InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts settles with debt payment processor
On November 7, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a settlement with a payment processing company to resolve claims that it provided substantial assistance to a debt settlement provider engaged in unlawful business practices that charged consumers premature and inflated fees in violation of state and federal law. According to an assurance of discontinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the company processed settlement and fee payments for consumers enrolled in various debt settlement programs, including those offered by a debt settlement provider that was previously fined $1 million by the AG’s office for allegedly harming financially-distressed consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The newest settlement resolves claims that the company transferred unlawful fee payments to the debt settlement provider despite having knowledge of the alleged misconduct and even after the provider was sued by the AG’s office. Without admitting any facts, liability, or wrongdoing, the company has agreed to pay $600,000 to the Commonwealth, and will, according to the announcement, “make meaningful business practice changes that would prevent it from transferring untimely fees from any Massachusetts consumer account to any debt settlement company.”
FHFA eliminates upfront fees for some borrowers
On October 24, FHFA announced the elimination of upfront fees for certain first-time homebuyers, low-income borrowers, and underserved communities as part of the agency’s ongoing review of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s (GSEs) pricing framework. Specifically, upfront fees are eliminated for (i) first-time homebuyers who are at or below 100 percent of area median income (AMI) in most of the U.S. and below 120 percent of AMI in high-cost areas; (ii) HomeReady and Home Possible loans under the GSEs’ affordable mortgage programs; (iii) HFA Advantage and HFA Preferred loans; and (iv) single-family loans supporting the Duty to Serve program. These changes “will result in savings for approximately 1 in 5 borrowers of the [GSEs’] recent mortgage acquisitions,” FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson said in the announcement, noting that the agency is working with the GSEs and will announce an implementation date shortly. The pricing updates also include targeted increases to upfront fees for most cash-out refinance loans. Implementation of these fees will start February 1, 2023, in order to minimize market and pipeline disruption.
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.
CFPB sues online lender to servicemembers
On September 29, the CFPB filed a complaint against a New York-based online lender and 38 of its subsidiaries for allegedly violating the Military Lending Act (MLA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by imposing excessive charges on loans to servicemembers and their dependents. The Bureau alleges that the defendants required consumers to join its membership program and pay monthly membership fees ranging from $19.99 to $29 to access certain “low-APR” installment loans. The complaint says that when the membership fees are combined with loan-interest-rate charges, the total fees exceed the MLA’s allowable rate cap, contending that the MLA serves to protect active duty servicemembers and their dependents by limiting the APR applicable to extensions of credit to 36 percent. The Bureau further claims that the defendants deceived consumers by representing that they owed loan payments and fees that were actually void under the MLA. In addition, the Bureau claims that the defendants refused to allow customers to cancel their memberships and stop paying monthly fees until their loans were paid, despite leading many consumers to believe they could cancel their memberships for any reason at any time, thereby “avoid[ing] such automatic renewals and associated membership fees.” In certain cases, the defendants refused to cancel memberships if a consumer had unpaid membership fees even if the loan was paid off, the Bureau says. The Bureau is seeking permanent injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and other relief.
2nd Circuit requires second look at “design and content” of online user agreement
On September 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s order denying a credit union’s motion to compel arbitration in a case involving the “unique question” of “whether and how to address incorporation by reference in web-based contracts under New York law.” The plaintiff claimed that the credit union wrongfully assessed and collected overdraft and insufficient funds fees on checking accounts that were not actually overdrawn. After the credit union moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver provision contained in the account agreement, the plaintiff argued that she was not bound by these provisions because they were not included in the original agreement and the credit union did not notify her when it added them to the agreement. According to the credit union, the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of the modified agreement because she separately agreed to an internet banking agreement that incorporated the modified account agreement by reference, and because the modified account agreement was published on the credit union’s website, which the plaintiff used for online banking. The district court disagreed, finding, among other things, that the hyperlink and language related to the account agreement appeared to be “buried” in the internet banking agreement.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit held that the district court “erred in engaging in the inquiry notice analysis, which requires an examination of the ‘design and content’ of the webpage, without reviewing the actual screenshots of the web-based contract.” Recognizing that the internet banking agreement was a “clickwrap” or a “scrollwrap” agreement, the appellate court explained that it has “consistently upheld such agreements because the user has affirmatively assented to the terms of the agreement by clicking ‘I agree’ or similar language.” While the plaintiff did not dispute that she signed up for internet banking, this did not end the court’s analysis; according to the 2nd Circuit, when addressing questions concerning digital contract formation, “courts also evaluate visual evidence that demonstrates ‘whether a website user has actual or constructive notice of the conditions.’” The credit union did not provide evidence showing how the internet banking agreement was presented to users—thereby preventing the district court from assessing whether the relevant language and hyperlink were clear and conspicuous. The 2nd Circuit, therefore, instructed the district court to consider on remand the design and content of the internet banking agreement “as it was presented to users” to determine whether the plaintiff agreed to its terms, and to assess whether the account agreements are “clearly identified and available to the users” based on applicable precedents regarding inquiry notice of terms in web-based contracts.
