make an additional submission following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the standard for determining what information may be withheld under Exemption 4 of FOIA. The Bureau ultimately granted the company’s confidentiality request with respect to its payment processor information only.
The supplemental decision and order is related to the company’s now-published original petition to set aside the CID, in which it asserted that it is not a covered person under the Consumer Financial Protection Act because even though it sells various products and services, it does not provide payment processing services. The company also argued that it is not a service provider because it does not offer or provide consumer financial products or services, nor does it provide services to a covered person. Furthermore, because it is not a financial institution, the company claimed that the CFPB has no EFTA authority over it. The original petition requested that the CID be set aside because it exceeds the Bureau’s jurisdictional authority. The Bureau responded that the company’s arguments did not warrant setting aside the CID because the investigation was “not patently outside” its authority, but it partially modified the CID’s Notification of Purpose to provide greater detail about the conduct the Bureau was investigating. The Bureau also contended that the fact that the company is not a financial institution does not affect whether the Bureau can conduct an investigation into potential violations of section 1005.10(b) of Regulation E (EFTA), which “applies to any person.”