InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC permanently bans payment processor from debt relief processing
On November 8, the FTC announced the permanent ban of a payment processor from processing debt relief payments and ordered payment of $500,000 in consumer redress. According to the FTC’s complaint, the payment processor and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) allegedly processed roughly $31 million in consumer payments on behalf of a student loan debt relief operation charged by the FTC in 2019 for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling their debt relief services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC claimed the operators (i) charged borrowers illegal advance fees; (ii) falsely claimed they would service and pay down their student loans; and (iii) obtained borrowers’ credentials in order to change consumers’ contact information and prevent communications from loan servicers. The FTC alleged the defendants processed payments from tens of thousands of consumers even though they were aware of numerous issues with the scheme and had received complaints from consumers and banks. The FTC further alleged that the defendants continued to process payments until the FTC took enforcement action against the operation.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are permanently prohibited from processing payments for debt relief services and student loan entities and are banned from processing payments for any merchant unless there is a signed, written contract. The defendants are also required to screen prospective high-risk clients to determine whether such clients are, or are likely to be, engaging in deceptive or unfair activities. In addition, the settlement imposes a $27.5 million judgment against the defendants, which is largely suspended following the payment of $500,000, due to the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount.
CFPB reaches $6 million settlement with prison financial services company
On October 19, the CFPB issued its first enforcement action under newly-appointed Director Rohit Chopra. The consent order, issued against a provider of financial services to prisons and jails, stated that the company engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA by charging consumers fees to access their own funds on prepaid debit cards that they were required to use. The CFPB also claimed the company violated the EFTA and implementing Regulation E by requiring consumers to sign up for its debit card as a condition of receiving gate money (i.e. “money provided under state law to help people meet their essential needs as they are released from incarceration”). According to the CFPB, the company provided approximately 1.2 million debit release cards to consumers, which replaced cash or check options previously offered by state departments of correction. In addition to forcing consumers to use the debit cards to access their funds, the company also allegedly charged consumers fees that were not authorized by the cardholder agreement and misrepresented the fees that it charged. Pursuant to the consent order, the company—which neither admitted nor denied the allegations—may only charge “a reasonable inactivity fee” if a debit card is not used for 90 days. The company is also required to pay $4 million in consumer redress and a $2 million civil money penalty.
Chopra released a separate statement, saying the “case illustrates some of the market failures and harms that occur when the disbursement of government benefits is outsourced to third-party financial services companies that fail to adhere to the law.” He warned that the CFPB “will continue to scrutinize these companies, particularly when law violations and abuses of dominance undermine the intent of such government benefits, and where the harms fall heavily on people who are struggling financially.”
SEC announces final rule for filing fee disclosure and payment methods modernization
On October 13, the SEC announced a final rule to adopt amendments to modernize filing fee disclosure and payment methods, which is intended to improve filing fee preparation and payment processing. Operating companies and investment companies (funds) pay filing fees when participating in some transactions, which include registered securities offerings, tender offers, and mergers and acquisitions. According to the SEC, the amendments revise most fee-bearing forms, schedules, and associated rules to require that companies and funds include all required information for filing fee calculation in a structured format. The amendments also create new options for ACH and debit and credit card payment of filing fees and remove options for filing fee payment by paper checks and money orders that are infrequently used. According to a statement by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, these amendments, “will make the filing process faster, less expensive, and more efficient for SEC staff and market participants.” The final rule is effective January 31, 2022, except for certain amendments that are effective May 31, 2022.
5th Circuit: Extended overdraft charges are not interest
On September 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the daily fees imposed on a consumer who failed to timely pay an overdraft were deposit-account service charges, not interest, and thus not subject to usury limits. The plaintiff allegedly overdrew her account and her bank paid the overdraft. The bank began charging a daily fee after the plaintiff did not repay the overdraft within five business days (called an “Extended Overdraft Charge”), which the plaintiff argued constituted interest on an extension of credit and was usurious in violation of the National Bank Act (NBA). In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court reasoned that the bank does not make a loan to a customer when it covers the customer’s overdraft, and therefore the NBA’s limitations on interest charges do not apply. On appeal, the appellate court sided with the district court and deferred to the interpretation of the OCC that the fees at issue were not “interest” under the law. The court found the OCC’s interpretation to be reasonable and otherwise entitled to Auer deference, and on that basis affirmed.
