InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB argues funding constitutionality holding does not make sense
On October 25, the CFPB responded to a notice of supplemental authority filed by a credit reporting agency (CRA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which sought to use a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as justification for the dismissal of a lawsuit against the CRA. In April, the Bureau sued the CRA, two of its subsidiaries, and a former senior executive (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating a 2017 consent order in connection with alleged deceptive practices related to their marketing and sale of credit scores, credit reports, and credit-monitoring products to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Following the 5th Circuit’s decision, in which a three-judge panel unanimously held in CFSA v. CFPB that the CFPB funding structure created by Congress violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), the defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority on October 20, arguing that the suit must be dismissed and that the Bureau may not use unappropriated funds when prosecuting the suit. The defendants further contended that the 2017 consent order is invalid because the Bureau used unappropriated funds in its preparation.
The Bureau countered in its response that the 5th Circuit’s holding does not “make sense,” is “without support in law,” and does not help the defendants’ defense. According to the Bureau, “the court mustered no case from more than 230 years of constitutional history that has ever held that Congress violates the Appropriations Clause or separation of powers when it authorizes spending by statute, as it did for the Bureau.” Moreover, the Bureau argued that the appellate court’s contention that the CFPB’s funding was “impermissibly ‘double-insulated’ from congressional oversight” was incorrect because “Congress is fully capable of overseeing the Bureau’s spending, including because of several provisions in the Bureau’s statute that ensure its ability to supervise.” Adding that the court “should reject” the 5th Circuit’s analysis and “join every other court to address the issue—including the en banc D.C. Circuit—in upholding the Bureau’s statutory funding mechanism,” the agency further argued that even if the district court should disagree with this contention, it should still deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss because any alleged defect in the agency’s funding authorization “would not deprive the Bureau of the power to carry out the responsibilities given it by Congress to enforce the law.”
West Virginia AG pings CFPB on "unconstitutionally appropriated" funds
On October 24, the West Virginia attorney general sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, and to the leadership of both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, regarding the constitutionality of the Bureau’s continuing operation. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the CFPB funding structure created by Congress violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The 5th Circuit ruled that, although the CFPB spends money pursuant to a validly enacted statute, the structure violates the Appropriations Clause because the CFPB obtains its funds from the Federal Reserve (not the Treasury), the CFPB maintains funds in a separate account, the Appropriations Committees do not have authority to review the agency’s expenditures, and the Bureau exercises broad authority over the economy. In the letter, the AG argued that the Bureau cannot discharge its duties in a constitutionally permissible way. He further noted that the Bureau “plainly cannot do that with a funding scheme that ‘sever[s] any line of accountability between [Congress] and the CFPB.’” The AG urged the Bureau to reassess its future plans and to reevaluate whether its present regulations have any effect. The letter also requested answers to a series of questions, no later than November 1: (i) “Does the agency believe that any of the regulations that it promulgated under the unconstitutional funding scheme remain in effect? If so, which ones—and why? Similarly, how does the decision affect past enforcement actions?”; and (ii) “What plans does the Bureau plan to undertake to comply with the ruling? How will its ongoing enforcement efforts be effected? How will this change affect any promulgation of regulations? How will bank supervision continue, if at all?”
9th Circuit says district court must reassess statutory damages in TCPA class action
On October 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered a district court to reassess the constitutionality of a statutory damages award in a TCPA class action. Class members alleged the defendant (a multi-level marketing company) made more than 1.8 million unsolicited automated telemarketing calls featuring artificial or prerecorded voices without receiving prior express consent. The district court certified a class of consumers who received such a call made by or on behalf of the defendant, and agreed with the jury’s verdict that the defendant was responsible for the prerecorded calls at the statutorily mandated damages of $500 per call, resulting in total damages of more than $925 million. Two months later, the FCC granted the defendant a retroactive waiver of the heightened written consent and disclosure requirements, and the defendant filed post-trial motions with the district court seeking to “decertify the class, grant judgment as a matter of law, or grant a new trial on the ground that the FCC’s waiver necessarily meant [defendant] had consent for the calls made.” In the alternative, the defendant challenged the damages award as being “unconstitutionally excessive” under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s ruling, including upholding its decision to certify the class. Among other things, the appellate court determined that the district court correctly held that the defendant waived its express consent defense based on the retroactive FCC waiver because “no intervening change in law excused this waiver of an affirmative defense.” The appellate court found that the defendant “made no effort to assert the defense, develop a record on consent, or seek a stay pending the FCC’s decision,” even though it knew the FCC was likely to grant its petition for a waiver. While the 9th Circuit did not take issue with the $500 congressionally-mandated per call damages figure, and did not disagree with the total number of calls, it stressed that the “due process test applies to aggregated statutory damages awards even where the prescribed per-violation award is constitutionally sound.” Recognizing that Congress “set a floor of statutory damages at $500 for each violation of the TCPA but no ceiling for cumulative damages, in a class action or otherwise,” the appellate court explained that such damages “are subject to constitutional limitation in extreme situations,” and “in the mass communications class action context, vast cumulative damages can be easily incurred, because modern technology permits hundreds of thousands of automated calls and triggers minimum statutory damages with the push of a button.” Accordingly, the 9th Circuit ordered the district court to reassess the damages in light of these concerns.
