InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
South Dakota amends real estate licensing provisions
On March 2, the South Dakota governor signed SB 28, which amends certain statutory provisions related to real estate licensing in the state. Among other things, SB 28 outlines reasons why an application for a license may be denied, including if an applicant “has been disciplined by a regulatory agency in relation to activities as a real estate salesperson or broker, broker associate, firm, appraiser, mortgage broker, or any other regulated licensee, including insurance, securities, law and commodities trading.” SB 28 also stipulates that the state’s real estate commission may issue restricted broker’s licenses, as well as administer and enforce outlined provisions. Licensure exemptions are also set forth. The amendments take effect July 1.
CSBS seeks additional comments on money services businesses model law
On February 25, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a second request for comments on its draft model law language for money services businesses (MSB Model Law)—a primary part of CSBS’s Vision 2020 initiatives, which are intended to modernize state regulation of non-banks and fintech firms. (Vision 2020 InfoBytes coverage is available here.) According to CSBS, the draft MSB Model Law is comprised of “an integrated, 50-state licensing and supervisory system that recognizes standards across state lines.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October CSBS requested comments on the draft MSB Model Law language focusing on issue areas identified by the Fintech Industry Advisory Panel—Control, Activity and Exemption Definitions, Safety & Soundness, and Supervision. To finalize the areas of control and supervision, CSBS is seeking a second round of comments by March 11 to address the following issues identified from comments received during the first round.
- The industry expressed implementation concerns, with several parties noting, “that CSBS has no authority to implement the MSB Model Law in individual states and utilizing NMLS to drive consistency could compound differences between states.”
- The proposed control language failed to address uncertainty over the identification of control persons. Moreover, “attempts to exclude passive investors [did] not achieve the intended results.”
- The industry strongly suggested that parity language contained in the draft MSB Model Law—designed to facilitate state adoption—“was overly broad and would create uncertainty if used.”
- Definitions and exemptions fell short on several critical issues.
- The existence of proponents and detractors of both the safety and soundness proposals signaled a divergence within the industry as to the appropriate safeguards for customer funds.
CSBS notes that the MSB Model Law language will help harmonize operations between states. After the comment period ends, CSBS will prioritize the MSB Model Law for release, with control and coordination language expected to be released in the second quarter of 2020, followed by activities and exemption definitions in May. CSBS also plans to work with states and the industry on safety and soundness language, which may be released as early as August.
Maryland orders vehicle title lender to pay $2.2 million
On February 21, the Maryland attorney general announced the issuance of a final order against a vehicle title lender, its owner, and related businesses (defendants) for making unlicensed and usurious consumer loans in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. According to the AG’s Consumer Protection Division (Division), the defendants offered consumers short-term, high-interest loans secured by a consumer’s motor vehicle title. The defendants allegedly kept the vehicle’s title, and, if the consumer failed to make a payment on the loan, would repossess or sell the vehicle. The Division claimed that these transactions, which the defendants claimed were pawn transactions, were actually consumer loans under Maryland law and carried interest rates of 360 percent. Under the terms of the final order, all loans the defendants made to Maryland consumers are void and unenforceable. The defendants are also ordered to, among other things, permanently cease engaging in unlicensed lending activities in the state and may not make loans that exceed the maximum allowed rate of interest, charge fees that are not permitted under state law, repossess secured vehicles or other personal property, or operate without requisite surety bonds. In addition, the defendants may not repossess consumers’ vehicles and must return any repossessed vehicles still in their possession. Finally, the defendants must pay at least $2.2 million in restitution to affected consumers, a $1.2 million civil penalty, a $50,000 claims procedure fee, and $73,000 in costs.
Payday lender settles with North Carolina AG for $825,000
On January 27, the North Carolina attorney general announced that a Florida-based payday lender (lender) agreed to pay $825,000 to settle allegations of usury, lending without a license, unlawful debt collection and unfair and deceptive practices in violation of state consumer protection laws. According to the announcement, though the lender was not licensed in the state, it advanced “more than 400 loans online to financially distressed North Carolina consumers at interest rates between 78 to 252 percent,” which is markedly higher than the state interest rate limit of 30 percent. The AG claimed that the lender tried to skirt North Carolina laws by requiring some borrowers to collect their loan funds outside of the state. The AG also alleged that the lender required borrowers to secure the loans with their vehicle titles, which enabled the lender to repossess and sell the borrowers’ vehicles when they defaulted or were late on payments. In the settlement, without admitting to the AG’s allegations, the lender agreed to return to North Carolina borrowers (i) all fees and interest paid on the loans by the borrowers; (ii) all the auction proceeds exceeding the loan principal to borrowers whose vehicles were repossessed and sold at auction; and (iii) cars owned by borrowers that were repossessed but not sold at auction. Among other things, the lender will also be permanently barred from making loans to, and collecting payments from, North Carolina borrowers, and is prohibited from putting liens on and repossessing vehicles owned by borrowers.
