InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB issues guidance allowing pandemic relief payment distribution with prepaid cards
On April 13, the CFPB issued an Interpretive Rule (IR) addressing the “Treatment of Pandemic Relief Payments Under Regulation E and Application of the Compulsory Use Prohibition.” Pursuant to the CARES Act, many consumers are entitled to pandemic relief payments, generally provided through direct deposit to the consumer’s bank account. When that information is unavailable, or when the consumer does not have a bank account, the IR allows government agencies to provide the economic impact payments via alternative means, including by issuing prepaid account cards. However, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and implementing Regulation E prohibit government agencies from requiring consumers to “establish accounts for receipt of electronic fund transfers with a particular financial institution as a condition of receipt of a government benefit. ” According to the IR, the “compulsory use prohibition” will not apply to prepaid cards and the Covid-19 relief payments will not be classified as government benefits, provided the cards fulfill certain requirements. In order to not be considered “government benefits” the payments must: (i) be to aid consumers impacted by Covid-19; (ii) not be “part of an already-established government benefit program”; (iii) be distributed “on a one-time or otherwise limited basis”; and (iv) not require consumers to apply for the funds.
CFPB announces regulatory flexibility after remittance transfer rule exception expires
On April 10, the CFPB announced the release of a policy statement “Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Remittance Rule in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic” addressing the implementation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Regulation E Remittance Rule (Rule). EFTA’s consumer protections, implemented by the Rule, require financial companies handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose the exact exchange rate, fees, and amount delivered to the consumer making the transfer. However, it also provides a temporary exception, which allows institutions that provide remittance transfers to estimate these fees to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The temporary exception is set to expire on July 1, and section 919 of the EFTA does not authorize the Bureau to extend it past that date. Accordingly, “[i]n order to minimize the impact of the pandemic on the remittances market…the Bureau will neither cite supervisory violations nor initiate enforcement actions against certain remittance transfer providers” for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates from July 1 until January 21, 2021.
2nd Circuit: Confirmation email to consumer satisfies EFTA’s written authorization requirement
On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of one of two defendants on plaintiff’s Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) claims, holding that the defendant satisfied its EFTA obligations by providing the plaintiff a confirmation email containing the material terms and conditions authorizing a recurring monthly charge to the plaintiff’s debit card. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claims against the defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiff contended that one of the defendants—a discount club operator—failed to provide him with a written copy of the authorized electronic fund transfer after he joined the defendant’s fee-based monthly discount club. The plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the defendant club operator, as well as the retailer from whom he purchased a video game online, alleging, among other things, that the defendant violated the EFTA, and that both defendants engaged in “unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of CUTPA.” The district could granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both claims.
The opinion discusses the 2nd Circuit’s holding from the plaintiff’s first appeal, in which the appellate court previously held “that the district court improperly rested its decision on evidence outside the scope of [the plaintiff’s] complaint,” with respect to the claim that the defendant failed to provide “‘a copy of such authorization’” to the plaintiff, as required by the EFTA. In addressing the plaintiff’s second appeal, the 2nd Circuit considered the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant failed to satisfy the EFTA’s requirements because it did not provide him with a “duplicate or facsimile of the Enrollment Page on which he authorized recurring payments.” The appellate court determined that: (i) the EFTA does not require the defendant to provide the plaintiff “with a duplicate of the webpage on which he provided authorization for recurring fund transfers”; and (ii) the defendant’s confirmation email to the plaintiff was sufficient to satisfy its EFTA obligations. The appellate court emphasized that, despite the parties’ “dueling dictionary definitions” of “copy” and “authorization,” the “EFTA’s stated purpose of consumer protection would be served whether the term ‘copy of such authorization’ is read to mean a duplicate or a summary of material terms.” The appellate court also highlighted the CFPB’s Official Interpretation of Regulation E, which states that a person “‘that obtains the [payment] authorization must provide a copy of the terms of the authorization to the consumer either electronically or in paper form.’ 12 C.F.R. Pt. 205, supp. I, §10(b), cmt. 5 (emphasis added).”
