InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants MSJ for debt collector in FDCPA case
On November 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector (defendant) under the FDCPA, holding that the defendant’s collection letter was not misleading.
According to the court’s order, the plaintiff and the defendant established a payment agreement over the phone, during which the representative mentioned to the plaintiff that the interest rate on the loan would be lowered to 5.99 percent, and that failure to make any of the 11 monthly payments could render the agreement void. Shortly after, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant that conveyed essentially the same information. The defendant also provided the plaintiff with billing statements, including a statement indicating $11.14 in accumulated interest during the initial month in the payment plan. Additionally, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter that outlined the monthly payment and total balance due. The collection letter contained a warning that interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day could result in a greater balance than the amount plaintiff owed as of the date of the letter. The plaintiff argued that the warning was contradictory to the concept of “fixed” payment plan, and thus was deceptive and misleading in violation of Section 1692e.
The court noted that it had previously dismissed an FDCPA case against the same defendant using similar language in the context of a debt settlement. In that case, the defendant provided both a disclaimer and the settlement offer, and the court held that including both in the same communication “does not automatically render the letter misleading ... [d]efendant accurately and unambiguously conveyed the agreed-upon monthly payment, total balance, and APR.” The court also reasoned that holding debt collectors liable for violating the FDCPA in such instances might discourage them from proposing debt settlement plans to consumers.
California enacts licensing requirements for digital asset businesses, regulation of crypto kiosks
On October 13, the California Governor signed AB 39, which will create a licensing requirement for businesses engaging in digital financial asset business activity. Crypto businesses will need to apply for a license with California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). The bill, among other things, (i) empowers DFPI to conduct examinations of a licensee; (ii) defines “digital financial asset” as “a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender, except as specified”; (iii) empowers DFPI to conduct enforcement actions against a licensee or a non-licensed individual who engages in crypto business with, or on behalf of, a California resident for up to five years after their activity; (iv) allows DFPI to assess civil money penalties of up to $20,000 for each day a licensee is in material violation of the law, and up to $100,000 for each day an unlicensed person is in violation; and (v) requires licensees to provide certain disclosures to California clientele, such as when and how users may receive fees and charges, and how they are calculated. The new law exempts most government entities, certain financial institutions, most people who solely provide connectivity software, computing power, data storage or security services, and people engaging with digital assets for personal, family, household or academic use or whose digital financial asset business activity is reasonably expected to be valued at no more than $50,000 per year. In September of last year, the California Governor vetoed a similar bill because creating a licensing framework was “premature” considering conflicting efforts.
Also effective on July 1, 2025 is SB 401, which was also enacted on October 13. SB 401 establishes regulations for crypto kiosks under the DFPI’s authority. It will, among other things, prohibit kiosk operators from accepting or dispensing more than $1,000 in a single day to or form a customer via a kiosk. Operators would be required to furnish written disclosures detailing the transaction's terms and conditions as well as transaction details. Kiosk operators will also be obligated to provide customers with a receipt for any transaction at their kiosk, including both the amount of a digital financial asset or USD involved in a transaction and, in USD, any fees, expenses, and charges collected by the kiosk operator. Finally, operators will be required to provide DFPI with a list of all its crypto kiosks in California, and such list will be made public.
California enacts law to extend commercial financing cost disclosure requirement
On October 7, the California governor signed SB 33 to, among other things, continue to require covered providers offering commercial loans to disclose the total cost of financing expressed as an annualized rate indefinitely. Existing law currently required this disclosure only until January 1, 2024.
SB 33 is effective January 1, 2024.
FTC roundtable on generative AI and the creative economy
On October 4, the FTC hosted a virtual roundtable to hear directly from creators on how generative artificial intelligence (AI) is affecting their work and livelihood. FTC Chair Lina Khan noted the Commission’s role enforcing rules of fair competition and its intention to “keep pace” to fully understand how new technology can be used and the negative impacts. Khan reminded the audience that there is no “AI exemption” to the laws regarding unfair methods of competition or collusion, discrimination, or deception. In addition, Commissioner Kelly Slaughter mentioned that the generative AI dynamic of web scraping is often performed without the knowledge of creators whose livelihood depends on displaying a public portfolio.
Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief negotiator for SAG AFTRA, stated that the companies using AI technology must receive informed consent and compensation for the use of individuals’ likenesses. John August, committee member for the Writers Guild of America, explained the union’s position that AI generated content can be considered an unfair method of competition, and that creators deserve protection against the unfair use of their work. Douglas Preston, author and former president of the Writers Guild of America, shared that he is part of a class action lawsuit with 16 other authors against a generative AI platform.
Overall, participants asked the FTC to initiate rulemaking, and support in federal legislation as necessary to underpin the protection of creators’ livelihood, as technology is outpacing law and regulation. They suggested that moving forward, platforms should request creators to opt-in, rather than opt-out of the use of their works to teach and support generative AI output. Moreover, participants repeatedly mentioned a need for disclosures for consumers, so they know when synthetic AI-generated voices, among other things, are used in content generated for consumers.
SEC charges fintech investment adviser for misleading advertising
On August 21, the SEC announced charges against a New York-based fintech investment adviser for using hypothetical performance metrics in misleading advertisements, compliance failures that led to misleading disclosures, and failure to adopt policies concerning crypto asset trading by employees, among other things. These charges mark the first violation of the SEC’s amended marketing rule.
According to the order, the fintech investment adviser made misleading statements on its website by failing to include material information, and without having adopted and implemented required policies and procedures under the SEC’s marketing rule. The SEC also found that the company made conflicting disclosures regarding crypto assets custody and failed to adopt policies related to employee personal trading in crypto assets.
The company consented to the order finding that it violated the Advisers Act and without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, entered into a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and agreed to pay $192,454 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and an $850,000 civil penalty that will be distributed to affected clients.
Connecticut joins states enacting commercial financing disclosures and lender and broker registration requirements
On June 28, Connecticut became the latest state to require certain providers of sales-based commercial financing to provide disclosures to borrowers and that such providers and brokers register with the state. SB 1032 (the “Act”) defines “commercial financing” as any extension of sales-based financing by a provider in amounts of $250,000 or less, which the recipient does not intend to use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A “provider” is defined by the Act as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient” and includes, unless otherwise exempt, a “commercial financing broker,” but does not include “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, Connecticut credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union or any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing.” “Sales-based financing” means a transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time (i) as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales made or revenue received by the recipient, or (ii) according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue. The Act establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous additional exemptions.
Under the Act, when extending a specific offer for sales-based financing, the provider must disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the Act. As a condition of obtaining commercial financing, should the provider require a recipient to pay off the balance of existing commercial financing from the same provider, the provider would be required to include additional disclosures. The Act also discusses conditions and criteria when using another state’s commercial financing disclosure requirements that meet or exceed Connecticut’s provisions may be permitted. Providers may rely on a statement of intended purpose made by the “recipient” (defined as “a person, or the authorized representative of a person, who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing by a provider”) to determine whether the financing is commercial financing.
Further, the Act provides that a commercial financing contract entered into on or after July 1, 2024, may not contain any provisions waiving a recipient’s right to notice, judicial hearing, or prior court order in connection with the provider obtaining any prejudgment remedy. Additionally, a provider may not revoke, withdraw, or modify a specific offer until midnight of the third calendar day after the date of the offer. Notably, there is a requirement that providers and brokers of commercial financing be registered with the state banking commissioner, in addition to adhering to the prescribed disclosure requirements, no later than October 1, 2024.
Finally, the banking commissioner is authorized to adopt regulations to carry out the Act’s provisions. Providers who violate the Act’s provisions, or any adopted regulations, will be subject to civil penalties. The commissioner may also seek injunctive relief against providers who knowingly violate any of the provisions.