Point-of-sale finance company enters into consent order with California DBO
On January 16, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) and a point-of-sale finance company entered into a consent order to resolve the DBO’s allegations that the company had made loans without a license to California consumers. According to the order, the company applied for a license under the California Financing Law (CFL) in September 2019. The DBO initially denied the company’s license application on December 30, 2019 (previously covered by InfoBytes here) and issued a statement of issues explaining its reasoning. The DBO found that the company’s transactions were disguised loans subject to the CFL. The company had argued that its transactions were credit sales not subject to the CFL. Ultimately, the company agreed to resolve the matter and pay $282,000 in refunds to consumers and a $28,200 fine for unlicensed lending. Additionally, the company agreed to “cease providing loans or extensions of credit to California residents by means of purchasing credit sales contracts from merchants” and “only provide loans or extensions of credit to California residents under the authority of a license issued by the Commissioner under the CFL.” Simultaneous with the announcement of the consent order, the DBO issued the company a license.
Illinois AG sues credit repair companies for deceptive practices
On January 13, the Illinois attorney general announced that he filed two separate suits in the Circuit Court of Cook County against two credit repair companies and three individuals who allegedly engaged in deceptive and fraudulent practices when promoting credit repair services to consumers and collecting debts in violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Credit Services Organization Act, and the Collection Agency Act.
In the first complaint, the AG alleges a credit repair agency is not registered in Illinois as a credit services organization, and that it, along with its owner, a co-defendant, has not filed the statutorily required $100,000 surety bond with the Secretary of State’s office. The AG’s complaint alleges that the company charges unlawful upfront fees while making false promises that it will increase consumers’ credit scores. When the defendants fail to live up to these promises, they subsequently refuse to refund the money that consumers paid for the credit repair services they did not receive.
In the second complaint, the AG makes the same allegations against a different credit repair company, its owner, and a former employee. In addition, the second complaint also alleges that the company operates as a debt collection agency, but does not possess the requisite state license as a collection agency. Further, the complaint claims that, among other things, the defendants extract payments for “completely fabricated” payday loan debt from consumers who do not actually owe on the loans by using threats and other abusive and harassing collection tactics.
The AG seeks a number of remedies including injunctive relief prohibiting all defendants from engaging in any credit repair business, and prohibiting the second company and its owner and employee from engaging in any debt collection business; rescission of consumer contracts; and restitution to all affected consumers.
New York proposes state-level increase in consumer finance oversight
On January 8, the New York governor released a proposal that would, among other things, expand the entities subject to NYDFS’ enforcement authority and harmonize state regulator authority to bring actions against entities engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices with federal authority. Proposed within the 2020 State of the State agenda are several initiatives designed to increase the state’s oversight and enforcement of the financial services industry. Key measures include:
- Abusiveness claims. The proposal would make New York consumer protection law consistent with federal law by aligning the state’s UDAAP powers with those of the CFPB, thereby empowering state authorities to bring abusiveness claims under state law.
- Eliminate certain exemptions. The proposal would end exemptions from state oversight for certain, unspecified consumer financial products and services. “With the current federal administration reducing the number and breadth of enforcement actions brought by the CFPB, it is crucial that state consumer protection laws apply to all the same consumer products and services subject to Dodd-Frank,” the proposal states.
- Closing loopholes and creating a level playing field. Under the proposal, state-licensed cryptocurrency companies would be required to pay assessment fees similar to other financial services companies. Currently, only supervised entities licensed under the state’s insurance law or banking law are required to pay assessments to NYDFS to cover examination and oversight costs.
- Fines. In order to effectively deter illegal conduct, the proposal would amend the state’s insurance law to increase fines. Additionally, instead of the current Financial Services Law (FSL) penalty of $5,000 per violation, the governor proposes “capping penalties at the greater of $5,000, or two times the damages, or the economic gain attributed to the violation,” while also updating the FSL to provide “explicit authority for [NYDFS] to collect restitution and damages.”
- Debt collection. Debt collectors under the proposal would be required to be licensed by NYDFS, thus allowing the department to examine and investigate suspected abuses. Additionally, NYDFS’ new oversight authority would allow it to bring punitive administrative actions against debt collectors, which may result in significant fines or the loss of a license. The proposal would also codify the FTC’s rule prohibiting confessions of judgment in consumer loans.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposal would also, among other things, expand access to safe and affordable financial services through a collaborative initiative between the state’s Community Development Financial Institutions, NYDFS, and other state agencies designed to improve outreach and financial literacy education to the unbanked and underserved communities.
