InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, seven State AGs file suit against debt-relief company
On January 19, the CFPB and seven state attorneys general (Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) announced a lawsuit against a debt-relief company, its subsidiaries, and its two individual owners (defendants) for allegedly facilitating an unlawful debt relief service. According to the complaint, the company used third parties to solicit consumers with large debts and direct them to contact defendants. The company then, allegedly, advised consumers to enroll in their debt-relief service that will negotiate reduced payoff amounts with consumers’ creditors and represent consumers. Additionally, individual defendants implicated in the action created law firms paired with one of the company’s subsidiaries, which performed little to no work on behalf of consumers, while non-attorney negotiators from the company were tasked with renegotiating a consumer’s debt. The CFPB and the AGs alleged that the company charges fees ($84 million since 2016) before and during the service, that left consumers with additional debt, lower credit scores, lawsuits with creditors, and had none of their original debts settled or reduced.
Among other things, the CFPB claimed the company violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by (i) charging advance fees before a consumer has made at least one payment under a debt settlement plan; (ii) collecting fees after settling some of a consumer’s debts when the fees are not proportional to the amount of debt defendant successfully settled or based on a fixed percentage of the amount saved; and, (iii) supporting its subsidiary law firms that the company knew or knowingly avoided knowing engaged in abusive acts or practices. The complaint sought permanent and preliminary injunctive relief, redress for consumers, and a civil money penalty. On January 11, the court granted the Bureau’s request for a temporary restraining order.
New York State floats BNPL legislation in FY 2025 budget
On January 14, New York proposed its FY 2025 budget: Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservation Article VII Bill, which includes an article, cited as the “Buy Now Pay Later Act” (the “Act”). The Act includes new licensing provisions, requiring buy now pay later (BNPL) financing providers (referred to as “lenders” within the Act) to pay a fee and file a written application to receive a license in order to provide BNPL loans. BNPL lenders would also be required to submit an affidavit of financial solvency, disclose their license on their website, app, or other consumer interface, and list the license in the terms and conditions of any BNPL loan offered and entered by the licensee. Licensees would also be subject to supervisory investigations. The Act would further require BNPL lenders to (i) maintain policies for ensuring the accuracy of data that may be reported to credit agencies; (ii) disclose certain loan terms; (iii) engage in limited ability-to-repay analyses; (iv) refrain from charging unfair, abusive, or excessive fees; and (v) abide by certain restrictions and disclosure requirements relating to the use of consumer data, among other things.
District Court dismisses FDCPA class action for lack of standing
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that a debt collector’s (defendant) collection notice violated the FDCPA by including two different balances absent any explanation, leaving plaintiff confused and unable to pay the debt. Plaintiff also alleged she suffered emotional harm and expended time and money as a consequence of defendant’s letter.
The district court held that plaintiff’s “mere” allegations of wasted time, resources, and efforts after receiving the collection letter do not establish injury-in-fact. Furthermore, the allegations do not support standing because “the burdens of bringing a lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for standing.” Additionally, in response to claims of emotional harms, the district court found that the allegations are “virtually identical to those that have been rejected in other similar FDCPA cases.” Ultimately, the district court found that “[p]laintiff does not clearly allege facts that demonstrate standing to pursue her claims in federal court, and the Court consequently lacks jurisdiction over this action.”
New York Governor highlights NYDFS in 2024 State of the State proposal
On January 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul revealed a proposed plan focused on consumer protection and affordability as the initial part of the Governor’s 2024 State of the State address. The plan includes changes to New York’s consumer protection laws, regulations for buy now pay later products, increased paid medical and disability leave benefits, measures to eliminate co-pays for insulin in specific insurance plans, and legislation addressing medical debt.
Changes to consumer protection laws would give the Attorney General more power to enforce the laws and help the state to address unfair and abusive business practices. Additionally, proposed legislation would require buy now pay later providers to obtain licenses and introduce regulations focusing on disclosure, dispute resolution, credit standards, fee limits, data privacy, and preventing excessive debt.
NYDFS also detailed Governor Hochul’s plan to update and broaden New York’s hospital financial assistance law to provide increased protection against medical debt. The proposed legislation aims to limit hospitals’ ability to sue low-income patients (earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) for medical debt and expand financial assistance programs. It also seeks to cap monthly payments and interest rates on medical debt while enhancing access to financial aid. This consumer protection and affordability plan builds on Governor Hochul and her administration’s efforts to make New York more affordable and livable.
NYDFS releases guidance on risk management
On December 21, 2023, NYDFS released guidance for managing significant financial and operational risks associated with climate change for New York State-regulated banking and mortgage institutions. The guidance emphasized the importance of ensuring operational resiliency which is “the ability to deliver operations, including critical operations and core business lines, through a disruption from any hazard.” Regulated organizations are encouraged to consider three key areas: 1) understanding climate-related financial risks; 2) prioritizing operational resilience; 3) and complying with consumer protection laws when adjusting risk frameworks for climate-related risks. The NYDFS categorizes climate-related financial risks as either physical risks, like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, or transition risks from policy, regulations, adoption of new technologies, consumer, and investor preferences, and changing liability risks which can directly and indirectly affect financial institutions.
