InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB report reveals high credit card costs, growing debt, digital shift in 2022
On October 25, the CFPB released its biennial report on the credit card market pursuant to the Credit Card Act. The report found that credit card companies charged consumers more than $105 billion in interest and $25 billion in fees, with the bulk of the fees being late fees. According to the 175-page report, consumers are rolling balances month to month, and more consumers are falling into debt over time, while credit card companies’ profit margins remain high. The CFPB highlighted additional trends, including how: (i) the profits of major credit card companies have increased, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, which the CFPB suggests could indicate a lack of competition in the industry; (ii) annual Percentage Rates (APRs) for credit cards continue to rise; (iii) many cardholders with subprime credit scores paid a significant percentage of their average balance in interest and fees; (iv) late fees charged to cardholders have risen to pre-pandemic levels, and more consumers are delinquent; (v) credit card debt reached a record $1 trillion by the end of 2022, and annual spending on credit cards increased, returning to pre-pandemic levels; (vi) consumers who roll debt from month to month are paying a significant portion of interest and fees but earning only a small percentage of rewards. The report also notes a rise in digital communication—around 80 percent of cardholders, especially those under 65, use mobile apps for card management, which exhibits a shift in how consumers and financial institutions interact in the credit card industry.
CFPB report reveals high credit card costs, growing debt, and digital shifts led to consumers’ revolving debts in 2022
On October 25, the CFPB released a report on credit card interest rates and fees in 2022 highlighting the impact of the cost to consumers. The report found that credit card companies charged consumers more than $105 billion in interest and $25 billion in fees, with the bulk of the fees being late fees.
According to the 175-page report, consumers are rolling balances month-to-month, falling into debt, while credit card companies’ profit margins remain high. The CFPB highlighted additional trends, including how (i) the profits of major credit card companies have increased, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, which could indicate a lack of competition in the industry, with a few dominant players; (ii) Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) for credit cards continue to rise above the cost of offering credit (meaning cardholders are paying more in interest); (iii) many cardholders with subprime credit scores paid a significant percentage of their average balance in interest and fees; (iv) late fees charged to cardholders have risen to pre-pandemic levels, and more consumers are delinquent; (v) credit card debt reached a record $1 trillion by the end of 2022, and annual spending on credit cards increased, returning to pre-pandemic levels; and (vi) consumers who roll debt from month to month are paying a significant portion of interest and fees but earning only a small percentage of rewards. The report also notes a rise in digital communication—around 80 percent of cardholders, especially those under 65, use mobile apps for card management, which exhibits a shift in how consumers and financial institutions interact in the credit card industry.
FTC and Wisconsin sue auto dealer group for alleged discrimination and illegal fees
The FTC and the State of Wisconsin announced that they filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against an auto dealer group, and its current and former owners, and general manager, alleging that the defendants deceived consumers by tacking hundreds or even thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and discriminated against American Indian customers by charging them higher financing costs and fees relative to similarly situated non-Latino whites.
The complaint also notes the disparity only increased since a change of ownership in 2019. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants regularly charged many of their customers junk fees for “add-on” products or services without their consent, which resulted in additional fees and interest on the customers’ loans. Further, the defendants allegedly discriminated against American Indian customers in the cost of financing by adding more “markup” to their interest rates. This additional markup cost American Indian customers, on average, $401 more compared to non-Latino white customers.
The complaint resulted in two proposed settlements. The proposed settlement with the auto dealer, its current owners, and the general manager requires the company to stop deceiving consumers about whether add-ons are required for a purchase and obtain consumers’ express informed consent before charging them for add-ons. The settlement will also the require the defendants to establish a comprehensive fair lending program that, among other components, will allow consumers to seek outside financing for a purchase and cap the additional interest markup the auto dealer can charge consumers. The current owners and general manager will also be required to pay $1 million to be used to refund affected consumers.
Separately, the former owners agreed to pay $100,000 to be used to refund affected consumers.
CFPB reports decline in NSF fees by depository financial institutions, saving consumers billions
On October 11, the CFPB’s Offices of Consumer Populations and Markets announced that through its analysis of a number of depository financial institutions it had determined that the imposition of non-sufficient fund (NSF) fee by these entities were on the decline, saving an estimated $2 billion annually for consumers going forward. Specifically, the CFPB determined that “[n]early two-thirds of banks with over $10 billion in assets have eliminated NSF fees,” “[n]early three-fourths of the banks that earned the most in overdraft/NSF fee revenue in 2021, including 27 of the top 30 earners, have eliminated NSF fees” and “[a]mong credit unions with over $10 billion in assets, 16 of 20 continue to charge NSF fees, including four of the five largest.” It was ultimately determined larger banks have been more likely to eliminate NSF fees. Based on the CFPB’s estimates, for banks “with over $10 billion in assets, 97% of NSF fee revenue has been eliminated.”
Automotive management company settles with DOJ to resolve False Claims Act allegations
On October 11, an automotive management company settled claims by the Department of Justice alleging that the company had violated the False Claims Act by knowingly providing false information in support of its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan forgiveness application.