California governor proposes strengthening state consumer protection authority and increasing financial innovation
On January 10, the California governor submitted his proposal for California’s 2020-2021 state budget, which would, among other things, include the creation and administration of the California Consumer Protection Law (Law). The governor’s budget summary indicates that “[t]he federal government’s rollback of the CFPB leaves Californians vulnerable to predatory businesses and leaves companies without the clarity they need to innovate.” The proposed Law is intended to provide “consumers with more protection against unfair and deceptive practices when accessing financial services and products.” To create and administer the Law, the proposed budget contemplates the expansion of the Department of Business of Oversight’s (DBO) authority to “protect consumers” and “foster the responsible development of new financial products.” In light of the expanded role, the governor also proposed renaming the DBO to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The governor’s budget includes an allocation to the DBO of a $10.2 million Financial Protection Fund and 44 positions in 2020-2021, which would increase to $19.3 million and 90 positions in 2022-2023 for creating and implementing the Law.
According to the DBO’s website, the DBO currently “provides protection to consumers and services to businesses engaged in financial transactions” and “oversees the operations of state-licensed financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, money transmitters, issuers of payment instruments and travelers checks, and premium finance companies.” Under the governor’s budget proposal summary, in addition to the DBO’s current functions, the DBO will have greater authority to “pursue unlicensed financial service providers not currently subject to regulatory oversight such as debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, and financial technology (fintech) companies, among others.”
The budget proposal summary provides that the DBO’s new activities will include:
- Offering services to educate consumers (e.g., older Americans, students, military service members, and recent immigrants).
- Licensing and examining industries that are currently under-regulated.
- Analyzing market patterns and developments for evidence-based policies and enforcement.
- Enforcing against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
- Establishing a new Financial Technology Innovation Office, which will be tasked with proactively promoting “responsible development of new consumer financial products.”
- Providing legal support for the administration of the Law.
- Expanding administrative and IT staff to support the DBO’s increased authority.
The details of the Governor’s budget proposal have not yet been published.
CSBS releases Vision 2020 Accountability Report on fintech initiatives
On January 7, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) released a report by its Fintech Industry Advisory Panel outlining progress made on several initiatives to streamline state licensing and supervision of financial technology companies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the panel was convened in 2017 as part of Vision 2020—a state regulator initiative to modernize the regulation of fintech companies and other non-banks by creating an integrated, 50-state system of licensing and supervision. The Accountability Report charts progress on initiatives identified by the panel, which, according to the announcement, fit into four focus areas: (i) the use of CSBS regtech for licensing and exams, including expanding the use of NMLS among states across all license types for nonbank financial services, developing “state licensing requirements for multi-state consistency,” and launching a new state examination system; (ii) improved consistency among states, including 26 states signing on to the Multistate Money Service Business (MSB) Licensing Agreement, which is intended to streamline the MSB licensing process; (iii) the creation of uniform definitions and practices and the development of a 50-state MSB model law and state accreditation programs for MSBs, which will encourage greater consistency among states; and (iv) increased regulatory transparency, including online resources for state guidance and exemptions, as well as information sessions with regulators and industry to discuss fintech developments.
California DBO denies point-of-sale lending license application; issues related guidance
On December 30, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced the denial of a Minnesota-based point-of-sale company’s application to make loans under the California Financing Law (CFL) after determining the company had already been making unregulated loans to California consumers in violation of the CFL. According to the DBO’s Statement of Issues, the fintech company offers a product that allows consumers to enter into small installment loans in order to make online purchases at participating merchants. The company contended that it purchases credit sale contracts from merchants selling goods to consumers, and argued that these types of purchases do not qualify as loans subject to the CFL. However, following a review of the company’s application and products, the DBO concluded that the company structured its merchant partners’ purported credit sales to evade otherwise applicable consumer protections. Moreover, the DBO stated in its press release that the company’s “extensive role in its merchants’ transactions and pre-existing relationship with some consumers who were parties to the purported credit sales showed that [the company] was making loans under California law.” According to the decision, “[e]xtensive third-party involvement in the underlying credit sale may cause transactions to be deemed loans, regardless of form . . . even if the underlying credit sale is bona fide” (italics in original).
The DBO also issued a separate legal opinion advising a different, unidentified lender that its deferred payment products meet the Civil Code and case law definition of “loans” and therefore require a CFL license to be offered in the state. Among other things, the DBO argued that it is unclear as to why the lender’s products—which the lender claims “are not loans but similar to a forbearance”—would be exempt from the CFL, reiterating that loans and forbearances are both subject to usury provisions. The DOB noted that point-of-sale financing transactions may meet the definition of a loan when: (i) the transactions are treated like loans by the consumer, merchant, and third-party financer, “despite contradictory language in the applicable contracts”; (ii) there is an extensive relationship between the merchant and third-party financer; (iii) disclosures are not clearly made to the consumer about the role of the third-party financer and all financing terms; and (iv) “the financing transaction is not otherwise regulated.”