InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Privacy initiative makes California ballot
On June 24, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) ballot initiative was submitted to the California Country Clerk’s office as an initiative qualified for the November 2020 General Election ballot after receiving more than the 623,212 valid signatures required to qualify. The initiative was drafted by Alastair Mactaggart, the Founder and Chair of the Californians for Consumer Privacy, and would amend the CCPA in several significant ways. Notably, Mactaggart also drafted the initiative that ultimately resulted in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The ballot initiative would, among other things:
- Provide consumers with the right to require a business to correct inaccurate personal information;
- Revise the definition of “business” to: (i) clarify that the time period for calculating annual gross revenues is based on the prior calendar year; (ii) provide that an entity meets the definition of a “business” if the entity, in relevant part, alone or in combination, annually buys, sell, or shares the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households; (iii) include a joint venture or partnership composed of businesses in which each business has at least a 40 percent interest; and (iv) include a person who does not otherwise qualify as a “business” but voluntarily certifies to the California Privacy Protection Agency (described below) that it is in compliance with, and agrees to be bound by, the CPRA;
- Create the California Privacy Protection Agency, which would have the authority to implement and enforce the CCPA (powers that are currently vested in the attorney general). The agency would be governed by a five-member board, including a single Chair, with members being appointed by the governor, the attorney general, and the leaders of the senate and assembly; and
- Expand on the CCPA’s opt-out provisions and prohibit businesses from selling a consumers’ “sensitive personal information”—a new term introduced by the initiative— without affirmative authorization.
Additional details regarding the proposed changes are available in the September 2019 InfoBytes post announcing the initiative. Since originally filing the initiative in September 2019, Mactaggart has amended the initiative several times, without significant change.
Louisiana allows financial institutions to use e-signatures
On June 9, the Louisiana governor signed HB 722, which provides that “[e]lectronic signatures used in transactions by and with financial institutions are enforceable to the full extent of the law.” Specifically, HB 722 states that financial institutions may submit evidence in electronic signature disputes proving that the purported signer’s electronic signature is valid and enforceable, including evidence showing that the purported signer (i) “received a direct or indirect benefit or value from the transaction, such as the deposit of funds into the purported signer’s preexisting account with the financial institution;” (ii) received loan proceeds; or (iii) paid a debt. The act takes effect August 1.
Oklahoma prohibits local governments from regulating supervised licensees
On May 21, the Oklahoma governor signed SB 1682, which prohibits any state municipality or other political subdivision from regulating certain practices of businesses and occupations licensed, regulated, and controlled under the supervision of the state’s Department of Consumer Credit. Specifically, local governments may not regulate interest rates, fees, or physical locations, or prevent licensed lenders from engaging in lending practices authorized under the state law. Additionally, SB 1682 allows a person whose rights are violated under the provisions of this section the right to bring an action for injunctive relief. The act takes effect November 1.
Special Alert: California Assembly to introduce legislation for Covid-19-related relief for mortgage loans, vehicle-secured credit, PACE financing, and deferred deposit transactions
We understand that the California State Assembly will shortly propose amendments to Assembly Bill No. 2501 to create the “COVID-19 Homeowner, Tenant, and Consumer Relief Law of 2020.” As of posting of this Alert, the proposed legislation is not available on California’s legislative service website. The proposed law would provide relief to homeowners, tenants, and vehicle owners by prohibiting creditors and loan servicers from taking specified actions, including initiating foreclosures or repossessions, during the period from the date of enactment of the proposed law through the 180-day period following the date that California Governor Gavin Newsom declares the emergency related to Covid-19 has ended. Additionally, the proposed law would require servicers to place certain loans that become delinquent into automatic forbearance for a period of at least six months.
The proposed law appears similar to portions of an appropriations bill, “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act,” which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 23, 2020, prior to the enactment of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and failed to pass. We understand that the proposed law is scheduled to be heard before the California State Assembly Banking Committee on May 19.
Virginia outlines student loan servicer requirements
On April 22, the Virginia legislature enacted SB 77, which requires entities servicing student loans in the Commonwealth to be licensed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). Notably, banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and financial institutions regulated under 12 U.S.C. § 2002 are exempt from the licensing requirements. In addition to outlining specific licensing requirements, SB 77 states that non-exempt student loan servicers must also refrain from, among other things, (i) engaging in any unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan by misrepresenting the amount, nature, or terms of any loan fees or payments, the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, or the borrower’s loan obligations; (ii) misapplying loan payments to an outstanding balance; (iii) failing to report both the favorable and unfavorable payment history of a borrower to a nationally recognized consumer credit bureau at least once a year provided the loan servicer regularly reports such information; (iv) failing to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; and (v) making false statements or omitting material facts in connection with information provided to the SCC or another government authority. Student loan servicers must also comply with other requirements, such as evaluating qualified borrowers for income-driven repayment programs, and responding to borrowers’ written inquiries within 30 days.
