InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC final order fines company $62 million for misleading potential home sellers
On October 21, the FTC announced the approval of a final order against an online home buying firm accused of allegedly making misleading claims to consumers about how much money they could save by selling their home through the company’s services as opposed to selling on the open market. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC claimed the company violated the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting: (i) market value prices when making offers to buy homes by including downward adjustments to such values; (ii) the manner in which it made money on transactions; (iii) that consumers likely would have paid the same amount in repair costs whether they sold their home through the company or in traditional sale; and (iv) that consumers paid less in costs. The final order requires the company to pay $62 million, which is expected to be used for consumer redress, and prohibits the company from making deceptive, false, and unsubstantiated claims about how much money consumers will receive for their homes or the costs required to use the company’s service. Additionally, the company is required to have “competent and reliable evidence to support any representations made about the costs, savings, or financial benefits associated with using its service, and any claims about the costs associated with traditional home sales.”
FTC to issue rulemaking on junk fees and fake reviews
On October 20, the FTC voted 3-1 at an open meeting to publish two rules for comments: the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Junk Fees (see here) and the ANPRM on Fake Reviews and Endorsements (see here). The first ANPRM addresses junk fees that are charged for goods or services that have little or no added value to the consumer. The ANPRM seeks comments on the prevalence of junk fees and the consumer harms arising from junk fee practices, among other topics. The second APNRM initiates a rulemaking proceeding addressing fake reviews and other endorsements, which can cheat consumers and honest businesses alike. The ANPRM seeks comment on the prevalence of fake and deceptive reviews and the consumer harms arising from them, among other things.
At the start of the meeting, members of the public provided feedback on the Commission’s work with some members of the public expressing concerns about how junk fees are harming consumers and businesses. Others also expressed consumers’ frustration with hidden fees that are added to bills that were not advertised up front. Regarding fake advertisements, some emphasized how consumers rely on reviews and how fake reviews can harm consumers and sellers. Commissioner Wilson, the sole ‘no’ vote on both measures, noted that the APNRM on junk fees “is sweeping in its breadth,” and said the APNRM potentially contradicts existing laws and rules, among other things. Chair Kahn, Commissioner Slaughter, and Commissioner Bedoya all voted yes for both measures. Regarding the junk fees ANPR, Commissioner Slaughter mentioned that she does not consider this to be “obscure” and expressed her support for the ANPRM, emphasizing that markets cannot function effectively with junk fees. Commissioner Wilson noted that she agrees that “fake and deceptive reviews are unlawful,” but does not believe public comment should be sought for this proposal because “the Commission already has a multi-pronged strategy in place to combat this issue,” such as FTC-published endorsement guides. Additionally, in October 2021, the Commission issued a notice of penalty offenses, which is explained in the ANPRM, and may enable the Commission to obtain civil penalties from marketers that use fake reviews.
FTC takes action against auto dealer over deceptive advertising and pricing practices
On October 18, the FTC announced an action against an auto dealer group and two of its officers (the owner/president and the vice president) for engaging in deceptive advertising and pricing practices and discriminatory and unfair financing. According to the complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceptively advertising cars as “certified,” “inspected,” or “reconditioned” at specific prices, but then charged customers fees above the advertised price for costs related to “inspection,” “reconditioning,” or “certification.” The FTC also alleged that the defendants “unlawfully discriminate[d] on the basis of race, color, and national origin by imposing higher borrowing costs on Black and Latino consumers than non-Latino White consumers,” in violation of ECOA. Specifically, the FTC claimed that the defendants charged a higher markup to the interest rate for Black and Latino consumers than to non-Latino White consumers. Black and Latino consumers paid on average about $291 and $235, respectively, more in interest than non-Latino White consumers did. The FTC also alleged that Black and Latino consumers paid on average at least one extra fee 24 percent and 42 percent more often, respectively, than non-Latino White consumers. In addition to alleging that this conduct violated ECOA, the FTC also alleged that this discriminatory practice was an unfair act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. According to the order, the defendants are required to establish a fair lending program to ensure they do not discriminate in the future, including a provision that will require each associated dealership to either charge no financing markup or charge the same markup rate to all consumers, and must pay the FTC $3.38 million to refund harmed consumers. Among other things, the defendants are also prohibited from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. Two of the commissioners issued dissenting statements (see here and here), challenging the fair lending claims being brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the imposition of liability against the individual officers.
