InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Seventeen State Attorneys General comment on CFPB overdraft proposal
State attorneys general (AGs) from 17 states recently sent a letter to the CFPB endorsing its proposed rule to amend TILA. The 17 states included New York as principal, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposed amendments would treat overdraft credits as loans, which would make them subject to consumer protections.
The AGs argued that the historical basis for excluding overdraft fees from TILA protections would be obsolete due to how the fees are assessed, the high fee amount, and the large number of overdraft transactions. The AGs wrote that closing the loophole would protect consumers by providing customers with disclosures so they can better understand the cost and enable them to comparison shop. The AGs supported a benchmark fee of $3, which is the lowest fee amount proposed by the CFPB, and argued that even a $6 fee would “undercount the volume of transactions generating a fee post-enactment” of the proposed rule. Finally, the AGs urged the CFPB to extend the proposed rule to both “very large financial institutions” (those with more than $10 billion in assets) and small financial institutions.
FDIC issues February enforcement action against New York bank for lack of effective third-party oversight
On March 29, the FDIC released its list of February 2024 enforcement actions, which included a consent order against a New York digital bank in which the FDIC alleged a lack of sufficient oversight of the bank’s third-party relationships. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly engaged in unsafe and unsound banking practices due to a lack of internal controls appropriate to the bank’s size and risk of its third-party relationships, and weaknesses in board oversight of asset growth and management, among other issues. The FDIC further alleged that the bank violated several laws including BSA, EFTA, and TISA.
The FDIC ordered the bank’s board to increase its oversight of the bank’s management and the bank’s financial condition commensurate with the size of the bank and the risk of its third-party relationships. Further, the FDIC ordered the board to correct or eliminate any unsafe banking practices or violations of the law. On data and systems, the FDIC ordered the bank to conduct a data and systems review and develop a written action plan to address any deficiencies or weaknesses. Notably for the bank’s third-party relationships, the FDIC ordered that the bank’s procedures, data, and systems include “clear lines of authority” responsible for monitoring bank procedures and effective risk assessments. Finally, among other things, the FDIC ordered the bank to implement look-back reviews and have its board review the bank’s program to ensure compliance with consumer-related laws.
CFPB sends letters of support for New York’s pending unfair and abusive conduct prohibition
On March 19, the CFPB published a blog post providing input on New York State’s proposed prohibition on unfair and abusive acts, urging passage of A 7138 and S 795, companion bills that are titled the “Consumer and Small business Protection Act” (the “Acts”). The blog post followed the CFPB’s delivery of letters in support of the Act to Governor Hochul, state senators, and state assembly members.
The Acts would expand Section 349 of New York’s general business law to prohibit unfair or abusive acts or practices, in addition to the existing prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Acts would also give the New York attorney general authority to bring an action for unfair, unlawful, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, “regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is directed at individuals or businesses, is consumer-oriented, or involves the offering of goods, services, or property for personal, family or household purposes,” and would give “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” authority to bring “an action to recover one thousand dollars and his or her actual damages, if any, or both such actions, … regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is consumer-oriented, has a public impact or involves the offering of goods, services or property for personal, family or household purposes.”
The Acts defined an act or practice as unfair “when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.” They provided that an “act or practice is deceptive when the act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead a person and the person’s interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances,” and that an act or practice is abusive when “it materially interferes with the ability of a person to understand a term or condition of a product or service,” or “takes unreasonable advantage of: (A) a person’s lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service; (B) a person’s inability to protect his or her interests in selecting or using a product or service; or (C) a person’s reasonable reliance on a person covered by this section to act in his or her interests.” The Bureau’s letters to the state governor and legislature noted that the “reasonable reliance” component of the Acts is “critical,” and like the federal prohibition that “recognizes that people often reasonably expect that certain businesses will help them make difficult financial decisions, and there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of that trust.” The CFPB also mentioned that it has brought numerous actions based on that particular component.