According to the DOJ’s allegations, the automotive management company certified it was a small business with fewer than 500 employees when in fact it shared common operational control with dozens of automobile dealerships with more than 3,000 employees in total.
CFPB issues guidance on “excessive” account information fees, returns $140 million to consumers
On October 11, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion concerning consumers’ requests for information regarding their accounts with large banks and credit unions (financial institutions). According to the Bureau, Section 1034(c) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (the “law”) requires insured depository institutions that offer consumer financial products or services and that have total assets of more than $10 billion, as well as their affiliates, to “comply in a timely manner with consumer requests for information concerning their accounts for consumer financial products and services, subject to limited exceptions.” The advisory opinion includes the following guidance and interpretations:
- Requirements of the law apply even if a customer does not expressively invoke the law.
- Requirements of the law apply to consumer requests for information including information that appears on periodic statements or in online portals including: (i) the amount of the balance in a deposit account; (ii) the interest rate on a loan or credit card; (iii) individual transactions or payments; (iv) bill payments; (vi) recurring transactions; (vii) terms and conditions; and (viii) fee schedules.
- The term “supporting written documentation” in the law requires financial institutions to provide, upon request, “written documents that will substantiate information provided in response to consumer questions, or that will assist consumers with understanding or verifying information regarding their accounts.”
- Financial institutions must provide account information and documentation that is in their “control” and “possession.” This excludes (i) confidential commercial information; (ii) information collected to prevent fraud or money laundering or detecting or making any report regarding unlawful conduct; (iii) information required by law to be kept as confidential; and (iv) supervisory information and nonpublic information.
- The law does not contain language stating or suggesting that financial institutions cannot impose unreasonable conditions on consumer information, but there is no reason Congress intended for the law to allow financial institutions to do so. Generally, the Bureau believes requiring fees and obstacles that impede a consumer’s ability to access their rights granted by the law is a violation of the provision. A financial institution could violate this law by imposing “excessively long wait times to make a request to a customer service representative, requiring consumers to submit the same request multiple times, requiring consumers to interact with a chatbot that does not understand or adequately respond to consumers’ requests, or directing consumers to obtain information that the institution possesses from a third party instead,” among other things.
- There is no fixed time limit for an institution to respond to a consumer’s request, but the CFPB does not view the timing requirements of this law to differ from the timing requirements of other applicable federal laws or regulations.
- Responses must provide all information requested accurately to be considered compliant.
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra delivered remarks on a press call, in which he emphasized that the Bureau’s investigations have uncovered many examples of junk fee-related misconduct by large financial institutions. He reminded consumers that financial institutions should not charge them excessive fees when trying to manage their finances. “Congress passed a law a decade ago requiring heightened customer service standards," said Chopra. "To date, this law has not been enforced. We are changing that.” Chopra also announced that later this month, the CFPB will propose rules to create more competition in banking to make switching financial institutions for better rates and less junk fees, more accessible.
The CFPB additionally issued the results of its recent oversight inspections of major financial institutions, which resulted in financial institutions refunding $140 million in junk fees, $120 million of which were for “surprise overdraft fees and double-dipping on non-sufficient funds fees.”
FTC announces second request for public comment on rule to ban “junk fees”
On October 11, the FTC released a notice of proposed rulemaking meant to prohibit unfair and deceptive, costly fees, also known as “junk fees.” After announcing its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last year (covered by InfoBytes here), and after considering more than 12,000 public comments, the FTC determined that some businesses misrepresent overall costs by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices until consumers are “well into completing the transaction,” and fail to adequately explain the nature and amount of fees. The Commission is seeking another round of comments for its proposed rule, which, for any entity that “offers goods or services” to consumers, would prohibit:
- Offering, displaying, or advertising an amount a consumer may pay without “clearly and conspicuously” disclosing the “total price,” which must be displayed “more prominently than any other pricing information.”
- Misrepresenting “the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay.”
- Disclosing “any other pricing information” besides the total price “more prominently” than disclosures of the total price in an “offer, display, or advertisement.”
The proposed rule would also grant the FTC more robust enforcement authority to seek refunds for harmed consumers and impose monetary penalties of up to $50,120 per violation. The proposed rule also requires businesses to include any mandatory costs for ancillary goods or services in their price disclosures.
The FTC is working alongside the CFPB, OCC, FCC, HUD and the Department of Transportation to develop and implement rules banning junk fees. The CFPB has also issued guidance emphasizing that large banks and credit unions are prohibited from imposing unreasonable obstacles on customers, such as charging excessive fees, for basic information about their accounts. Further, the White House has called on federal agencies “to reduce or eliminate hidden fees, charges, and add-ons for everything from banking services to cable and internet bills to airline and concert tickets.”
