InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NY Fed highlights an increase in unsecured loans from fintech firms in report, primarily among subprime lenders
On November 21, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a report on the rise and then contraction of unsecured personal loans from 2019 to 2023 for nonbank or fintech companies, and the role of alternative data and underwriting in that growth.
The report looked at how the economic conditions from 2019 to 2022 “created an ideal environment for FinTech firms to increase their loan originations.” It specifically noted that the U.S. government-issued stimulus payments and student loan repayment moratorium enabled fintech companies to expand their services to low- and moderate-income borrowers, including those with subprime credit. The report also looked at fintech’s role in that growth, what consumer segments are utilizing unsecured personal loans, the overall growth of the products, and the subsequent tightening of credit. Finally, the NY Fed discussed various fintech models and analyzed which models service the needs of low- and moderate-income households.
NYDFS introduces guidelines for coin-listing and delisting policies in virtual currency entities
On November 15, NYDFS announced new regulatory guidance which adopts new requirements for coin-listing and delisting policies of DFS-regulated virtual currency entities, updating its 2020 framework for each policy. After considering public comments, the new guidance aims to enhance standards for self-certification of coins and includes requirements for risk assessment, advance notification, and governance. It emphasizes stricter criteria for approving coins and mandates adherence to safety, soundness, and consumer protection principles. Virtual currency entities must comply with these guidelines, requiring DFS approval for coin-listing policies before self-certifying coins, and submitting detailed records for ongoing compliance review. The guidance also outlines procedures for delisting coins and necessitates virtual currency entities to have an approved coin-delisting policy.
As an example under coin listing policy framework, the letter states that a virtual currency entity risk assessment must be tailored to a virtual currency entity's business activity and can include factors such as (i) technical design and technology risk; (ii) market and liquidity risk; (iii) operational risk; (iv) cybersecurity risk; (v) illicit finance risk; (vi) legal risk; (vii) reputational risk; (viii) regulatory risk; (ix) conflicts of interest; and (x) consumer protection. Regarding consumer protection, NYDFS says that virtual currency entities must “ensure that all customers are treated fairly and are afforded the full protection of all applicable laws and regulations, including protection from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.”
Similar to the listing policy framework, the letter provides a fulsome delisting policy framework. The letter also stated that all virtual currency entities must meet with the DFS by December 8 to preview their draft coin-delisting policies and that final policies must be submitted to DFS for approval by January 31, 2024.
NY AG report reveals racial disparities in homeownership and offers proposed solutions
On October 31, New York AG Letitia James released a report detailing racial disparities in homeownership and access to home financing in New York. The report states that Black and Latino New Yorkers are “underrepresented” among mortgage applicants, and white households are overall more likely to own homes than Black, Latino, or Asian households. The report also found that regardless of credit score, income, size of the loan and other factors, all applicants of color are denied mortgages at a higher rate than white applicants. In addition, the report found that disparities between white borrowers and borrowers of color persist in the context of refinance transactions and are also present in loans made by “[n]ew private-sector, non-depository lenders.”
The report identified policy solutions that could reduce these disparities, including (i) subsidizing down payments and interest rates for first-generation homebuyers; (ii) increasing state funding for nonprofit financial institutions that support underserved communities of color; (iii) passing the New York Public Banking Act, which would create a regulatory framework for the establishment of public banks, thereby expanding access to affordable financial services in underserved areas; (iv) bolstering resources for government agencies to conduct fair lending investigations and enhancing New York’s Human Rights Law to explicitly prohibit discriminatory lending practices; and (v) exploring options for offering state-provided banking services in accessible locations to increase access to traditional banking services.
Judge dismisses FDCPA suit for communication with CRAs
On October 26, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss an FDCPA suit holding that there is nothing in the FDCPA that prohibits debt collectors from reporting information about a debt to a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff filed a complaint in January 2023 alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after the plaintiff requested that the debt collector stop all communications. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by reporting this debt to the major credit reporting agencies, which subsequently led to the plaintiff being denied credit. While the judge ruled that the plaintiff had standing to sue because of the denial of credit, the judge also ruled that the statute “expressly permits communications with ‘a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law,’” and that the plaintiff did not allege that negligence was the proximate cause of damages.