The Acts provided that “standing to bring an action under this section, including but not limited to organizational standing and third-party standing, shall be liberally construed and shall be available to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law.” Further, “[a]ny individual or non-profit organization entitled to bring an action” under the Acts “may, if the prohibited act or practice has caused damage to others similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of himself or herself and such others to recover actual, statutory and/or punitive damages or obtain other relief as provided for in” the Acts. A nonprofit also may bring an action on behalf of itself, its members, or members of the public that have been injured by a violation of the Acts. Nonprofits may seek the same remedies and damages as individuals.
New York Attorney General sues over 25 lenders for predatory lending operation
On March 5, New York Attorney General Letitia James released a verified petition against 27 lenders accusing them of a “large-scale, predatory lending” operation in which they allegedly misrepresented themselves in order to issue small businesses short-term loans at “sky-high interest rates” in violation of New York Executive Law §63(12). According to the petition, the 27 lenders (Respondents) have issued “illegal, usurious” and fraudulent loans in the form of Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs), which imposed triple-digit interest rates as high as 820 percent. The NYAG noted such rates are beyond both the maximum civil usury interest rate (16 percent) and the maximum criminal usury interest rate (25 percent). The petition also alleged the Respondents misrepresented their transactions in court, making the court an “unwitting part of their illegal scheme.”
The petition asked the court to permanently enjoin Respondents from committing any further fraudulent or illegal practices, cease all MCA collection payments, and void and rescind all MCAs. The NYAG also will seek and order that the Respondents disgorge all profits and award civil penalties of $5,000 for each fraudulent MCA transaction and $2,000 in costs from each Respondent.
New York State bill requires disclosure of beneficial owners of limited liability companies
On March 1, a newly enacted bill from New York State, S8059, (the “Act”) was signed by the governor and amended New York State law governing limited liability companies by mandating New York LLCs to file beneficial ownership information with the New York Department of State. The Act set a deadline for new LLCs to file the required ownership information within 30 days of their establishment; for existing LLCs, the bill required them to comply with the new requirements by January 1, 2026. The Act demanded that exempt companies, defined as LLCs or foreign LLCs not otherwise defined as a reporting company that met a condition for exemption in 31 U.S.C. §5336(a)(11)(B), electronically declared their statuses and the basis for their exemptions shortly after formation. It further imposed an annual requirement on all limited liability companies to update or confirm their ownership or exempt status. Additionally, access to the beneficial ownership reports was restricted to law enforcement under certain conditions. The Act enforced compliance with the requirements by imposing up to $500 daily fines for late submissions, the possibility of companies being marked as delinquent, and the threat of dissolution for persistent non-compliance.
New York AB 2672 goes into effect and establishes credit card surcharge provisions
Recently, New York AB 2672 (the "Act") was enacted, and went into effect on February 11. The Act requires merchants that impose a credit surcharge fee to clearly and conspicuously post prices inclusive of a surcharge fee. The Act allows merchants to use a two-tier pricing system, in which two different prices display whether a consumer uses a credit card or another form of payment on a transaction. The Act also establishes a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each violation.
New York Fed Bank analyzes BNPL usage
On February 14, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY Fed) published a blog post evaluating different households’ use of buy now pay later (BNPL) products, which it generally described as “loans that are payable in four or fewer installments and carry no finance charges.” To understand BNPL usage and its relationship with consumers’ financial situations, the NY Fed conducted a study which revealed distinct usage patterns between the financially fragile and the financially stable.
The study revealed that financially fragile individuals, or individuals who have a credit score below 620, who have been declined for a credit application in the past year, or who have fallen 30 or more days delinquent on a loan in the past year, typically use BNPL to make frequent small purchases when compared to financial stable individuals. The study also found that using BNPL often leads to repeat transactions, indicating a potential trend towards repeat use of the product, particularly among those facing credit challenges.