Massachusetts highlights UDAP risks of representment fees
On September 23, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, Division of Banks, issued a supervisory alert reminding financial institutions to clearly disclose representment non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees connected to deposit accounts to avoid consumer confusion as well as potential legal and regulatory risks. The alert explains that a representment NSF fee may occur when a financial institution presents the same transaction again, in an attempt to obtain declined funds. According to the alert, a “repeated merchant payment transaction can trigger the assessment of multiple NSF fees by a depository institution if the transaction is presented more than once,” causing some financial institutions to charge the consumer an NSF fee for both the original presentment as well as for each subsequent representment. The alert discusses consumer protection risks associated with the representment of NSF fees, including recent class action lawsuits for breach of contract, some of which have resulted in customer reimbursements and legal fees. Additionally, the alert highlights issues with standard industry deposit account agreements and fee schedules supplied by payment processing software vendors to financial institutions, which may not adequately explain an institution’s actual NSF fee practices as disclosed to customers. While certain disclosures and account agreements may indicate that one NSF fee will be charged “per item” or “per transaction,” these forms may not sufficiently explain that the same processed transaction may trigger multiple NSF fees. The alert reminds financial institutions charging representment fees that they risk violating state and federal UDAP law if their relevant account disclosures and agreements are not in compliance, and urges financial institutions to review deposit disclosures and contract language to ensure NSF fees are clearly and consistently communicated to consumers.
CFPB appeals decision on Prepaid Accounts Rule
On August 16, the CFPB filed its opening brief in the agency’s appeal of a district court’s December 2020 decision, which granted a payment company’s motion for summary judgment and vacated two provisions of the Bureau’s Prepaid Account Rule: (i) the short-form disclosure requirement “to the extent it provides mandatory disclosure clauses”; and (ii) the 30-day credit linking restriction. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau claimed that it had authority to enforce the mandates under federal regulations, including the EFTA, TILA, and Dodd-Frank, but the district court disagreed, concluding, among other things, that the Bureau acted outside of its statutory authority with respect to the mandatory disclosure clauses of the short-form requirement in 12 CFR section 1005.18(b) by presuming that “Congress delegated power to the Bureau to issue mandatory disclosure clauses just because Congress did not specifically prohibit them from doing so.” In striking the mandatory 30-day credit linking restriction under 12 CFR section 1026.61(c)(1)(iii), the district court determined that “the Bureau once again reads too much into its general rulemaking authority,” and that neither TILA nor Dodd-Frank vest the Bureau with the authority to promulgate substantive regulations on when consumers can access and use credit linked to prepaid accounts. Moreover, the court deemed the regulatory provision to be a “substantive regulation banning a consumer’s access to and use of credit” under the disguise of a disclosure, and thus invalid.
In its appeal, the Bureau urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn the district court’s ruling, arguing that both the EFTA and Dodd-Frank authorize the Bureau to promulgate rules governing disclosures for prepaid accounts. “The model-clause provision simply ensures that institutions will always have a surefire way of complying with the statute, even when the Bureau’s regulations do not specify how information should be disclosed,” the CFPB said, stressing that “[n]either that provision nor anything else forecloses—let alone unambiguously forecloses—rules requiring disclosures to present specified content in a specified format so that consumers are better able to find, understand, and compare products’ terms.” The decision to adopt such rules, the Bureau added, is entitled to deference. According to the Bureau, the Prepaid Account Rule “does not make any specific disclosure clauses mandatory,” and companies are permitted to use the provided sample disclosure wording or use their own “substantially similar” wording. Additionally, the Bureau argued, among other things, that “[b]y mandating optional model clauses while remaining silent about content and formatting requirements, Congress did not ‘circumscribe[] the [agency’s] discretion’ to adopt such requirements.” Instead, the Bureau contended, “whether to adopt content and formatting requirements is left ‘to agency discretion.’” Moreover, the disputed requirements “fit comfortably” within its power to regulate disclosure standards under EFTA and Dodd-Frank, the Bureau argued, adding that the law “authorizes the Bureau to ‘prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service … are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers.’”