Special Alert: Fifth Circuit finds CFPB funding unconstitutional — Now what?
The Fifth Circuit ruled last night in CFSA v. CFPB that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure is unconstitutional, triggering a potential wave of implications discussed below.
The holdings
A panel of three Fifth Circuit judges unanimously held that the CFPB funding structure created by Congress violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” It ruled that, although the CFPB spends money pursuant to a validly enacted statute, the structure violates the Appropriations Clause because the CFPB obtains its funds from the Federal Reserve (not the Treasury), the CFPB maintains funds in a separate account, the Appropriations Committees do not have authority to review the agency’s expenditures, and the bureau exercises broad authority over the economy. The court rejected the bureau’s arguments that the funding structure was necessarily constitutional because it was created by and subject to Congress, and distinguished other agencies that are funded outside of the annual appropriations process.
9th Circuit says CFPB can seek restitution in action against payday lender
On May 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s judgment finding an online loan servicer and its affiliates liable for a deceptive loan scheme. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order, which had imposed a $10 million civil penalty (rather than the requested penalty of over $50 million) and had declined the CFPB's request for $235 million in restitution. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, the district court ordered the defendants to pay the civil penalty for offering high-interest loans in states with usury laws barring the transactions after determining in September 2016 that the online loan servicer was the “true lender” of the loans that were issued through entities located on tribal land (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). At the time, the district court found that a lower statutory penalty was more appropriate than the CFPB’s requested amount because the Bureau failed to show the company “knowingly violated the CFPA” or acted “recklessly.” In rejecting the Bureau’s requested restitution amount, the district court found that the agency had not put forth any evidence that the defendants “intended to defraud consumers or that consumers did not receive the benefit of their bargain from the [program]” for restitution to be an appropriate remedy.
According to the 9th Circuit, the district court applied the wrong legal analysis in 2018 when it assessed only a $10 million civil money penalty against the defendants and no restitution payments to consumers harmed by the improper loans. By applying federal common law choice-of-law principles, the appellate court declined to apply tribal law, holding that state laws applied to the loans, thus rendering them invalid. The appellate court determined that the defendants acted recklessly when they attempted to collect on invalid debts after counsel advised in 2013 that such actions were likely illegal. While the defendants shut down the tribal lending program for new loans, the 9th Circuit said they continued to collect on existing loans. “We conclude that from September 2013 on, the danger that [defendants’] conduct violated the statute was ‘so obvious that [defendants] must have been aware of it,’” the appellate court wrote. Noting that penalties for “reckless” violations under tier two were appropriate beginning September 2013, the appellate court ordered the district court to recalculate the civil penalty on remand. The 9th Circuit also directed the district court on remand to reconsider the appropriate restitution without relying on irrelevant considerations that motivated its earlier decision, including (i) whether defendants acted in bad faith; and (ii) “whether consumers received the benefit of their bargain.” Moreover, the appellate court held that the district court erred by stating “that the ‘proposed restitution amount [should be] netted to account for expenses.’”
The 9th Circuit also concluded that the district court was correct in holding one of the individual defendants personally liable for the company’s conduct. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the defendants’ argument that the structure of the Bureau is unconstitutional did not affect the validity of the lawsuit (which was filed when the Bureau was headed by lawfully appointed former Director Richard Cordray), writing that, as in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here), “the unlawfulness of the removal provision does not strip the Director of the power to undertake the other responsibilities of his office.”
