Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
I. Overview of the CFPB's Final Prepaid Rule
On October 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a final rule (Prepaid Rule) amending Regulations E and Z to extend consumer protections to prepaid card accounts. The new protections include pre-acquisition disclosures, error resolution rights, and periodic statements. In addition, prepaid card accounts that include a separate credit feature are subject to some of Regulation Z’s credit card provisions, including an ability-to-repay requirement. Prepaid card issuers are also required to submit to the Bureau and to post to their websites any new and revised prepaid card account agreements. In this alert we summarize key provisions of the Prepaid Rule except those provisions that apply only to payroll and government benefits prepaid cards, which will be covered in a separate alert.
II. Effective Date
The Prepaid Rule’s effective date is October 1, 2017, however, the effective date for posting prepaid card account agreements is October 1, 2018. Heeding concerns about burden, the Bureau stated that the Prepaid Rule does not require financial institutions to pull and replace prepaid account access devices or packaging materials that were manufactured, printed, or otherwise produced in the normal course of business prior to October 1, 2017. Instead, financial institutions must provide consumers with notice of certain changes in terms and updated initial disclosures, in certain circumstances.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Manley Williams, (202) 349-8060
On October 20, the FDIC released a report on the use of the traditional banking system in the United States. According to the FDIC’s executive summary of the report, the percentage of U.S. households in which no one had a checking or savings account (the “unbanked”) dropped to 7.0 in 2015. This is the lowest unbanked percentage since 2009, the year the FDIC began conducting an annual survey of unbanked and underbanked households. The FDIC cited several reasons why some households remain unbanked, the most common of which was the cost of maintaining an account, with an estimated 57.4% of respondents citing it as a factor in their decision not to maintain an account, and 37.8% of respondents citing it as the main reason underlying their decision not to maintain an account. Consistent with past survey results, the report notes that unbanked and underbanked rates are higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, younger households, minority households, and working-age disabled households. Additional findings highlighted in the report include: (i) a 1.9% increase from 2013-2015 in the use of prepaid cards; (ii) rapid growth (31.9% of users in 2015 compared to 23.2% in 2013) in the use of mobile and online banking, reflecting “promising opportunities to use the mobile platform to increase economic inclusion”; and (iii) an opportunity for banks to meet the credit needs of some households with an “unmet demand” for credit by “promoting the importance of building credit history, incorporating nontraditional data into underwriting, and increasing households’ awareness of personal credit products.”
On October 17, the FTC released the agenda for its upcoming FinTech forum, which is the second in an ongoing event series. The FTC’s half day event will take place on October 26 in Washington, DC from 1:00 to 4:30 pm. The event will consist of panel discussions relating to (i) peer-to-peer payment systems, which allow consumers to exchange money electronically; and (ii) crowdfunding, which is the use of online platforms to fund a project or venture by raising money from a large number of people.
Federal Reserve Board Member Recognizes Blockchain Technology's Potential; Warns of Associated Risks
On October 7, at the Institute of International Finance Annual Meeting Panel on Blockchain, Federal Reserve Board member Lael Brainard delivered a speech titled “Distributed Ledger Technology: Implications for Payments, Clearing, and Settlement.” Brainard acknowledged blockchain technology as possibly the “most significant development in many years in payments, clearing, and settlement” and outlined its potential “to transform the way financial market participants transfer, store, and maintain ownership records of digitized assets.” Brainard highlighted payment technology changes as a particular regulatory focus and emphasized the Federal Reserve’s “responsibilities for promoting the safety and efficiency of the payments and settlements systems; supervising financial institutions engaged in payments, clearing and settlement; and safeguarding financial stability.” The following potential benefits of blockchain technology are among those discussed in Brainard’s speech: (i) faster processing and reduced costs in cross-border payments and trade finance; (ii) transparency, reduced costs, and faster settlements within securities markets; and (iii) cryptography as a secure way of transmitting and storing data. Brainard cautioned that, notwithstanding the technology’s promise, certain risks associated with financial technological developments and innovation remain, particularly in the areas of settlement, operations, cybersecurity, money laundering, and terrorist financing. Brainard concluded by highlighting the Federal Reserve’s commitment to industry engagement as blockchain technology evolves, noting that stakeholders “will work together to foster socially beneficial innovation, while insisting that risks are thoroughly understood, managed, and controlled.”
On September 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a credit card company did not unreasonably restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act by prohibiting merchants from directing customers to use other, less costly forms of payment. The appeals court reversed based on the lower courts definition of the market as limited to the “core enabling functions provided by networks which allow merchants to capture, authorize, and settle transactions for customers who elect to pay with their credit or charge card.” According to the decision, this definition was too limited in this case, because the credit card network derived its market share from cardholder satisfaction, providing “no reason to intervene and disturb the present functioning of the payment‐card industry.” The court noted that the outcome in this case is different than in previous credit card exclusionary rule cases because here, the payment clearing network and the card issuing function are completely integrated, meaning that the issuer and the network are the same company.