Regulated organizations are urged to consider potential impacts on at-risk communities while adapting their risk management approaches. NYDFS suggests they maintain reasonable, risk-based business strategies to prevent unnecessary market disruptions and comply with consumer protection laws and fair lending considerations at all times. The guidance suggests institutions also maintain fair lending practices while managing climate-related financial risks, and further suggests not divesting from low-income communities to manage risk.
The NYDFS has not set a timeline for implementation of the Guidance expectations as it would like “to provide regulated organizations with sufficient opportunity to integrate consideration of climate-related financial and operational risks into their governance frameworks, organizational structures, business strategies and risk management processes in a proportionate manner.” To offer an overview of these documents and highlight key feedback themes, NYDFS has scheduled a webinar for January 11, 2024, at 11:30 am ET. Interested parties can register for the webinar via the provided link. The Department also made additional resources available to aid organizations in implementing measures to tackle climate-related risks.
OCC issues cease-and-desist order to NY bank
On December 14, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals that are or were affiliated with such entities. Included is a cease-and-desist order against an upstate New York bank for allegedly engaging in unsafe or unsound practices, including on the bank’s corporate governance, capital planning, interest rate risk management, liquidity risk management, and reports of condition.
Under the order, the bank must appoint a compliance committee to take corrective action, submit a three-year strategic plan to establish objectives for the bank’s risk profile, earnings performance, growth, and balance sheet mix, among other areas, and maintain a capital ratio of at least 15 percent, a common equity tier 1 capital of at least equal to 14 percent, and a leverage ratio of at least ten percent. The order also requires the bank to create an interest rate risk program and a third-party risk management program.
NY enacts the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act
On December 13, the New York governor signed into law S4907A, or the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act (the “Act”), a medical debt credit reporting bill that will bar credit reporting agencies from directly or indirectly incorporating medical debt into consumer credit reports. The Act specifically prohibits hospitals, health care professionals, and ambulances from reporting medical debt to credit agencies. The Act defines medical debt as any amount owed or claimed by a consumer “related to the receipt of health care services, products, or devices provided to a person” by a hospital, health care professional, or ambulance service. Notably, obligations charged to a credit card are excluded from medical debts unless the card is specifically designated for health care expenses under an open-ended or closed-end plan.
NY passes law to preserve credit card points and rewards for consumers
On December 10, New York General Business Law § 520-e went into effect according to the Governor’s press release. The new law prevents credit card holders from losing unused earned credit card points and requires credit card issuers to send consumers a notice of any outstanding credit card points or rewards they have accrued in their accounts, even after the account is closed. Specifically, credit card issuers will have 45 days to provide notice of any outstanding credit card rewards or points following the closing of a consumer’s account. From the date of the issuer’s notice, consumers will have a 90-day grace period to redeem their points or rewards.
Crypto platform to pay $22 million to resolve NY AG suit
On December 13, the New York State Supreme Court entered a stipulation and consent order resolving a suit brought in March against a crypto platform for operating as an unregistered broker-dealer, among other things. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the suit was brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James who noted this was one of the first times a regulator claimed in court that one of the largest cryptocurrencies available in the market qualified as a security.
As a result of the consent order, the platform is obligated to refund over $16.7 million worth of crypto in its control “by allowing users to withdraw those balances and transferring any remaining balances after ninety days to a third-party fund administrator,” to more than 150,000 investors in New York. In addition, the platform must pay an additional $5.3 million to the state. As part of the agreement, the platform is barred from trading securities and commodities in New York or from making its platform available to New York residents.
District Court grants MSJ for debt collector in FDCPA case
On November 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector (defendant) under the FDCPA, holding that the defendant’s collection letter was not misleading.
According to the court’s order, the plaintiff and the defendant established a payment agreement over the phone, during which the representative mentioned to the plaintiff that the interest rate on the loan would be lowered to 5.99 percent, and that failure to make any of the 11 monthly payments could render the agreement void. Shortly after, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant that conveyed essentially the same information. The defendant also provided the plaintiff with billing statements, including a statement indicating $11.14 in accumulated interest during the initial month in the payment plan. Additionally, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter that outlined the monthly payment and total balance due. The collection letter contained a warning that interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day could result in a greater balance than the amount plaintiff owed as of the date of the letter. The plaintiff argued that the warning was contradictory to the concept of “fixed” payment plan, and thus was deceptive and misleading in violation of Section 1692e.
The court noted that it had previously dismissed an FDCPA case against the same defendant using similar language in the context of a debt settlement. In that case, the defendant provided both a disclaimer and the settlement offer, and the court held that including both in the same communication “does not automatically render the letter misleading ... [d]efendant accurately and unambiguously conveyed the agreed-upon monthly payment, total balance, and APR.” The court also reasoned that holding debt collectors liable for violating the FDCPA in such instances might discourage them from proposing debt settlement plans to consumers.