OCC releases bank supervision operating plan for FY 2023
On October 6, the OCC’s Committee on Bank Supervision released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year 2023. The plan outlines the agency’s supervision priorities and highlights several supervisory focus areas including: (i) strategic and operational planning; (ii) operational resiliency; (iii) third-party oversight and risk management; (iv) credit risk management with a focus on new products, areas of highest growth, and portfolios representing concentrations; (v) allowances for credit losses (ACL), including instances where ACL processes use third-party modeling techniques; (vi) interest rate risk; (vii) liquidity risk management; (viii) consumer compliance management systems with a focus on how programs are disclosed in relation to UDAP and UDAAP statutes; (ix) Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance; (x) fair lending risks; (xi) Community Reinvestment Act strategies and the potential for modernization rulemaking; (xii) new products and services in areas such as payments, fintech, and digital assets; and (xiii) climate-change risk management. The plan will be used by OCC staff to guide the development of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and certain identified third-party service providers subject to OCC examination.
The OCC will provide updates about these priorities in its Semiannual Risk Perspective, as InfoBytes has previously covered here.
FTC, DFPI shut down operation offering mortgage relief
On September 19, the FTC and the California Department of Financial Protection (DFPI) announced a lawsuit against several companies and owners for allegedly operating an illegal mortgage relief operation. (See also DFPI’s announcement here.) The filing marks the agencies’ first joint action, which alleges the defendants’ conduct violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, the FTC Act, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (the MARS Rule or Regulation O), the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act. The agencies claimed that the defendants preyed on distressed consumers with false promises of mortgage assistance relief. According to the complaint, the defendants made misleading claims during telemarketing calls to consumers, including those with numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as through text messages and in online ads. In certain cases, defendants represented they were affiliated with government agencies or were part of a Covid-19 pandemic assistance program. Among other things, defendants falsely claimed they were able to lower consumers’ interest rates or payments, and instructed consumers not to pay their mortgages, leading to late fees and significantly lower credit score. Defendants also allegedly told consumers not to communicate directly with their lenders, which caused consumers to miss default notices and face foreclosure. Additionally, defendants charged consumers illegal up-front fees ranging from $500 to $2,900 a month, and told consumers they were negotiating loan modifications that in most cases never happened.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a restraining order temporarily shutting down the defendants’ operations. In freezing the defendants’ assets and ordering them to submit financial statements, the court noted that the agencies established a likelihood of success in showing that the defendants “have falsely, deceptively, and illegally marketed, advertised, and sold mortgage relief assistance services.”
FTC aims to protect gig workers from unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices
On September 15, the FTC adopted a new policy statement outlining several issues facing consumers working in jobs that are part of the gig economy. According to the Commission, gig workers face potential harm related to misrepresentations about the nature of the work, diminished bargaining power for transparency, and anticompetitive hurdles resulting in reduced choice. The policy statement “makes clear that the FTC’s authority to enforce both competition and consumer protection law in the gig economy is not affected by how companies choose to classify the consumers who perform gig work.” Specifically, the Commission lists several areas where it will focus its attention on preventing consumer harm: (i) companies will be held accountable for claims and conduct about costs and benefits, including potential earnings, and must be transparent about costs borne by workers; (ii) companies using artificial intelligence or other advanced technologies for pay, performance, and work assignments are required to uphold promises made to workers, and must ensure that any restrictive contract terms do not violate the FTC Act or other statutes; and (iii) companies may be subject to investigations related to potential exclusionary or predatory conduct causing reduced compensation or poor working conditions. Companies that fail to comply with laws governing unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices may be required to pay consumer redress and civil penalties, and may also be ordered to cease their unlawful business practices.
FTC, states sue rental listing platform for fraud
On August 30, the FTC announced a lawsuit, together with the attorneys general from New York, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts, against a rental listing platform and its owners for allegedly charging consumers for false endorsements and fake listings. The complaint, which alleges violations of the FTC Act and various state laws, claims that the defendants used both fake reviews and fake listings to lure consumers to its platform and pay for access to so-called “verified and authentic living arrangement listings.” In particular, one of the individual defendants is alleged to have deceptively promoted the platform “by providing tens of thousands of fake four- and five-star reviews” to app stores. That individual defendant stipulated to the entry of a proposed stipulated final order on the same day, which requires the following: (i) cooperation with the FTC’s ongoing action; (ii) informing the app stores that he was paid to post reviews and identify the fake reviews and when they were posted; (iii) a permanent ban from selling or misrepresenting consumer reviews or endorsements; and (iv) payment of a total of $100,000 to the state AGs.
