InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District court grants partial summary judgment, rules bank did not violate federal and state fair credit reporting laws
On April 25, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a bank’s partial motion for summary judgment, holding that a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure and authorization form (disclosure form) completed by the plaintiff as part of the bank’s background check hiring process did not violate federal and state fair credit reporting laws. The plaintiff—who brought the proposed class action suit following the bank’s decision not to hire plaintiff following an offer of employment that was contingent upon a satisfactory background check—asserted claims under the FCRA, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA), and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRA), including that (i) the disclosure form was not a standalone document; (ii) the disclosure did not accurately identify the investigative consumer reporting agency; and (iii) the bank failed to comply with CCRA disclosure requirements.
Addressing whether the disclosure form, which “appeared as a separate and distinct web page separated from the rest of the documents,” violated the FCRA, the court ruled that because it “was a stand-alone document that contained no extraneous information or liability waiver” it was in compliance. The court also determined that the bank did not violate the ICRA because it was only required to disclose the agency it engaged to provide an investigative consumer report, not the various sources the agency itself may have used when conducting its investigation. Finally, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s argument that the disclosure form failed to comply with the CCRA lacked merit because—although the bank could not apply an exemption under state law to the section allegedly violated—the bank’s disclosure form complied with the CCRA’s disclosure requirements, and furthermore, the bank was not required to disclose the reasons for requesting the report nor the “various repositories” of information the disclosed source used when compiling the report.
Global internet media company fined $35 million for cybersecurity breach disclosures
On April 24, the SEC ordered a global internet media company, acquired in 2017 by a global communications company, to pay $35 million to settle claims alleging that the company failed to disclose a 2014 cybersecurity breach in which Russian hackers stole data from over 500 million user accounts. Compromised private user information included usernames, email addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, passwords, and security questions and answers. According to the SEC’s cease-and-desist order, during the two years following the breach, the internet media company (i) failed to inform outside counsel or auditors of the breach in order to assess public filing disclosure obligations; (ii) failed to maintain internal disclosure controls and procedures designed to guarantee that the company’s information security team reports addressing actual data breaches, or the risk of such breaches, were properly and timely assessed for potential disclosure; and (iii) made misleading statements in its public filings that warned investors only of the “risk of potential future data breaches” without disclosing the 2014 data breach. The SEC claimed that the disclosure violations continued as acquisition discussions were held in 2016 and resulted in renegotiation of the terms of the company’s sale, including a 7.25 percent reduction in price. The company ultimately disclosed the breach to the public in September of 2016. In agreeing to the settlement, the company neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, except as to the SEC’s jurisdiction over the matter.
CFPB finalizes KBYO amendment to address “black hole”
On April 26, the CFPB issued a final amendment to its “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule to address when mortgage lenders with a valid changed circumstance or other justification are permitted to reset tolerances and pass on increased closing costs to consumers using the Closing Disclosure. Last summer, as previously covered in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, the Bureau published a proposal seeking public comment on whether to close the “black hole” that prohibited creditors from passing on cost increases (particularly rate lock extension fees) when closing was significantly delayed after the Closing Disclosure. After considering comments, the Bureau finalized the proposed amendment. The final amendment will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Multiple states pass bills addressing GAP waiver framework
On March 28, HB 4186, which amends the Code of West Virginia by adding a section related to guaranteed asset protection waivers (GAP waivers), became law without the governor’s signature. Among other things, HB 4186 clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance, and that GAP waivers issued after the bill’s effective date are exempt from West Virginia insurance laws. The bill also (i) specifies terms and conditions when offering GAP waivers; (ii) provides requirements for offering GAP waivers, including “contractual liability” obligations, certain disclosures, and cancellation/non-cancellation terms; and (iii) outlines exemptions, such as commercial transactions and GAP waivers sold or issued by federally regulated depository institutions. Additionally, HB 4186 clarifies the procedures a borrower must follow to activate benefits under a GAP waiver. The bill will apply to all GAP waivers in effect on or after July 1.
