InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC settles with bankrupt crypto company and bans asset management
On October 12, the FTC announced it has reached a settlement with a bankrupt crypto company, which will permanently ban the company from managing consumer assets. According to the federal court complaint, the FTC alleged that from at least 2018, respondent attracted customers by promising their deposits would be secure, but when the company failed, consumers lost access to significant assets, resulting in over $1 billion in cryptocurrency asset losses. The FTC alleges violations of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's prohibition on obtaining financial information through false statements. Respondent allegedly misled consumers by claiming their assets were safe on the platform, stating that "YOUR USD IS FDIC INSURED." However, respondent is not a bank and the deposits were not eligible for FDIC insurance. The FTC complaint also alleged that the FDIC does not insure cryptocurrency assets, and consumers' cash deposits were placed in an account held by respondent at a traditional bank. Consumers' funds were protected only if that bank failed, but their cryptocurrency was not protected at all.
The proposed settlement with respondent and its affiliates permanently bans them from offering, marketing, or promoting any product or service related to depositing, exchanging, investing, or withdrawing assets. Respondent and its affiliates have agreed to a judgment of $1.65 billion, which will be suspended to allow the bankrupt company to return its remaining assets to consumers through bankruptcy proceedings. The proposed settlement also prohibits respondent and its affiliates from managing consumer assets, misrepresenting product benefits, making false representations to obtain financial information, and disclosing nonpublic personal information without consent.
The FTC also announced that it is filing a lawsuit against the respondent’s CEO for making false claims that consumer accounts were FDIC-insured. Respondent’s CEO has not agreed to a settlement, and the FTC's case against him will proceed in federal court. “In a parallel action, on October 12, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission separately charged [respondent’s CEO] with fraud and registration failures,” the FTC added.
FTC fines two companies $6M for inaccurate background reports
The FTC fined two companies that sell consumer background reports through subscriptions for violations of the FTC Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In addition to allegedly claiming, without substantiation, to have the most accurate reports available to the public, the complaint says two companies deceptively claimed individuals had criminal or arrest records when the individual did not; deceptively claimed consumers can remove information or flag it as inaccurate, and deceptively failed to disclose that third-party reviews were incentivized and biased.
The companies also furnished consumer reports to subscribers “without reason to believe those subscribers have permissible purposes to obtain such reports.”
The stipulated order requires the companies to pay a civil penalty of $5.8 million, prohibits them from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale certain reports including arrest records, bankruptcy records, and eviction records until the establish and implement a comprehensive monitoring program, and prohibits them from continuing any of the deceptive practices set forth in the complaint.
California appeals court reverses dismissal of Rosenthal Act class action
On August 30, a California Appeals Court (Appeals Court) reversed a lower court’s ruling that a mere alleged debt, whether or not actually due or owing – as opposed to a debt that is, in fact, actually due or owing – is insufficient to state a claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). Enacted in 1977, the Rosenthal Act aims “to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts.” Plaintiff purchased a home with a previously-installed solar energy system. The previous homeowner and plaintiff reached an agreement whereby the prior homeowner would purchase the energy produced through the system through monthly payments. However, the defendant, the provider of the solar energy system, sent late payment notices to plaintiff demanding that he make monthly payments. Although plaintiff did not engage in a “consumer credit transaction” with the defendant, the Appeals Court found that the plaintiff’s receipt of statements and notices from the defendant constituted money “alleged to be due or owing,” as required to state a claim under the Rosenthal Act. In holding that the plaintiff’s claim “has merit,” the Appeals Court emphasized that the Rosenthal Act was specifically designed to “eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid,” and “[i]t is difficult to conceive of a more unfair debt collection practice than dunning the wrong person”.