CFPB releases TILA, EFTA, and CARD Act annual report
On December 18, the CFPB issued its mandated annual report to Congress covering activity in 2016 and 2017 pertaining to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The report describes enforcement actions brought by the Bureau and federal agencies related to TILA, EFTA, the CARD Act (and respective implementing Regulations Z and E), as well as data on required reimbursements to consumers. The report also includes a compliance assessment of TILA and EFTA violations. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) member agencies report that more institutions were cited for violations of Regulation Z than Regulation E during the 2016 and 2017 reporting periods, and that the most frequently reported Regulation Z violations include (i) failing to disclose, or to accurately disclose, the finance charge on closed-end credit; (ii) failing to disclose good faith estimates on disclosures for closed-end credit; and (iii) failing to provide consumers with specific loan cost information on closing disclosures. The most commonly cited Regulation E violations include (i) failing to comply with investigation and timeframe requirements when resolving errors in electronic fund transfers; and (ii) failing to provide applicable disclosures. In addition, the report recaps FFIEC outreach activities related to TILA and EFTA, such as workshops, blogs, and other outreach events.
CFPB to amend Remittance Transfer Rule
On December 3, the CFPB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) relating to the Remittance Transfer Rule (Rule), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act’s (EFTA) protections for consumers sending international money transfers, or remittance transfers. The NPRM makes three proposals. First, the Bureau proposes to increase the Rule’s safe harbor threshold, mitigating compliance costs for financial institutions. The EFTA and the Rule consider a “remittance transfer provider” to include “any person that provides remittance transfers for a customer in the normal course of business.” However, the Rule currently includes a “safe harbor” provision that excludes persons that process 100 or fewer remittance transfers annually. The NPRM proposes increasing this threshold from 100 to 500 international remittance transfers per year. According to the Bureau’s announcement, the change would “reduce the burden on over 400 banks and almost 250 credit unions that send a relatively small number of remittances—less than .06 percent of all remittances.”
Second, the NPRM proposes adopting two permanent exceptions. The first is a permanent statutory exception that would allow certain insured institutions to estimate exchange rates and money transfer fees they are required to disclose, rather than provide consumers with exact costs when they send money abroad. Such an exemption would only apply in instances where a 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. An identical exemption provision is currently set to expire July 21, 2020. (Previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The NPRM proposes adopting a second permanent exception to 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 the prior calendar year.
Third, the NPRM requests comments on a list of safe harbor countries for which providers may use estimates for remittance transfers.
Comments must be received 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. In conjunction with the NPRM, the Bureau also released a summary of the NPRM, a table of contents, and an unofficial redline of the proposed amendments to the Rule.
Republican lawmakers urge CFPB to extend Remittance Rule safe harbor
On September 30, 16 Republican members of Congress wrote to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger to express concern over the upcoming expiration of a safe harbor to the Remittance Rule (the Rule), which allows certain insured depository institutions to estimate exchange rates and certain fees they are required to disclose to customers about remittance transactions. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a Request for Information (RFI) last April on two aspects of the Rule that require financial institutions handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose to individuals transferring money information about the exact exchange rate, fees, and the amount expected to be delivered. The RFI also sought feedback on a possible extension of the current statutory exception, which is set to expire July 21, 2020. While lawmakers recognize the CFPB’s interest in mitigating negative effects that may result from the exception’s expiration, they urged the CFPB to “take every available step” to ensure that consumers may continue to access remittance services. The lawmakers stressed that it is often difficult, if not “virtually impossible,” for depository institutions to calculate the exact cost of certain remittance transactions. The letter further noted that “depository institutions cannot readily covert all foreign currencies at the time a transfer is conducted, and if the currency exchange takes place after the transfer is initiated, a consumer’s financial institution may only be able to estimate the applicable exchange rate.” Accordingly, if the exception expired, it could cause many depository institutions to discontinue providing remittance services due to increased compliance risk, or cease transfers to certain countries or beneficial banks due to non-compliance risks.
The lawmakers urged the CFPB to use its statutory authority under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act or Dodd-Frank to make the exception permanent “so financial institutions are able to make long-term decisions regarding the provision of these services.”