The action is part of the FTC’s on-going efforts to address fake and deceptive reviews, which include a $4.2 million action taken against an online fashion retailer accused of suppressing negative reviews, and warnings issued in 2021 to more than 700 companies announcing that they may face fines over misleading online endorsements (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
FTC sues data broker for unfair sale of sensitive data
On August 29, the FTC announced an action taken against a data broker accused of allegedly selling precise geolocation data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that can be used to trace individuals’ movements to and from sensitive locations. According to the complaint, the defendant purchases location information from other data brokers and packages it into customized data feeds that match unique mobile device advertising identification numbers with timestamped latitude and longitude locations. These data feeds allow purchasers to identify and track specific mobile device users with no restrictions on usage and puts consumers at significant risk, the FTC claimed, noting that by failing to adequately protect its data from public exposure, consumers may be identified and face substantial injury. Moreover, people are often unaware that their location data is being purchased and shared by the defendant and have no control over its sale or use, the FTC said in its announcement. The complaint alleges the defendant’s unfair sale of sensitive data violates the FTC Act, and seeks a permanent injunction and any additional relief deemed just and proper.
FDIC warns financial institutions about NSF fees
On August 18, the FDIC issued FIL-40-2022 along with supervisory guidance to warn supervised financial institutions that charging customers multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented unpaid transactions may increase regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk. According to the FDIC, some institutions’ disclosures did not fully or clearly describe their re-presentment practices and failed to explain that the same unpaid transaction may result in multiple NSF fees if presented more than once. Failing to disclose “material information to customers about re-presentment and fee practices has the potential to mislead reasonable customers,” the agency said, noting that the material omission of this information is considered to be deceptive pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act. Additionally, “there are situations that may also present risk of unfairness if the customer is unable to avoid fees related to re-presented transactions,” the FDIC said.
The supervisory guidance also discussed the agency’s approach for addressing violations of law, noting that it will focus on identifying re-presentment-related issues to ensure correction of deficiencies and remediation to harmed customers. The agency stated that examiners “will generally not cite UDAP violations that have been self-identified and fully corrected prior to the start of a consumer compliance examination,” and noted that it “will consider an institution’s record keeping practices and any challenges an institution may have with retrieving, reviewing, and analyzing re-presentment data, on a case-by-case basis, when evaluating the time period institutions utilized for customer remediation.” However, the FDIC warned that “[f]ailing to provide restitution for harmed customers when data on re-presentments is reasonably available will not be considered full corrective action.” Financial institutions are encouraged to review practices and disclosures related to the charging of NSF fees for re-presented transactions and should consider FDIC risk-mitigation practices to reduce the risk of customer harm and potential violations.
District Court awards injunctive relief to FTC in deceptive advertising case
On August 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the FTC provided “broad and detailed” evidence of alleged deceptive advertising and unfair fee practices in its $550 million case against a technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a suit in 2019, alleging the defendants made deceptive representations to customers and charged hidden, unauthorized fees in connection with the company’s “fuel card” products in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 2019, when the agency filed its lawsuit, legal precedent held that the FTC could obtain restitution for consumers directly through such civil proceedings in federal court. However, in April of 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC that the FTC does not have statutory authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Following that decision, the FTC filed a motion to stay or voluntarily dismiss in an attempt to preserve the possibility of obtaining monetary relief for injured consumers in federal court while pursuing claims against the defendants through the agency’s administrative process, but the district court denied the motion, concluding that the “balance of equities does not weigh in favor of a stay or dismissal without prejudice.”
In its most recent order, the district court ruled that the FTC provided compelling and overwhelming evidence, including advertisements, internal marketing studies, and a “plethora of customer complaints” that showed the defendants are liable for multiple violations of the FTC Act. Among other things, the court noted that the evidence showed that the defendants knew that many customers were unaware of certain fees when they signed up for the fuel cards and that the defendants’ terms and conditions governing the fees were “inscrutable” and confusing. However, the district court partially granted defendants’ request for summary judgment on monetary relief, ruling that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, the FTC cannot obtain a monetary award for the violations until the agency exhausts its administrative litigation process. A hearing will be held to determine the nature of the required injunctive relief.