FDIC’s CRA evaluation rates fintech bank “needs to improve” for alleged FTC Act violations
On September 5, the FDIC released the list of nonmember banks examined for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is intended to “encourage insured banks and thrifts to meet local credit needs.” Included in the list was a fintech bank that the FDIC rated as “Needs to Improve” for reasons involving its overall record of helping meet the credit needs of underserved communities. According to the FDIC’s CRA performance evaluation of the Utah-based bank, the FDIC adjusted the CRA rating from “Satisfactory” to “Needs to Improve” due to illegal credit practices that resulted in violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices that were present during the time of the evaluation period. The FDIC found that the bank’s actions impacted a significant number of customers across the bank’s fuel card programs, and that the practices were sustained for multiple years. The FDIC also noted that, after the bank was notified of the violations, it implemented corrective measures, including customer restitution.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful business opportunity scheme
On August 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued a temporary restraining order against a business opportunity operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation made claims in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 by, among other things; (i) making false claims that they offered a “venture capital-backed” and “artificial intelligence-integrated” e-commerce business opportunity for consumers to buy into; (ii) falsely promoting themselves as e-commerce experts and self-made millionaires who have assisted others in generating tens of millions of dollars; (iii) relying on false business projections, including that customers would make a “$4k-$6k consistently monthly net profit”; (iv) false claims about the use of AI tools to maximize revenues; and (v) false endorsements, including false claims of success on social media by an affiliate marketer. The court’s temporary restraining order prohibited the operation from conducting business, froze its assets, appointed a temporary receiver, and required the operation to turn over business records to the FTC. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and additional relief as determined by the court. The FTC also highlighted that its ability to provide these refunds would not be possible if the action hadn't predated the 2021 Supreme Court ruling (covered by InfoBytes here) that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to seek monetary relief in federal court. The FTC used the opportunity to encourage Congress to restore its ability to seek monetary relief in federal court.
District Court files temporary restraining order to stop scammers in FTC suit
On August 21, the FTC announced it has stopped California-based scammers (defendants) who allegedly preyed on students seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. According to the August 14 complaint, since at least 2019, the defendants allegedly targeted students and illegally collected $8.8 million in advance fees in exchange for student loan debt relief services that did not exist. The defendants allegedly misled consumers by charging them for services that are free through the Department of Education, claiming consumers needed to pay fees or make payments to access federal student loan forgiveness, using names like "Biden Loan Forgiveness," that does not correspond to any actual government program. For instance, one consumer was asked to pay $375 for a processing fee to have up to $20,000 in loans forgiven because of a Pell Grant. Another was told they would get a $10,000 reduction in their loan balance and a new repayment plan with six $250 monthly payments under the “student loan forgiveness program.” The FTC alleges violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices, TCPA, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendants used such misrepresentations to illegally obtain consumers’ banking information, and typically collected hundreds of dollars in unlawful advance fees—sometimes through remotely created checks in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California filed a temporary restraining order, resulting in an asset freeze, among other things. The FTC seeks preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and other relief.
Judge stays CFPB, NY AG lawsuit against auto lender
On August 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a defendant’s motion to stay a lawsuit against an alleged predatory auto lender until the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding in a separate lawsuit (CFSA Case; covered by InfoBytes here).
The CFPB and the New York Attorney General (AG) brought the complaint in January, accusing the lender of UDAAP and TILA violations that involved tricking consumers into loans financing used cars with high interest rates (typically above 22 percent) and add-on products they could not afford. The CFPB and AG alleged the dealers affiliated with the company (i) engaged in deceptive conduct; (ii) used high pressures sales tactics; (iii) pressured consumers into unaffordable auto loans; (iv) pressured family and friends to cosign the loans; (v) withheld prices of vehicles; and (vi) misrepresented key financial terms of the purchase, violating the CFPB, the Martin Act, and fraud and UDAP statutes, among other allegations.