5th Circuit rules against SEC’s use of ALJs
On May 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of a petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and relied on unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. The appellate court further determined that SEC administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally shielded from removal. In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit vacated the SEC’s judgment against a hedge fund manager and his investment company arising from a case, which accused petitioners of fraud under the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Advisers Act in connection with two hedge funds that held roughly $24 million in assets. According to the SEC, the petitioners had, among other things, inflated the funds’ assets to increase the fees they collected from investors. Petitioners sued in federal court, arguing that the SEC’s proceedings “infringed on various constitutional rights,” but the federal courts refused to issue an injunction claiming they lacked jurisdiction and that petitioners had to continue with the agency’s proceedings. While petitioners’ sought review by the SEC, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Lucia v. SEC, which held that SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (covered by InfoBytes here). Following the decision, the SEC assigned petitioners’ proceeding to an ALJ who was properly appointed, “but petitioners chose to waive their right to a new hearing and continued under their original petition to the Commission.” The SEC eventually affirmed findings of liability against the petitioners, and ordered the petitioners to cease and desist from committing further violations and to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The investment company was also ordered to pay nearly $685,000 in ill-gotten gains, while the hedge fund manager was barred from various securities industry activities.
In vacating the SEC’s judgment, the appellate court determined that the SEC had deprived petitioners of their right to a jury trial by bringing its action in an “administrative forum” instead of filing suit in federal court. While the SEC challenged “that the legal interests at issue in this case vindicate distinctly public rights” and therefore are “appropriately allowed” to be brought in agency proceedings without a jury, the appellate court countered that the SEC’s enforcement action was “akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches.” Moreover, the 5th Circuit noted that while “the SEC agrees that Congress has given it exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to bring securities fraud enforcement actions within the agency instead of in an Article III court[,] Congress has said nothing at all indicating how the SEC should make that call in any given case.” As such, the 5th Circuit opined that this “total absence of guidance is impermissible under the Constitution.”
Additionally, the 5th Circuit raised concerns about the statutory removal restrictions for SEC ALJs who can only be removed for “good cause” by SEC commissioners (who are removable only for good cause by the president). “Simply put, if the President wanted an SEC ALJ to be removed, at least two layers of for-cause protection stand in the President’s way,” the appellate court concluded. “Thus, SEC ALJs are sufficiently insulated from removal that the President cannot take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The statutory removal restrictions are unconstitutional.”
The dissenting judge disagreed with all three of the majority’s constitutional conclusions, contending that the majority, among other things, misread the Supreme Court’s decisions as to what are and are not “public rights,” and that “Congress’s decision to give prosecutorial authority to the SEC to choose between an Article III court and an administrative proceeding for its enforcement actions does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.” The judge further stated that while the Supreme Court determined in Lucia that ALJs are “inferior officers” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause in Article II, it “expressly declined to decide whether multiple layers of statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate Article II.” Consequently, the judge concluded that he found “no constitutional violations or any other errors with the administrative proceedings below.”
9th Circuit: Data release did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that limited digital data uncovered online that was not collected at the behest of the government did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures. According to the opinion, the defendant, who was convicted of child exploitation, argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when two electronic service providers (ESPs) investigated his accounts without a warrant and reported the evidence of child sexual exploitation. He further maintained that evidence seized upon his arrest should have been suppressed because the ESPs were “acting as government agents when they searched his online accounts,” and that “he had a right to privacy in his digital data and that the government’s preservation requests and subpoenas, submitted without a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment.”
The 9th Circuit disagreed, concluding first that the federal Stored Communications Act and the Protect Our Children Act “transformed the ESPs’ searches into governmental action” and “that the government was sufficiently involved in the ESPs’ searches of the defendant’s accounts to trigger Fourth Amendment protection.” The appellate court also determined that the government’s preservation requests for the private communications did not amount to unreasonable seizure and that “the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the limited digital data sought in the government’s subpoenas, where the subpoenas did not request any communication content from the defendant’s accounts and the government did not receive any such content in response to the subpoenas.” Moreover, the 9th Circuit stated that the defendant agreed to terms of use that granted the ESPs’ contractual rights under agreed upon privacy policies “to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities,” and consented to the ESPs honoring of preservation requests from law enforcement.