District Court grants summary judgement for bank in “spoofing” case
On September 29, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgement on all claims in favor of the defendant bank, while denying summary judgement for the New Jersey-based plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged violations of the UCC, breach of contract, and gross negligence arising from a “spoofing” fraud incident that resulted in more than $8.5 million being wired from the plaintiff’s account with the defendant. The district court reasoned that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund because the plaintiff’s employees authorized the wires – and claims under Section 4-A of the UCC require that a payment order be both not authorized and not effective in order to refund a payment. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the wires were improper because the bank’s policy prohibited bank employees from authorizing wires over $500,000 – noting that the policy was for “internal use only,” and solely for the bank’s protection. Further, the court rejected the plaintiff’s common law claims as pre-empted by Article 4-A.
NYDFS settles with bank for compliance failures
On September 29, NYDFS announced a settlement with a South Korean-based bank’s American subsidiary to resolve allegations of repeated violations of AML requirements, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and New York law. According to the consent order, the respondent was repeatedly examined seven times in less than 10 years by DFS and entered into a consent order with the FDIC in 2017 for BSA/AML compliance, among other things. DFS claims that respondents violated (i) New York Banking Law § 44 by conducting their business in an unsafe and unsound manner; (ii) 3 NYCRR § 116.2 by failing to maintain an effective AML compliance program; and (iii) 23 NYCRR § 504.4 by incorrectly certifying compliance with Part 504. To resolve the claims, the respondent agreed to pay a $10 million civil money penalty, and write a written plan detailing improvements to its compliance policies and procedures, among other things.
NY proposes amendments of debt collector rules
On September 30, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (Department) published proposed amendments to its rules relating to debt collectors. The proposed amendments to its 2020 rules, which require debt collectors to inform consumers about language access services, come in response to the CFPB’s 2020 updates to the FDCPA, and the Department’s 2022 public hearing, among other things. The proposed rule (i) repeals a section requiring debt collection agencies to give consumers certain disclosures when collecting on time-barred debt; (ii) requires debt collection agencies to maintain an annual report identifying certain actions taken by the agency in any language; (iii) expands the list of required records to cover compliance with relevant laws and rules, as well as a monthly log of all debt collection-related communications by any medium between the agency and the consumer; and (iv) adds definitions relating to communications with consumers, such as “attempted communication,” “clear and conspicuous,” “covered medical entity,” “limited-content message,” “original creditor” and “originating creditor.”
Court infers receipt of validation notice to allow pro se plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim to survive
On September 19, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a complaint filed by two pro se plaintiffs who alleged that the defendant’s debt collection efforts related a balance due from a timeshare membership program violated the FCRA, TILA, and FDCPA. In reaching its decision, the court explained that complaints filed by pro se pleadings must be construed more liberally than those drafted by lawyers. Notwithstanding this more liberal approach, however, the court still determined that plaintiffs’ TILA and FCRA claims were insufficiently pled. With respect to the TILA claim, the court stated that plaintiffs failed to specify which provisions were allegedly violated and only alleged that “Defendant has computed and imposed an internal alleged account balance on plaintiff including principal balance, interest rates, fees and terms without property consumer transparency of mode of accounting verification methods,” which was insufficient to allege a TILA violation. The court noted that to the extent it could interpret plaintiffs’ complaint to implicate specific provisions of the FCRA, plaintiffs still failed to state claim under any of the potentially relevant provisions, either because there was no private right of action or there were no facts supporting any alleged claims.
By contrast, plaintiffs did allege specific provisions of the FDCPA that defendant’s conduct purportedly breached. While the court still concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a claim with regard to most of the cited FDCPA provisions, it determined that plaintiffs had plausibly stated a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, which, among other things, requires a debt collector to cease debt collection efforts if, within 30 days of receiving a validation notice from the debt collector, a consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof.