In its decision, the district court reasoned that the stay awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision would (i) allow for clarity and guidance on the legal issues at hand and it may help the defendant avoid unnecessary litigation costs; and (ii) promote judicial efficiency and minimize the possibility of conflicts with other courts. Furthermore, the court determined that although it would be in the public interest to enforce consumer protection laws, the potential harm to the public caused by the stay is outweighed by the benefit to consumers “in proceeding in a streamlined fashion.” The order requires the parties to file a joint letter updating the court by the earlier of November 3 or one week after a major development in the CFSA case.
CFPB issues Summer ’23 supervisory highlights
On July 26, the CFPB released its Summer 2023 issue of Supervisory Highlights, which covers enforcement actions in areas such as auto origination, auto servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, information technology, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, payday lending and remittances from June 2022 through March 2023. The Bureau noted significant findings regarding unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices and findings across many consumer financial products, as well as new examinations on nonbanks.
- Auto Origination: The CFPB examined auto finance origination practices of several institutions and found deceptive marketing of auto loans. For example, loan advertisements showcased cars larger and newer than the products for which actual loan offers were available, which misled consumers.
- Auto Servicing: The Bureau’s examiners identified unfair and abusive practices at auto servicers related to charging interest on inflated loan balances resulting from fraudulent inclusion of non-existent options. It also found that servicers collected interest on the artificially inflated amounts without refunding consumers for the excess interest paid. Examiners further reported that auto servicers engaged in unfair and abusive practices by canceling automatic payments without sufficient notice, leading to missed payments and late fee assessments. Additionally, some servicers allegedly engaged in cross-collateralization, requiring consumers to pay other unrelated debts to redeem their repossessed vehicles.
- Consumer Reporting: The Bureau’s examiners found that consumer reporting companies failed to maintain proper procedures to limit furnishing reports to individuals with permissible purposes. They also found that furnishers violated regulations by not reviewing and updating policies, neglecting reasonable investigations of direct disputes, and failing to notify consumers of frivolous disputes or provide accurate address disclosures for consumer notices.
- Debt Collection: The CFPB's examinations of debt collectors (large depository institutions, nonbanks that are larger participants in the consumer debt collection market, and nonbanks that are service providers to certain covered persons) uncovered violations of the FDCPA and CFPA, such as unlawful attempts to collect medical debt and deceptive representations about interest payments.
- Deposits: The CFPB's examinations of financial institutions revealed unfair acts or practices related to the assessment of both nonsufficient funds and line of credit transfer fees on the same transaction. The Bureau reported that this practice resulted in double fees being charged for denied transactions.
- Fair Lending: Recent examinations through the CFPB's fair lending supervision program found violations of ECOA and Regulation B, including pricing discrimination in granting pricing exceptions based on competitive offers and discriminatory lending restrictions related to criminal history and public assistance income.
- Information Technology: Bureau examiners found that certain institutions engaged in unfair acts by lacking adequate information technology security controls, leading to cyberattacks and fraudulent withdrawals from thousands of consumer accounts, causing substantial harm to consumers.
- Mortgage Origination: Examiners found that certain institutions violated Regulation Z by differentiating loan originator compensation based on product types and failing to accurately reflect the terms of the legal obligation on loan disclosures.
- Mortgage Servicing: Examiners identified UDAAP and regulatory violations at mortgage servicers, including violations related to loss mitigation timing, misrepresenting loss mitigation application response times, continuity of contact procedures, Spanish-language acknowledgment notices, and failure to provide critical loss mitigation information. Additionally, some servicers reportedly failed to credit payments sent to prior servicers after a transfer and did not maintain policies to identify missing information after a transfer.
- Payday Lending: The CFPB identified unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, including unreasonable limitations on collection communications, false collection threats, unauthorized wage deductions, misrepresentations regarding debt payment impact, and failure to comply with the Military Lending Act. The report also highlighted that lenders reportedly failed to retain evidence of compliance with disclosure requirements under Regulation Z. In response, the Bureau directed lenders to cease deceptive practices, revise contract language, and update compliance procedures to ensure regulatory compliance.