Republicans take issue with CFPB agenda
On September 12, several Republican senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing concerns that the Bureau is again pursuing “a radical and highly-politicized agenda unbounded by statutory limits.” In particular, the letter took issue with recent Bureau reports on the use of overdraft fees (covered by InfoBytes here and here), calling the agency’s actions a “relentless smear campaign” against banks. “Charging fees that customers chose to pay should not be disturbing or illegal, and yet, the CFPB appears to have developed a particular disdain for banks charging their customers for services, pejoratively calling overdraft protection ‘junk fees,’” the letter stated. Additionally, the letter claimed that the Bureau is changing its rules in order to publish previously confidential information about financial institutions to make it easier to threaten them with reputational harm (covered by InfoBytes here), without affording the financial institution the similar ability to, for example, disclose the existence of a CFPB examination. Among other things, the new procedural rule establishes a disclosure mechanism intended to increase transparency of the Bureau’s risk-determination process that will exempt final decisions and orders by the CFPB director from being considered confidential supervisory information, allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on their website. According to the senators, the rule requires nonbanks to keep confidential information relating to a decision issued by the Bureau, including facts that could question the decision or raise procedural concerns. “The one-sided nature of the CFPB’s rule change gives the agency the ability to publicly tarnish an institution’s name without affording the firm the power to defend itself,” the letter said. The letter also decries a recent change to the agency’s rules of adjudication to make it more difficult for companies to defend themselves against novel enforcement theories by bypassing an administrative law judge and permitting the director to rule directly on the validity of the legal basis for the enforcement action.
FTC will not extend comment period on NPRM seeking to ban auto lending junk fees and bait-and-switch tactics
On August 23, the FTC issued a decision declining to extend the public comment period for its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to ban “junk fees” and “bait-and-switch” advertising tactics related to the sale, financing, and leasing of motor vehicles by dealers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NPRM seeks to prohibit dealers from making deceptive advertising claims to entice prospective car buyers and would also: (i) prohibit dealers from charging fees for “fraudulent add-on products” and services that—according to the FTC—do not benefit the consumer; (ii) require clear, written, and informed consent (including the price of the car without any optional add-ons); and (iii) require dealers to provide full, upfront disclosure of costs and conditions, including the true “offering price” (the full price for a vehicle minus only taxes and government fees), as well as any optional add-on fees and key financing terms. Dealers would also be required to maintain records of advertisements and customer transactions. In declining to extend the comment period, the FTC said the public has been afforded “a meaningful opportunity to provide the Commission with comments regarding its rulemaking proposal.” The comment period will end September 12.
D.C. reaches $2.54 million settlement with online delivery company
On August 17, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a consent order and judgment against an online delivery company resolving claims that it charged consumers millions of dollars in deceptive service fees. According to a press release issued by the D.C. AG, from 2016 until 2018, the company allegedly misled consumers into believing that service fees charged on their orders were tips that went to delivery workers. Instead, these fees went to the company to subsidize operating expenses. Without admitting any wrongdoing, the company agreed to pay $1.8 million to the district to go towards restitution and cover litigation costs. The company also agreed it will not seek refunds of $739,057 in previously disputed sales tax payments and will collect and remit sales tax on the total amount of the sales price it charges consumers going forward. Additionally, the company will cease making any misrepresentations about the nature of fees on consumer orders.
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.
CFPB reports on banks’ overdraft fee practices
On July 20, the CFPB published a blog post examining banks’ overdraft and non-sufficient fund fees (NSF) fees practices since the publication of their report “Overdraft/NSF Fee Reliance Since 2015 – Evidence from Bank Call Reports” in December 2021. According to the blog post, the Bureau relied on additional data from the call report from the last three available quarters – the third quarter of 2021 through the first quarter of 2022. The December 2021 report used aggregate Call Report data from 2015 to 2021 from banks with assets of over $1 billion to examine the evolution of banks’ reliance on overdraft and NSF fees. The report found a lower reliance by banks on overdraft and NSF fees during the pandemic and continuing into 2021, which the Bureau said “reflects the relatively larger continued shortfall of overdraft and NSF fees in relation to their pre-pandemic volumes compared to the shortfall in maintenance and ATM fees.” While reliance on overdraft and NSF fees varied considerably among banks, the report noted that these fees represented close to two-thirds of banks’ reported fee revenue and were generally stable over time for any given bank.
According to the July 20 blog post, the Bureau found that the recent increase in overdraft revenue is greatest among small and midsize banks. However, the data shows that overall overdraft revenue stopped its decline and reversed somewhat, and ended up 20.1 percent below the corresponding 2019 levels. The CFPB also noted that revenues from other listed fees, such as account maintenance and ATM fees, has increased since 2020, especially at banks that experienced the largest declines in overdraft/NSF fee revenues.