Court rules CDC eviction moratorium unconstitutional
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that decisions to enact eviction moratoriums rest with the states and that the federal government’s Article I power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and enact necessary and proper laws to that end “does not include the power” to order all evictions be stopped during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an eviction moratorium order last September (set to expire March 31), which “generally makes it a crime for a landlord or property owner to evict a ‘covered person’ from a residence” provided certain criteria are met. The CDC’s order grants the DOJ authority to initiate criminal proceedings and allows the imposition of fines up to $500,000. The plaintiffs—owners/managers of residential properties located in Texas—argued that the federal government does not have the authority under Article I to order property owners to not evict specified tenants, and that the decision as to whether an eviction moratorium should be enacted resides with the given state. The CDC countered that Article I afforded it the power to enact a nationwide moratorium, and argued, among other things, that “evictions covered by the CDC order may be rationally viewed as substantially affecting interstate commerce because 15% of changes in residence each year are between States.”
However, the court disagreed stating that the CDC’s “statistic does not readily bear on the effects of the eviction moratorium” at issue, and that moreover, “[i]f statistics like that were enough, Congress could also justify national marriage and divorce laws, as similar incidental effects on interstate commerce exist in that field.” The court determined that the CDC’s eviction moratorium exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. “The federal government cannot say that it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium,” the court wrote. “It did not do so during the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic. . . .Nor did it invoke such a power during the exigencies of the Great Depression. [] The federal government has not claimed such a power at any point during our Nation’s history until last year.”
The DOJ issued a statement on February 27 announcing its decision to appeal the court’s decision, citing that the court’s order “‘does not extend beyond the particular plaintiffs in that case, and it does not prohibit the application of the CDC’s eviction moratorium to other parties. For other landlords who rent to covered persons, the CDC’s eviction moratorium remains in effect.’”
Court says Kansas credit card surcharge ban is unconstitutional
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action concerning whether a state statute that bans credit card surcharges violates the First Amendment. Kansas law prohibits merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who pay with credit cards instead of cash, and allows merchants to offer discounts to consumers who pay with cash. The plaintiff, a payment processing technology company, provides “software that allows merchants to display prices, including cost surcharges on purchases made by credit card,” which “allows consumers to comparison shop among payment types.” The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the law, claiming it is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech since it “effectively limits” what the plaintiff and merchants “can treat as the ‘regular price’ of an item and the corresponding information about prices and credit card fees that can be conveyed to consumers.” The Kansas attorney general—who has the authority to enforce the state’s no-surcharge statute—countered, among other things, that the statute furthers substantial state interests by (i) encouraging merchants to charge lower prices to customers who pay with cash; (ii) lowering the amount of consumer credit card debt through the use of cash discounts; and (iii) providing benefits to merchants by encouraging cash purchases, thereby allowing them to receive immediate payments, avoid credit card fees, and incur lower costs.
The court disagreed, ruling that none of the AG’s arguments advanced a substantial state interest—a requirement in order to not be considered a violation of the First Amendment. “Plaintiff's desire to display a single price while informing customers that credit card purchasers will be charged an additional fee would logically tend to support whatever interest the state may have in encouraging lower prices for cash customers,” the court wrote. “The statute nevertheless effectively prohibits this type of disclosure. Clearly, this restriction on speech is more extensive than necessary to further the asserted state interest.” Moreover, the court noted that “‘surcharges and discounts are nothing more than two sides of the same coin; a surcharge is simply a ‘negative’ discount, and a discount is a ‘negative’ surcharge.”
Debt collection trade association claims Massachusetts emergency regulation is unconstitutional
On April 20, a debt collection trade association filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Massachusetts attorney general, challenging the state’s emergency regulation issued in March, which makes numerous standard debt collection actions an unfair and deceptive act or practice during the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the emergency regulation includes provisions that prohibit both creditors and debt collectors from (i) initiating, filing, or threatening to file debt collection lawsuits; (ii) garnishing wages and repossessing vehicles; and (iii) initiating phone calls with debtors, unless necessary to discuss a rescheduled court appearance or at the request of the debtor. Alleging violations of both state and federal law, including the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the separation of powers, the trade association argues that the emergency regulations are a content-based restriction on free speech and unconstitutional because they, among other things, exclude six classes of collectors from the prohibition on placing collection calls, and do not treat all “communications” equally by excluding certain types of collections communications. The trade association also contends that the restrictions block members from providing consumers with possible resolutions, such as “temporary hardship repayment plans that may provide a variety of options for deferring payments or determining longer-term payment plans tailored to individual consumer situations where income has been interrupted for any reason.” The complaint also cites examples from debt collectors in the state that detail the negative impact the emergency regulation has had on their businesses. The trade association filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the regulation.