The study also found that consumers’ motivations for using BNPL differ. Financially stable individuals often cite zero interest as a key advantage, while the financially fragile prioritize ease of access and convenience. The NY Fed summarized that BNPL usage among financially fragile individuals resembles using a credit card for medium-size, out-of-budget purchases, while financially stable users tend to make fewer purchases with a focus of avoiding interest on high-priced items. The NY Fed noted, however, that there is evidence of misunderstanding among users, such as the belief that BNPL helps build credit, concluding that “those with this view may be better off using a credit card.”
New York State Attorney General wins $77 million judgment against short-term lenders for predatory lending
On February 8, New York State Attorney General (AG) Letitia James announced a more than $77 million judgment against three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies for usury and fraud based on allegations the lenders used short-term loans to charge illegally high-interest and undisclosed fees.
In a June 2020 announcement, Attorney General James detailed her office’s investigation, which concluded that the companies employed practices including (i) extending MCAs to small business owners at illegal interest rates over short durations; (ii) imposing undisclosed fees; (iii) withdrawing excess amounts from merchants’ bank accounts; and (iv) procuring judgments against merchants through the submission of falsified affidavits in New York State courts.
The judgment follows a September 2023 court decision finding violations of New York’s prohibitions against, among other things, usury and predatory lending, and requiring the companies to cease collections and to repay thousands of small businesses the interest they paid. The companies were ordered to provide the full restitution and damages within 60 days to all merchants who entered into MCAs, including refunding all amounts taken from merchants or their guarantors in connection with the MCAs, minus the principal amounts funded to the borrowers. After the companies failed to pay the damages, the AG sought the entry of the monetary judgment from the court.
New York Governor proclaims January 21-27 as Data Privacy Awareness Week
On January 26, New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, issued a proclamation establishing January 21-27, 2024, as Data Privacy Awareness Week in partnership with several state agencies, including NYDFS. Generally celebrated as a Data Privacy Day, this will be the first time that the event expands to an entire week. This proclamation addresses ways that citizens can protect their personal information against bad actors. The week is designed to help “educate the public” and heighten the importance of data privacy. The press release highlights how consumers can keep their personal information private and protect themselves, including: keeping applications up to date; using unique and complex passwords for every account; enabling multi-factor authentication on devices; exercising caution when opening unsolicited links in emails or messages; limiting the amount of personal data collected by websites; considering what personal information is shared on social media; setting up a virtual private network, or VPN; and being careful when using public wi-fi networks.
NYDFS and Fed order bank to pay fines for BSA/AML non-compliance
On January 19, the Federal Reserve Board and NYDFS each issued separate enforcement actions against one of the largest banks in the world for alleged compliance deficiencies and violations under BSA/AML. The Fed issued its cease and desist order and ordered the bank to pay a civil money penalty of $2.4 million. The NYDFS also issued a similar consent order with a monetary penalty of $30 million.
According to the Fed’s order, an investigation into the bank’s practices determined that the New York branch lacked any formal policies or training on confidential supervisory information (CSI). Additionally, the order required the bank to submit a written plan to enhance internal compliance controls to the Fed, including designation of a CSI officer, among other requirements. According to NYDFS’s order, the bank previously entered into a 2018 cease and desist order with the Fed to address “significant deficiencies” in its compliance with BSA/AML requirements and OFAC regulations. NYDFS conducted an examination in 2022 and found that deficiencies cited in the 2018 order persisted for several more years. A subsequent examination in 2023 found that the bank had made significant efforts toward enhancing its compliance programs and successfully remediated prior deficiencies. Per this most recent order, NYDFS found that the bank’s BSA/AML program was not in compliance for several years; the bank failed to maintain appropriate accounting records; and the bank failed to submit a report after discovering the occurrence of “embezzlement, misapplication, larceny, forgery, fraud, [or] dishonesty[.]” The consent order stipulated several remediation requirements, including a status report to NYDFS on the bank’s BSA/AML compliance.