The Act takes effect July 1, 2024.
Florida enacts commercial financing disclosure requirements
On June 23, the Florida governor signed HB 1353 (the “Act”), creating the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law and imposing several requirements on commercial financing providers and brokers. The Act defines a “provider” as “a person who consummates more than five commercial financing transactions with a business located in [Florida] in any calendar year.” The definition “also includes a person who enters into a written agreement with a depository institution to arrange a commercial financing transaction between the depository institution and a business via an online lending platform administered by the person.” The Act clarifies, however, the “fact that a provider extends a specific offer for a commercial financing transaction on behalf of a depository institution may not be construed to mean that the provider engaged in lending or financing or originated that loan or financing.” A “commercial financing transaction” is defined broadly and means a secured or unsecured commercial loan, an account receivable purchase transaction, or a commercial open-end credit plan.
The Act establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous exemptions, including federally insured depository institutions; transactions secured by real property, a lease, or a certain purchase money obligations; transactions of at least $50,000 where the recipient is a motor vehicle dealer or rental company (or an affiliate of such company); providers licensed as money transmitters in any state; and commercial financing transactions greater than $500,000.
Specifically, at or prior to consummation of a commercial financing transaction, a provider must (i) disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the Act; (ii) outline the manner and frequency of the payments, including a description of the methodology used to calculate any variable payment amount and the circumstances that may cause a payment amount to vary; and (iii) disclose any costs or discounts associated with prepayment. Disclosures must be in writing and may be based on an example of a transaction that could occur under the agreement. The Act further specifies that only one disclosure is required for each commercial financing transaction. Subsequent disclosures are not required as a result of a modification, forbearance, or change to a consummated commercial financing transaction.
The Act also defined a “broker” as “a person who, for compensation or the expectation of compensation, arranges a commercial financing transaction or an offer between a third party and a business in [Florida] which would, if executed, be binding upon that third party.” The definition excludes “a provider and any individual or entity whose compensation is not based or dependent upon the terms of the specific commercial financing transaction obtained or offered.” In addition, the Act outlines prohibited conduct and establishes unique broker requirements. Specifically, a broker may not “[a]ssess, collect, or solicit an advance fee from a business to provide services as a broker” (a business may pay for actual services required to apply for a commercial financing transaction), and may not make any false or misleading representations when engaging in the offering or sale of its brokering services.
The Act explicitly prohibits a private right of action, but instead grants the Florida attorney general exclusive enforcement authority. The AG may seek fines of $500 per incident (not to exceed $20,000 for all aggregated violations). Fines will increase to $1,000 per incident (not to exceed $50,000 for all aggregated violations) for continued violations following receipt of written notice or a prior violation.
The Act takes effect on July 1.
More states targeting commercial financing disclosures
Several states are moving forward on legislation relating to commercial financing disclosures. While Georgia is the most recent state to require disclosures in connection with commercial financing transactions of $500,000 or less (covered by InfoBytes here), additional states, including Connecticut and Florida, are moving bills through the legislature that would also impose several requirements on commercial financing lenders and providers.
Awaiting the governor’s signature, Connecticut SB 1032 would require certain providers of commercial financing to make various disclosures, with violators being subject to civil penalties. The requirements are applicable to sales-based financing in amounts of $250,000 or less. A “provider” is defined by the bill as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient” and includes, unless otherwise exempt, a “commercial financing broker,” but does not include “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, Connecticut credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union or any subsidiary or affiliate of the foregoing.” The bill establishes parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outlines numerous additional exemptions. Providers may also be able to rely on a statement of intended purpose made by the “recipient” – which is defined as “a person, or the authorized representative of a person, who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing by a provider” – to determine whether the financing is commercial financing. Additionally, when extending a specific offer for sales-based financing, the provider must disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the bill. As a condition of obtaining commercial financing, should the provider require a recipient to pay off the balance of existing commercial financing from the same provider, the provider would be required to include additional disclosures. The bill also discusses conditions and criteria for when using another state’s commercial financing disclosure requirements that meet or exceed Connecticut’s provisions may be permitted.