11th Circuit reverses dismissal of EFTA action alleging inadequate overdraft notice, denies EFTA safe harbor defense
On August 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the dismissal of a consumer’s action against her credit union, in which the consumer alleged the credit union used the wrong balance calculation method to impose overdraft fees. According to the opinion, the consumer filed suit against the credit union for using an “available balance” calculation method to impose overdraft fees on her account when the credit union allegedly agreed to use the “ledger balance” method at the time of account opening, in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and various state law contract claims. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the agreements “unambiguously permitted [the credit union] to assess overdraft fees using the available balance calculation.”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of the agreements. The court noted that while the opt-in overdraft agreement used by the credit union is based on Regulation E’s (the EFTA’s implementing regulation) Model Form A-9, the model does not address which account balance calculation method is used to determine whether a transaction results in an overdraft. The language chosen by the credit union, according to the appellate court, is “ambiguous because it could describe either the available or the ledger balance calculation method for unsettled debits” and therefore, does not describe the calculation in a “clear and readily understandable way” as required by Regulation E. Because the language was ambiguous, the consumer did not have the opportunity to affirmatively consent to the overdraft service. Moreover, the appellate court concluded that the credit union was not protected under the EFTA’s safe harbor because it used the Model Form A-9 text. Specifically, the appellate court reasoned that the “safe-harbor provision insulates financial institutions from EFTA claims based on the means by which the institution has communicated its overdraft policy,” but does not provide a shield from allegations of inadequacy. Because the consumer argued that the credit union violated the EFTA due to its failure to prove enough information to allow for affirmative consent, the safe-harbor provision does not preclude liability.
District Court rejects stop-payment fee class action against bank
On August 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the majority of an EFTA class action against a national bank, allowing only one claim by the lead plaintiff to proceed. In this case, two customers filed a class action against the bank alleging that it violated the EFTA and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by charging a $30 stop-payment fee. The bank moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the EFTA does not prohibit stop payment fees, and the California UCL claims are preempted by the National Banking Act. While the district court found that the lead plaintiff had standing to assert the claims against the bank, the court also held that the EFTA, its legislative history, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit precedent “unambiguously does not prohibit stop payment fees.” Moreover, the court noted that the EFTA and its legislative history say nothing about “how the reasonableness of any such fees should be determined.” The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ class action claims with prejudice.
CFPB updates advisory on elder financial exploitation
On July 17, the CFPB issued an updated advisory to financial institutions with information on the financial exploitation of older Americans and recommendations on how to prevent and respond to such exploitation. The update urges financial institutions to report to the appropriate authorities whenever they suspect that an older adult is the target or victim of financial exploitation, and recommends that they also file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The update builds on an advisory that was previously released by the Bureau in March 2016 (covered by InfoBytes here), which included recommended best practices to help prevent and respond to elder financial exploitation, such as (i) establish protocols for ensuring staff compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act; (ii) train staff to detect the warning signs of financial exploitation and respond appropriately to suspicious events; and (iii) maintain fraud detection systems that provide analyses of the types of products and account activity associated with elder financial exploitation. With the release of the update, Director Kraninger noted that, “[t]he Bureau stands ready to work with federal, state and local authorities and financial institutions to protect older adults from abusive financial practices that rob them of their financial security.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February, the CFPB’s Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans, released a report studying the financial abuse reported in SARs, discussing key facts and trends revealed after the Bureau analyzed 180,000 elder exploitation SARs filed with the FinCEN from 2013 to 2017. Key findings of the report included, (i) SARs filings on elder financial abuse quadrupled from 2013 to 2017, with 63,500 SARs reporting the abuse in 2017; (ii) the average amount of loss to an elder was $34,200, while the average amount of loss to a filer was $16,700; and (iii) more than half of the SARs involved a money transfer.
FTC halts operations of credit-repair company
On June 21, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut temporarily halted the operation of an alleged credit repair scheme based on allegations the company charged illegal upfront fees and falsely claimed to substantially improve consumers’ credit scores in violation of the FTC Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), the Consumer Review Fairness Act, TILA, and the EFTA. According to the complaint, since 2014, the company, among other things, (i) claims they can improve consumers’ credit scores by removing negative items and hard inquiries from credit reports; (ii) charges advance fees for their services; (iii) does not provide the required disclosures for its services, including credit transaction disclosures related to the financing of the service fees; (iv) engages in electronic funds transfers from consumers’ bank accounts without proper authorization; and (v) threatens consumers with legal action after consumers complain about the lack of results. The court order requires the company to temporarily cease its operations and ensures the company’s assets are frozen.