InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, FTC, and North Carolina argue public records website does not qualify for Section 230 immunity
On October 14, the CFPB, FTC, and the North Carolina Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the consumer plaintiffs in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., arguing that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities (collectively, “defendants”) cannot use Section 230 liability protections to shield themselves from credit reporting violations. The case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit after a district court determined that the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communication and Decency Act applied to the FCRA and that the defendants qualified for such immunity and could not be held liable for allegedly disseminating inaccurate information and failing to comply with the law’s disclosure requirements.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that because the defendants’ website collects, sorts, summarizes, and assembles public record information into reports that are available for third parties to purchase, it qualifies as a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA. According to the amicus brief, the plaintiffs’ claims do not seek to hold the defendants liable on the basis of the inaccurate data but rather rest on the defendants’ alleged “failure to follow the process-oriented requirements that the FCRA imposes on consumer reporting agencies.” According to plaintiffs, the defendants, among other things, (i) failed to adopt procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing reports; (ii) refused to provide plaintiffs with copies of their reports upon request; (iii) failed to obtain required certifications from its customers; and (iv) failed to inform plaintiffs they were furnishing criminal information about them for background purposes. The defendants argued that they qualified for Section 230 immunity. The 4th Circuit is now reviewing whether a consumer lawsuit alleging FCRA violations seeking to hold a defendant liable as the publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party is preempted by Section 230.
In their amicus brief, the CFPB, FTC, and North Carolina urged the 4th Circuit to overturn the district court ruling, contending that the court misconstrued Section 230—which they assert is unrelated to the FCRA—by applying its immunity provision to “claims that do not seek to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of any third-party information.” According to the brief, liability turns on the defendants’ alleged failure to comply with FCRA obligations to use reasonable procedures when reports are prepared, to provide consumers with a copy of their files, and to obtain certifications and notify consumers when reports are furnished for employment purposes. “As the consumer reporting system evolves with the emergence of new technologies and business practices, FCRA enforcement remains a top priority for the commission, the Bureau, and the North Carolina Attorney General,” the brief stated. “The agencies’ efforts would be significantly hindered, however, if the district court’s decision [] is allowed to stand.”
Newly sworn-in CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and FTC Chair Lina M. Khan issued a joint statement saying “[t]his case highlights a dangerous argument that could be used by market participants to sidestep laws expressly designed to cover them. Across the economy such a perspective would lead to a cascade of harmful consequences.” They further stressed that “[a]s tech companies expand into a range of markets, they will need to follow the same laws that apply to other market participants,” adding that the agencies “will be closely scrutinizing tech companies’ efforts to use Section 230 to sidestep applicable laws. . . .”
FDIC announces North Carolina disaster relief
On September 13, the FDIC issued FIL-65-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of North Carolina affected by remnants of Tropical Storm Fred. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions in affected areas, and suggested institutions take certain steps to meet the needs of their communities and keep the FDIC informed of business impacts. These steps include (i) working with borrowers to adjust or alter loan terms in a safe and sound manner; (ii) identifying potential community development activities to revitalize or stabilize the disaster area (which the FDIC noted may receive favorable CRA consideration); (iii) monitoring potentially impacted municipal securities and loans; (iv) notifying the FDIC of delays in meeting filing and publishing requirements, or in the event temporary banking facilities are needed; and (v) processing consumer requests under Regulation Z for a waiver or modification of the three-day rescission period for dwelling-secured loans in the event of a “bona fide personal financial emergency.”
North Carolina extends eviction protections through March 31
On January 27, the governor of North Carolina issued Executive Order No. 191 extending the limitations on residential evictions, consistent with the framework set forth in the federal CDC Order, through March 31.
North Carolina Secretary of State issues requirements for remote notarizations
The North Carolina Secretary of State has issued requirements and FAQs for remote video notarizations, which are permissible under North Carolina’s emergency video notarization law from May 2 until August 1. The requirements specify, among other things, the identification and recordkeeping requirements for remote notarizations using video conference technology.
North Carolina Attorney General announces joint relief effort for North Carolinians facing Covid-19 financial hardship
On June 4, the North Carolina attorney general announced the Carolina Relief Plan, a voluntary agreement whereby participating financial institutions will offer certain financial relief to customers facing Covid-19 financial hardships. Relief includes, among other things, allowing eligible customers to request a forbearance on residential mortgage payments not otherwise covered by the CARES Act, assistance for payment extensions of auto loan accounts, and relief from monthly maintenance fees, overdraft fees, and CD early withdrawal penalties. Under the agreement, any participating financial institution also must: (1) offer to place a moratorium on residential mortgage foreclosures and consumer auto repossessions through at least June 30, 2020; (2) refrain from reporting loans subject to Covid-19 accommodations; and (3) inform customers about the assistance they are being offered and of the heightened risk of scams. One financial institution has signed onto the relief plan as of the time of the announcement.
North Carolina passes Covid-19 Recovery Act
On May 5, the North Carolina governor signed the Covid-19 Recovery Act, which provides certain relief to North Carolinians in response to the Covid-19 crisis. Among other things, the legislation authorizes emergency video notarization and video witnessing during the state of emergency. The legislation also provides limited immunity to essential businesses from civil liability for claims alleged to have been caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Essential businesses include financial and insurance institutions, as determined by Executive Order 121, and any business that the Department of Revenue determines is essential.
North Carolina extends stay at home order
On April 23, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper issued an executive order extending his prior stay at home order (previously discussed here) until May 8. Neither order specifically addresses financial institutions.
North Carolina authorizes remote shareholder meetings
On April 1, the North Carolina governor issued an executive order permitting corporations to hold shareholder meetings by remote communication. The order will remain in effect for 60 days unless rescinded or superseded with another order.
North Carolina Department of Insurance issues guidance on debt collection
On March 27, the North Carolina Department of Insurance issued guidance clarifying certain debt collection obligations for insurance companies and related entities. Entities involved in collections must provide customers specific relief for payments, submission of claims, and other responsibilities. They must allow consumers, whose requests may have been impacted by the Covid-19 disaster, additional time for their requests to be received and reviewed. Additionally, the timeframes to submit additional information for previously pending requests will also be extended. The guidance is in effect for 60 days.
North Carolina sets up “essential supplier” vetting process
North Carolina Emergency Management announced that it created a process to vet businesses to determine whether they are essential suppliers that can continue operations if emergency closures are declared. To seek a determination, businesses should email beoc@ncdps.gov, providing: 1. business name; 2. contact information; 3. why it is critical that the business continue operations; 4. business website.