The bill further provides that a commercial financing contract entered into on or after July 1, 2024, may not contain any provisions waiving a recipient’s right to notice, judicial hearing, or prior court order in connection with the provider obtaining any prejudgment remedy. Additionally, a provider may not revoke, withdraw, or modify a specific offer until midnight of the third calendar day after the date of the offer. Finally, the banking commissioner also is authorized to adopt regulations to carry out the bill’s provisions. Notably and unique to Connecticut is a requirement that providers and brokers of commercial financing be registered with the state banking commissioner in addition to adhering to the prescribed disclosure requirements. No later than October 1, 2024, providers and brokers must abide by certain application requirements and pay registration fees. If enacted, Connecticut’s requirements would take effect July 1, 2024.
Similarly, Florida also moved legislation during the 2023 session related to commercial financing that would have created the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law. Among other things, HB 1353 would have required covered providers to provide specified disclosures for commercial financing transactions in amounts of $500,000 or less and would have established unique broker requirements. Florida’s session ended May 5.
Georgia enacts commercial financing disclosure requirements
On May 1, the Georgia governor signed SB 90 to, among other things, require disclosures in connection with commercial financing transactions of $500,000 or less. The amendments modify the existing state Fair Business Practices Act and apply to “commercial loans” and “commercial open-end credit plans.” The amendments define a “provider” as “a person who consummates more than five commercial financing transactions in this state during any calendar year and includes, but is not limited to, a person who, under a written agreement with a depository institution, offers one or more commercial financing products provided by the depository institution via an online platform that the person administers.” The amendments also establish parameters for qualifying commercial transactions and outline numerous exemptions. Specifically, prior to consummating a commercial financing transaction, a provider must (i) disclose the terms of the transaction as specified within the amendments, and (ii) include a description of the methodology used to calculate any variable payment amount and the circumstances that may cause a payment amount to vary. The provisions apply to any commercial financing transaction consummated on or after January 1, 2024. The amendments also address unfair or deceptive practices relating to brokerage engagements and is effective January 1, 2024.
3rd Circuit: Card renewal notices not subject to TILA itemization requirements
On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a putative class action suit claiming a national bank’s failure to itemize fees in its credit card renewal notices violated TILA and Regulation Z. Plaintiff alleged that his 2019 card renewal notice listed the annual membership fee as $525, but did not separate the fee into itemized amounts: $450 for the primary cardholder and $75 for an additional authorized user. Stating that the annual membership fee later appeared in his 2020 renewal notice as two separate fees, he claimed that he would have only paid the $450 fee for his own card if he had known it was an option in 2019. Plaintiff sued claiming the 2019 renewal notice violated TILA and Regulation Z, which require creditors to make disclosures before and during a creditor-borrower relationship, including the existence of any annual and periodic fees. The district court rejected the bank’s argument that the plaintiff lacked standing after finding that he suffered an economic injury by paying the full $525. However, the court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss after determining that the plaintiff failed to allege a TILA violation because neither the statute nor its implementing regulation expressly require banks to itemize fees in a renewal notice.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit issued a precedential opinion finding that while the plaintiff had standing, he failed to plead an actual TILA violation. “While there is an itemization requirement in the statutes and regulations governing periodic disclosures,” the court clarified that “the same requirement is not included in the statutes and regulations applicable to renewal notices.” The 3rd Circuit stated that “[r]enewal notices are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as solicitations and applications, which are provided to consumers before the parties have any relationship,” explaining that because “the creditor does not yet know whether the consumer will add an authorized user to the account” during the solicitation or application period, it “must disclose ‘optional’ additional card fees.” However, during the account renewal stage, TILA and Regulation Z only require creditors to “disclose terms ‘that would apply if the account were renewed.’”