- Remittances: The CFPB evaluated both depository and non-depository institutions for compliance with the EFTA and its Regulation E, including the Remittance Rule. Examiners found that some institutions failed to develop written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Remittance Rule's error resolution requirements, using inadequate substitutes or policies without proper implementation.
NYDFS: Auto loan borrowers are entitled to rebates for cancelled ancillary products
On July 18, NYDFS sent a letter reminding regulated auto lenders and auto loan servicers that they are responsible for ensuring certain rebates are credited to consumers whose vehicles were repossessed or were a total loss. During its examinations, NYDFS identified instances where certain institutions that finance ancillary products, such as extended warranties, vehicle service contracts, and guaranteed asset protection insurance, failed to properly calculate, obtain, and credit rebates to consumers as required. NYDFS explained that the terms of sale for such ancillary products “provide that if the vehicle is repossessed or is a total loss prior to the product’s expiration, the consumer is entitled to a rebate for the prorated, unused value of the product (a ‘Rebate’), payable first to the [i]nstitution to cover any deficiency balance, and then to the consumer.” NYDFS found that some institutions either neglected to pursue Rebates from the issuers of the ancillary products or miscalculated the owed amounts, adding that in some instances, institutions made initial requests for Rebates but did not follow through to ensure that they were received and credited to consumers.
NYDFS explained that an institution’s failure to obtain and credit Rebates from unexpired ancillary products is considered to be unfair “because it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers who are made to pay or defend themselves against deficiency balances in excess of what the consumer legally owes.” The resulting injury caused to consumers is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, NYDFS stressed.
Additionally, NYDFS said an institution’s statements and claims of consumers’ deficiency balances that do not include correctly calculated and applied Rebates are considered to be deceptive, as they mislead consumers about the amount they owe after considering all setoffs. NYDFS said it expects institutions to fulfill their contractual obligations by ensuring Rebates are properly accounted for, either by deducting them from deficiency balances or issuing refund checks if no deficiency balance is owed.
NYDFS further noted in its announcement that recent CFPB examinations found that certain auto loan servicers engaged in deceptive practices when they notified consumers of deficiency balances that misrepresented the inclusion of credits or rebates. The Bureau’s supervisory highlights from Winter 2019, Summer 2021, and Spring 2022 also revealed that collecting or attempting to collect miscalculated deficiency balances that failed to account for a lender’s entitled pro-rata refund constituted an unfair practice.
CFPB alleges UDAAP violations by “lease-to-own” financer
On July 19, the CFPB announced it is suing a lease-to-own finance company that provides services that allows consumers, typically with limited access to traditional forms of credit for their financing, to finance merchandise or services over a 12-month period. According to the complaint, the Bureau claims that once a consumer falls behind on payments, the company’s purchase agreement essentially “lock[s] [consumers] into the 12-month schedule—even if they want to return or surrender their financed merchandise.” The alleged violations include:
- Misleading consumers. The company is accused of designing and implementing its financing program in a way that misleads consumers by using print advertisements featuring the phrase “100 Day Cash Payoff” without including details of the purchase agreement financing. The company is accused of misrepresenting that consumers could not terminate their agreement, that consumers could not return their merchandise, and that the “best” or “only” option for consumers who no longer want to finance their merchandise is to enter a “buy-back” agreement. The Bureau alleges that such conduct, among other things, violated the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive and abusive acts and practices.
- Unlawful conditioning of credit extension. The company is accused of violating the EFTA and its implementing Regulation E by allegedly improperly requiring consumers to repay credit through preauthorized automated clearing house debits.
- Failing to establish reasonable policies concerning consumer information. The Bureau alleges that the company violated the FCRA and its implementing Regulation V by not having adequate written policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of consumer information that it furnished, considering the company’s “size, complexity, and scope.”
The Bureau seeks, among other things, injunctions to prevent future violations, rescission or reformation of the company's financing agreements, redress to consumers, and civil money penalties.