The Commission is seeking public input on 37 questions, with comments due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Crypto company settles NY AG’s hidden-fee claims
On May 18, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with a Brooklyn-based cryptocurrency company to resolve claims that it charged investors “exorbitant and undisclosed fees” to store cryptocurrency in an account that was advertised as being free on its website. The fees charged to investors to use its wallet storage were allegedly so high that they completely cleaned out investors’ accounts, the AG said. The company agreed to the AG’s findings that it regularly charged and increased fees without properly notifying investors. According to the AG’s investigation, the company changed the wallet storage fee structure four times without clearly disclosing the fee increase, which led to some investors being charged fees equal to 96 percent of the value of their account holdings. In total, the company took approximately $4.25 million from investors. The AG maintained that the company also failed to register as a commodity broker dealer in the state for a period of time, and that while it was eventually granted a virtual currency license pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, it failed to file a registration statement. Under the terms of the assurance of discontinuance, the company is required to pay $508,910 in restitution to the state and provide full restitution to all investors who were misled. The company is also required to provide monthly refund status updates to the AG, limit the amount of fees charged for using its wallet service to 0.002 percent per cryptocurrency per month for at least five years, and ensure that it adequately discloses all fees to investors.
CFPB: Reopening a closed account could be a UDAAP
On May 10, the CFPB released Circular 2023-02 to opine that unilaterally reopening a closed account without a customer’s permission in order to process a transaction is a likely violation of federal law, particularly if a bank collects fees on the account. “When a bank unilaterally chooses to open an account in someone’s name after they have already closed it, this is a fake account,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the announcement. “The CFPB is acting on all fronts to halt the harvesting of illegal junk fees.”
The Bureau described receiving complaints from consumers about banks reopening closed accounts and then assessing overdraft/nonsufficient funds fees and monthly maintenance fees. Such practices, the Bureau warned, may violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices. Consumers may experience substantial injury including monetary harm by paying fees due to the unfair practice, the Bureau said, explaining that because consumers likely cannot reasonably avoid the injury, “[a]ctual injury is not required; significant risk of concrete harm is sufficient.” Aside from subjecting consumers to fees, when a bank processes a credit through a reopened account, the consumers’ funds may become available to third parties, including those that do not have permission to access such funds, the Bureau warned, adding that there is also a risk that banks may furnish negative information to consumer reporting agencies if reopening the account overdraws the account and the consumer does not quickly repay the amount owed. The Bureau further noted that deposit account agreements typically indicate that a financial institution “may return any debits or deposits to the account that the financial institution receives after closure and faces no liability for failing to honor any debits or deposits received after closure.”
The Circular explained that rather than reopening an account when a third party attempts to deposit or withdraw money from it, banks should decline the transactions. This allows customers the opportunity to update their information with the entity attempting to access a closed account while avoiding potential fees. “Reopening a closed account does not appear to provide any meaningful benefits to consumers or competition,” the Bureau said in the Circular. “While consumers might potentially benefit in some instances where their accounts are reopened to receive deposits, which then become available to them, that benefit does not outweigh the injuries that can be caused by unilateral account reopening.”
OCC, FDIC say some overdraft fees may be unfair or deceptive
On April 26, the OCC and FDIC issued supervisory guidance addressing consumer compliance risks associated with bank overdraft practices. (See OCC Bulletin 2023-12 and FDIC FIL-19-2023.) The guidance highlighted certain practices that may result in increased risk exposure, including assessing overdraft fees on “authorize positive, settle negative” (APSN) transactions and assessing representment fees each time a third party resubmits the same item for payment after being returned by a bank for non-sufficient funds. The agencies provided guidance for banks that may help control risks associated with overdraft protection programs and achieve compliance with Dodd-Frank’s UDAAP prohibitions and section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The FDIC’s supervisory guidance expanded on the 2019 Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights (covered by InfoBytes here), and warned that APSN overdraft fees present risks of unfairness under both statutes as consumers “cannot reasonably avoid” receiving these fees because they lack “the ability to effectively control payment systems and overdraft processing systems practices.” The FDIC cited the “complicated nature of overdraft processing systems” as another impediment to a consumer’s ability to avoid injury. The FDIC also emphasized that risks of unfairness exist both in “available balance” or “ledger balance” methods of assessing overdraft fees, but cautioned that risks may be “more pronounced” when a bank uses an available balance method. Furthermore, the FDIC warned that disclosures describing how transactions are processed may not mitigate UDAAP and UDAP risk. Banks are encouraged to “ensure customers are not charged overdraft fees for transactions consumers may not anticipate or avoid,” and should take measures to ensure overdraft programs provided by third parties comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as such arrangements may present additional risks if not properly managed, the FDIC explained.
The OCC’s guidance also warned that disclosures may be deceptive under section 5 if they fail to clearly explain that multiple or additional fees may result from multiple presentments of the same transaction. Recognizing that some banks have already implemented changes to their overdraft protection programs, the OCC also acknowledged that “[w]hen supported by appropriate risk management practices, overdraft protection programs may assist some consumers in meeting short-term liquidity and cash-flow needs.” The OCC encouraged banks to explore other options, such as offering low-cost accounts and low-cost alternatives for covering overdrafts, such as overdraft lines of credit and linked accounts.