DOJ, FTC comment on Fed’s proposed debit card interchange fees and routing changes
Recently, the DOJ and the FTC submitted comments on the Federal Reserve Board’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on debit card interchange fees and routing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed’s NPRM would require banks to ensure that two unaffiliated payment networks are available on their debit cards for online purchases. Among other things, the proposed amendments to the commentary to Regulation II, which implements Section 920 of the EFTA, (i) “clarify that the requirement that each debit card transaction must be able to be processed on at least two unaffiliated payment card networks applies to card-not-present transactions”; and (ii) clarify requirements imposed “on debit card issuers to ensure that at least two unaffiliated payment card networks have been enabled for debit card transactions.”
On August, 11, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a comment in support of the NPRM, “commend[ing] the Board for its efforts to promote competition in this important part of the debit card industry by ensuring that smaller debit networks will have a greater ability to compete for merchants’ business.” While offering support for the NPRM, the DOJ asked the Fed to “consider whether the proposal is drafted broadly enough to capture all card-not-present transactions,” adding that “incumbent industry participants may attempt to circumvent the proposed rule.” The DOJ encouraged the Fed to “actively assess additional ways the proposed rule may be enhanced to increase competition for debit payment processing.”
Also on August 11, the FTC submitted a comment letter urging the Fed to clarify and strengthen the implementation of debit card fee and routing reforms, stressing that the Fed should “prohibit debit card networks from paying incentives to an issuer based on how electronic debit transactions are routed by merchants using that issuer’s debit cards.” According to the FTC, “[e]liminating routing-based incentive programs will make it less likely that issuers will search for ways to circumvent Regulation II, whether by violating the rule (necessitating an enforcement action) or by finding a loophole (necessitating future revisions to Regulation II).”
FTC sues company for violating FTC Act
On August 11, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against a Georgia-based technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly charging small business customers hundreds of millions of dollars in mystery fees associated with fuel cards. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely promising companies that they would save money, be protected from unauthorized charges, and have no set-up, transaction, or membership fees with the fuel cards. However, according to the defendant’s records, companies generally have not achieved the advertised fuel savings through utilization of the cards. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things: (i) falsely represented that the company’s fuel cards contained fraud controls to prevent unauthorized purchases; (ii) “billed consumers for fees, interest, and finance charges, and programs for which consumers have not provided express, informed consent”; and (iii) charged fees for set-up, transactions, or membership after claiming that they did not.
In December 2019, the FTC filed suit in federal court against the defendants, alleging that they charged hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden and undisclosed fees to customers after falsely claiming customers would save on fuel costs. However, in April, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement” (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, “[i]n an effort to ensure that the agency’s case against the fuel card marketer is still able to recover money lost by consumers, the FTC has filed a new administrative complaint which alleges that [the defendants] violated section 5 of the FTC Act.”
District Court preliminarily approves class action settlement concerning mortgage “Pay-to-Pay” fees
On July 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in a class action against a mortgage lender (defendant) alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the FDCPA and various state laws. The plaintiffs originally filed three separate putative class actions against the defendant alleging the lender violated state laws in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas and breached consumers’ mortgage agreements by improperly charging and collecting “Pay-to-Pay” fees when borrowers made monthly mortgage payments by telephone, interactive voice response, or the internet. The defendant denied the allegations and any wrongdoing and moved to dismiss the claims. After proceedings were stayed in all three class actions pending mediation, notices of settlement were filed in each case providing that a global settlement had been reached and that plaintiffs would be added to one lawsuit. Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the defendant agreed to pay $5 million to establish a settlement fund and resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.
Colorado limits credit and debit card surcharges
On July 7, the Colorado governor signed SB 91, which, among other things, repeals a prior ban on surcharges for credit or debit card transactions. The bill limits the maximum surcharge amount per transaction to 2 percent of the payment amount or the actual fee. Merchants are required to display a specified notice regarding the surcharge on their premises or, for online purchases, before a customer’s completion of the transaction. The act becomes effective July 1, 2022.