On March 28, the Wisconsin governor signed Assembly Bill 663 (AB 663), which amends statutes related to GAP waivers sold in connection with the credit sale or lease of a vehicle. Among other things, AB 663 prohibits creditors from requiring borrowers to purchase GAP waivers and requires creditors to provide written disclosures to borrowers prior to, or at the time of execution, which include that (i) the purchase of a GAP waiver is optional; (iii) outlines the costs and terms; and (iii) specifies procedures borrowers are required to follow to receive GAP waiver benefits. AB 663 also addresses cancellation provisions for borrowers. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and that any cost to a borrower must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. AB 663 becomes effective September 1.
Finally, on March 26, the Mississippi governor signed SB 2929, which clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and are therefore exempt from Mississippi insurance laws. Provisions promulgated under SB 2929 provide a framework for which GAP waivers may be offered to borrowers in the state and include (i) requirements for contractual liability and other policies to insure a GAP waiver; (ii) disclosure requirements; and (iii) cancellation policies for GAP waivers and procedures for borrowers to obtain a refund in the instance of cancellation or early termination. Similar to Wisconsin AB 663, any cost to a borrower associated with a GAP waiver must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. The act takes effect July 1.
8th Circuit holds lender properly delivered TILA disclosures
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a national mortgage lender concluding that a borrower’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of TILA’s material disclosures and rescission notice created a rebuttable presumption that the borrowers had received the required number of notices under the law. According to the opinion, the borrowers sought to rescind their mortgage loan on a date close to three-years after settlement, arguing that the lender did not provide the requisite number of copies of required disclosures under TILA. TILA allows for rescission within three days of settlement unless the lender fails to deliver the required notice or material disclosures, which extends the rescission period to three years. After the lender denied the borrower’s request for rescission, a district court dismissed the action as untimely, asserting that the suit must be filed within the same three-year window. Ultimately, in 2015, the Supreme Court held that the three-year period applied to the borrower’s notice of rescission, and not the filing of the lawsuit.
On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender. In affirming the district court’s decision, the 8th Circuit disagreed with the borrower’s position that while they signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the required disclosures, the acknowledgment did not state that each “acknowledge receipt of two copies each.” The circuit court concluded that the signed acknowledgment is “unambiguous and gives rise to the presumption” of proper delivery and each signature by the borrower indicates personal receipt of two copies each.
House passes bill that would effectively overturn Madden; others amend RESPA disclosure requirements and adjust points and fees definitions under TILA
On February 14, in a bipartisan vote of 245-171, the House passed H.R. 3299, the “Protecting Consumers Access to Credit Act of 2017,” to codify the “valid-when-made” doctrine and ensure that a bank loan that was valid as to its maximum rate of interest in accordance with federal law at the time the loan was made shall remain valid with respect to that rate, regardless of whether the bank subsequently sells or assigns the loan to a third party. As previously covered in InfoBytes, this regulatory reform bill would effectively overturn the 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which ruled that debt buyers cannot use their relationship with a national bank to preempt state usury limits. Relatedly, the Senate Banking Committee is considering a separate measure, S. 1642.
The same day, in a separate bipartisan vote of 271-145, the House approved H.R. 3978, the “TRID Improvement Act of 2017,” which would amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) to modify disclosure requirements applicable to mortgage loan transactions. Specifically, the bill states that “disclosed charges for any title insurance premium shall be equal to the amount charged for each individual title insurance policy, subject to any discounts as required by either state regulation or the title company rate filings.”
Finally, last week on February 8, the House voted 280-131 to pass H.R. 1153, the “Mortgage Choice Act of 2017,” to adjust definitions of points and fees in connection with mortgage transactions under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Specifically, the bill states that “neither escrow charges for insurance nor affiliated title charges shall be considered ‘points and fees’ for purposes of determining whether a mortgage is a ‘high-cost mortgage.’” On February 12, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
FTC Fines California Auto Dealer for Violating Order About Disclosures
On November 6, the FTC announced a settlement of $1.4 million with a Southern California auto dealership for violating a 2014 administrative order (Order). The Order prohibited the dealership from misrepresenting the cost to finance or lease a vehicle. In issuing the Order, the FTC alleged that the dealership had violated the FTC Act by using advertisements that deceptively stated a $0 up-front lease option while excluding other fees and costs, and also that the dealership’s advertisements violated disclosure requirements of the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and TILA.