Although the record did not reflect whether the defendant had sent plaintiffs a validation notice, the court, in liberally construing plaintiffs’ complaint, found it reasonable to “infer” that such notice had been provided to the plaintiffs. Specifically, the court reasoned that plaintiffs’ notarized letter to defendant, titled “Validation of Debt / Claim” was likely sent in response to a validation notice from defendant, and therefore, under Section 1692g, all collection activity should have ceased following receipt of plaintiffs’ letter.
NY credit union gets final approval on $2.2M overdraft fee deal
On September 7, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Final Order approving a more than $2.2 million settlement deal to end a class action over a credit union’s overdraft and insufficient funds fee practices.
The deal includes a $2.1 million settlement fund. After payment of attorneys’ fees to customers’ counsel, 80% of the settlement fund will go to customers who were allegedly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions that did not overdraw their accounts when the transactions were authorized, and 20% will go to customers who were allegedly hit with multiple insufficient funds fees on a single transaction. In addition, the credit union will forgive, waive and not collect nearly $165,000 in uncollected fees.
On December 7, 2022, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York that consolidated two putative class action cases in which the plaintiffs alleged the credit union’s assessment of more than one insufficient funds fee on a single transaction and assessment of overdraft fees on debit card transactions that did not overdraw the customers’ accounts was a breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violative of New York General Business § 349, et seq. Shortly after the actions were consolidated, the parties notified the court that they were working towards a settlement.
District Court denied motion to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims against debt buyers
On August 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York refused to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB that alleged violations related to misrepresentations made to debtors by debt collectors. The CFPB’s complaint alleged that defendants purchased defaulted consumer debt and then placed it for collection with, or sold it to, a network of debt collectors who consistently violated consumer protection laws by making false statements to debtors. These false statements included informing consumers that (i) they would be sued for failing to pay the debts; (ii) that their credit score would be impacted by paying or not paying the debt; and (iii) that they could face criminal charges for failing to pay the debt. The complaint additionally alleged that defendants were aware of the allegedly unlawful acts by the debt collectors they used through monitoring of the debt collectors and consumer complaints made to defendants.
The CFPB’s complaint alleged violations against a variety of corporate entities responsible for the alleged debt collection practices, as well as individual executives at those entities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The defendants argued that they are not “covered persons” under the CFPA, because they do not actually collect debts themselves. The district court held that the defendants were “covered persons” under the CFPA since they were engaged in the collection of consumer debt, writing that it would “strain ordinary understanding to say that a company is not engaged in collecting debt when it purchases defaulted debt, places that debt with other companies for collection, and then receives some of the money recovered by those debt collectors.” Similarly, the defendants argued that they are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. The court also rejected this argument, reasoning that defendants’ principal purpose was debt collection making them a “debt collector” for FDCPA purposes, because they purchased portfolios of debts and derived most of their revenue from collecting those debts.
The district court also rejected defendants’ arguments that they could not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of the third-party debt collectors under the CFPA or FDCPA, reasoning that parties can be found vicariously liable for the acts of their agents under both statutes. The court held that because the CFPB’s complaint alleged that the defendants exercised authority over the debt collectors, vicarious liability for the violations by the debt collectors was appropriate.
The district court further held that the complaint adequately alleged violations of the CFPA by the individual defendants. The court held that the individual defendants enabled violations of the CFPA, relying on the fact that the individual defendants had both knowledge of the violations and the ability to control the violations, by either providing instructions to the debt collectors or by refusing to place debts with those collectors. Further, the court held that the individual defendants could be liable for “substantially assisting” violations of the CFPA, because the complaint alleged that the individual defendants recklessly disregarded unlawful behavior by the debt collectors and continued to place or sell debts to those collectors.
Finally, defendants also argued that both the CFPA and the FDCPA claims are time barred by the statute of limitations. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the CFPB’s FDCPA claims were barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations, holding that this provision applies only to private plaintiffs. The court held that FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB are subject to the CPFA’s statute of limitations, which bars claims brought more than three years after the CFPB’s discovery of the violations. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the claims were barred by this three-year statute of limitations, holding that it is unclear from the complaint when the CFPB became aware of facts constituting the violation and that the receipt of a consumer complaint by the CFPB will not necessarily constitute the date that the CFPB discovered or should have discovered the facts constituting the violation.