Additionally, SB 77 creates a private cause of action available to “[a]ny person who suffers damage as a result of the failure of a qualified education loan servicer to comply” with the bill’s requirements or with applicable federal student loan servicing laws and regulations. The bill further provides that violations are subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 and are considered prohibited practices under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. SB 77 has a delayed effective date of July 1, 2021; however, the SCC will begin accepting applications starting on or before March 1, 2021.
Virginia caps interest and fees charged under short-term loans
On April 22, the Virginia legislature enacted HB 789, which amends certain provisions of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) related to consumer lending. Specifically, the provisions increase the maximum short-term loan from $500 to $2,500, and sets the duration of these loans to a minimum of four months and a maximum of 24 months, subject to exceptions. Interest and fees that may be charged on a short-term loan are capped at an annual rate of 36 percent, plus a maintenance fee. In addition, licensed lenders are required to make a reasonable attempt to verify a borrower’s eligibility and may not collect fees and charges that exceed 50 percent of the original loan amount if such amount is $1,500 or less, or 60 percent of the original loan amount if the original amount is greater than $1,500. Additional amendments include provisions that (i) update the requirements for motor vehicle title loans, including prohibiting loans to borrowers with outstanding title loans, and prohibiting licensees from collecting or receiving credit insurance premiums and charges for ancillary products, among other things; (ii) make a violation of the bill’s provisions a prohibited practice subject to enforcement under the VCPA; (iii) allow licensed lenders to use the services of access partners, subject to certain conditions; (iv) provide that installment loans must be between $300 and $35,000 to be paid in substantially equal installment payments, with terms of no fewer than six and no more than 120 months; and (iv) outline short-term loan advertising requirements. Persons required to be licensed under these provisions must apply for a license on or before October 1, 2020. Licenses will take effect January 1, 2021 for those issued by the State Corporation Commission prior to this date.
Virginia requires licensure of debt settlement service providers
On April 7, the Virginia governor signed HB 1553, which outlines licensing and regulatory requirements for debt settlement services providers. Among other things, HB 1553 specifies that all debt settlement services providers must be licensed by the state, must file a bond with the state commissioner, and must comply with outlined record retention, reporting, and examination requirements. HB 1553 also outlines prohibited conduct, including prohibiting licensees from accepting a fee from a consumer prior to providing the requested debt settlement service, or from using false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements in connection with the offered services. HB 1553 also provides for cease and desist orders and civil penalties to be issued against licensees that violate these requirements, grants consumers a private right of action against licensees, and makes a violation a prohibited practice under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the State Corporation Commission is directed to “establish a procedure, to be in effect by March 1, 2021, for any person to apply, prior to July 1, 2021, for a license” that will take effect when HB 1553’s requirements become effective on July 1, 2021.
Virginia amends real estate settlement kickback provisions
On April 6, the Virginia governor signed HB 819 to add additional sections to the state code related to real estate settlements and settlement agents. Among other things, the amendments discuss the prohibition against the “payment or receipt of settlement services kickbacks, rebates, commissions, and other payments”—whether directly or indirectly—pursuant to an agreement or understanding to refer business incident to a settlement. The amendments also allow for the imposition of penalties and liabilities if a person is found to have willfully engaged in an act or practice in violation of this chapter. Specifically, the state attorney general may recover civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation, as well as costs, reasonable expenses, and attorney’s fees. The amendments take effect July 1.
D.C. enacts data breach requirements and consumer protections
On March 26, the mayor of the District of Columbia signed Act 23-268 to expand data privacy and consumer protection measures. Among other things, the “Security Breach Protection Amendment Act of 2020” (i) expands the definition of personal information subject to the Act; (ii) specifies the required contents of a security breach notification and requires that written notice of a breach involving 50 or more District residents be provided to the District’s attorney general; (iii) specifies security requirements for the protection of personal information, including for nonaffiliated third-party service providers; (iv) requires consumers to be provided at least 18 months of non-cost identity theft prevention services for data breaches involving the release of a social security or tax identification number; and (v) stipulates that a violation of these requirements is considered an unfair or deceptive trade practice. The Act takes effect following a 30-day congressional review period and publication in the District of Columbia Register.
Virginia outlines private student loan provider disclosure requirements
On March 23, the Virginia governor signed HB 743, which outlines disclosure requirements for private student loan providers to follow before issuance of a qualified education loan. The disclosure must contain contact information for the state’s Office of the Qualified Education Loan Ombudsman, as well as “a summary of the student loan information applicable to private education loans.” HB 743 further states that this disclosure may be “made in in conjunction with or incorporated into another disclosure” provided it is sent to a borrower prior to the issuance of a loan. The act takes effect July 1, 2021.