The new settlement resolves a complaint in which the FTC alleged the auto dealership “routinely violated” the Order requiring the dealership to, among other things, (i) accurately represent costs and terms of financing or leasing vehicles; (ii) conform its advertisements to the requirements of the CLA and TILA; and (iv) maintain necessary records and make those records available to the agency. In addition to the monetary penalty and the prohibition of similar practices, the settlement also subjects the dealership to strong compliance and reporting requirements.
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Amendments to Know Before You Owe/TRID Rule and Proposes Additional Changes to Address “Black Hole”
On July 7, the CFPB issued amendments to the KBYO/TRID rule. The Bureau billed the changes as clarifying and technical in nature but stated that the final rule “also makes a limited number of additional substantive changes where the Bureau has identified discrete solutions to specific implementation challenges.” The rule becomes effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, but compliance is not mandatory until October 1, 2018.
Importantly, however, instead of finalizing proposed amendments to address the “black hole” that prevents creditors from resetting tolerances using the Closing Disclosure except in very limited circumstances, the Bureau issued a concurrent proposal to address the issue. The proposal would close the black hole by allowing creditors to reset tolerances using the Closing Disclosure regardless of when closing is scheduled to occur, although the Bureau sought comment on whether doing so would have unintended consequences. Comments on the proposal must be received 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the rule or other related issues, please visit our TRID Resource Center, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Bipartisan Coalition of State Attorneys General File Petition to the FCC Seeking Broadband Consumer Protections
On June 19, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced a petition filed on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 35 state attorneys general to jointly oppose a cable and telecommunications industry petition, which is intended to stop state and local authorities from enforcing state consumer protection laws and leave the regulating of broadband disclosure requirements to the authority of the FCC. In seeking a declaratory ruling from the FCC, the industry groups request confirmation and clarification on federal regulatory requirements governing broadband speed disclosures, and further assert that “national, uniform rules [are] particularly important” once the FCC launches procedures to implement a “national ‘light-touch framework.’” In response to the petition, the FCC filed a public notice for comment on May 17. The state attorneys general, in responding to the request, claim the petition “asks the FCC to convert a limited safe harbor from FCC’s own enforcement, into blanket federal and state immunity for fixed and wireless broadband companies from liability for false statements contained in advertisements and marketing.” Furthermore, they assert that the industry groups are seeking a ruling that exceeds the FCC’s authority, is “procedurally improper,” and would “upend the longstanding dual federal-state regulation of deceptive practices in the telecommunications industry—which would leave consumers across the country without the basic state protections from unfair and deceptive business practices.”
CFPB Issues Disclosure Guide for Preparing Prepaid Accounts
On March 7, the CFPB issued a disclosure guide with instructions on how to prepare short form disclosures for prepaid accounts. The guidance provides steps for completing the disclosure but does not address other requirements under Regulation E, as amended by the Prepaid Rule, and is not applicable to government benefit accounts or payroll card accounts. The guide also covers information pertaining to insertion of fee amounts, static fees, additional fee types, statements explaining variable fees, informational statements, and size requirements.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Bureau released its final rule (the “Prepaid Rule”) on prepaid financial products in October of last year in order to provide consumers with additional federal protections under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and to also offer consumers standard, easy-to-understand information about prepaid accounts. However, on March 8, the CFPB announced that it may delay this effective date by six months. If approved, the proposed rule would push back the current October 1 effective date to April 1, 2018. According to the proposed rule filed by the Bureau, the extension comes in response to comments received from “some industry participants” who “believe they will have difficulty complying with certain provisions.” Extending the deadline for compliance “would, among other things, help industry participants address certain packaging related logistical issues for prepaid accounts that are sold at retail locations.” Comments on the Bureau's proposal are due next month.