InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New Mexico Attorney General sues technology companies over COPPA violations regarding the collection of children’s personal data
On September 12, the New Mexico Attorney General announced the filing of a lawsuit against a group of technology companies for allegedly designing and marketing mobile gaming applications (apps) targeted towards children that contain illegal tracking software. The complaint asserts that the defendants’ practices violate both the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, and pose the risk of data breaches and third-party access. Among other things, the complaint alleges the defendants’ data collection and sharing practices did not comply with COPPA’s specific notice and consent requirements, while the apps’ embedded software development kits allow the apps to communicate directly with the advertising companies that analyze, store, use, share, and sell the data to other third-parties to build “increasingly-detailed profiles of child users” in order to send highly-targeted advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and nominal and punitive damages.
Pennsylvania appeals court upholds broad standard for “deception” under state consumer protection law
On September 12, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) imposes strict liability on businesses who deceive consumers and does not require proof of fraud or negligent misrepresentation to state a claim. The plaintiffs brought common law claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and a statutory claim under the UTPCPL against insurance companies related to the sale of various insurance products. The common law claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation went to a jury, which returned verdicts on both counts in favor of the insurance companies. The trial judge, however, found that the insurance companies violated the “deceptive” provision of the UTPCPL and awarded damages to the consumers. The insurance companies appealed, arguing that (i) the jury verdict on the common law claims required the court to dismiss the UTPCPL claim, and (ii) challenging the judge’s damages award calculation.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the defendants acted deceptively under the UTPCPL. The insurance companies argued that the UTPCPL claim was barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata based on the jury’s determination that the defendants had not committed a negligent misrepresentation. The appellate court, however, explained that these doctrines do not apply because the UTPCPL raises distinct issues. The court rejected the argument that the consumer must prove common law negligent misrepresentation to bring a claim under the deceptive prong of the UTPCPL. The court concluded that “any deceptive conduct, ‘which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding,’” is actionable under the UTPCPL “whether committed intentionally (as in a fraudulent misrepresentation), carelessly (as in a negligent misrepresentation), or with the upmost care (as in strict liability).” The court also upheld the trial court’s damages determination under the UTPCPL, finding that the judge’s calculation was appropriate and consistent with the statute.
Florida appeals court finds consumer is entitled to attorney’s fees following debt collection suit
On September 14, a Florida appeals court held that a consumer was entitled to attorney’s fees after a debt collector voluntarily dismissed its “account stated” collection lawsuit for an unpaid credit card balance. Following the debt collector’s voluntary dismissal, the consumer moved for attorney’s fees under a provision in the credit card account agreement that provides for fees to the creditor in any collection action and the reciprocity provision in Section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2015). The Florida reciprocity statute permits a court to grant reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party, whether as plaintiff or defendant, with respect to an action to enforce the contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and found that the consumer was entitled to attorney’s fees. The court concluded that, because the consumer was the prevailing party and the collection action was to enforce the contract, the reciprocity provision in section 57.105(7) applied to the consumer’s request for attorney’s fees under the terms of the agreement. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the attorney’s fee award.
NYDFS files lawsuit over OCC’s fintech charter decision
On September 14, New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Superintendent, Maria T. Vullo, filed a lawsuit against the OCC arguing that the agency’s decision to allow fintech companies to apply for a Special Purpose National Bank Charter (SPNB) is a “lawless” and “ill-conceived” move that will destabilize financial markets more effectively regulated by the state. As previously covered in InfoBytes, last December the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed NYDFS’ previous challenge because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over NYDFS’ claims since the OCC had yet to finalize its plans to actually issue SPNBs. However, in light of the OCC’s July announcement welcoming nondepository fintech companies engaged in one or more core banking functions to apply for a SPNB (previously covered by Buckley Special Alert here), Superintendent Vullo once again issued a challenge to the OCC’s decision, arguing that it is unlawful and grants federal preemptive powers over state law. Among other things, NYDFS requests the court to (i) declare that the OCC’s decision to grant SPNBs exceeds its statutory authority under the National Bank Act, and specifically that the decision improperly defines the “‘business of banking’ to include non-depository institutions,” and (ii) enjoin the OCC “from taking further actions to implement its provisions.”
Washington state Attorney General sues towing company for alleged state SCRA violation
On September 11, the Washington state Attorney General announced the filing of a lawsuit against a towing company for allegedly auctioning off a servicemember’s car while he was deployed, in violation of the Washington Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (WSCRA). The complaint argues that the towing company impounded and unlawfully sold a deployed servicemember’s car without first determining the military status of the car’s owner and without obtaining a court order, as required by the WSCRA. The complaint rejects the towing company’s arguments that the responsibility fell on the servicemember’s creditor to redeem the vehicle as the legal owner because the law places the duty for determining military status on the party enforcing the lien. The complaint seeks restitution for the servicemember and a permanent injunction. Additionally, the complaint seeks civil penalties of up to $55,000 for a first offense and up to $110,000 for subsequent offenses, as allowed by the WSCRA.
California governor signs amendments requiring the furnishing of customer account information associated with certain crime reports
On September 6, the governor of California signed amendments to the California Right to Financial Privacy Act to provide various state and local agencies—including the police, sheriff’s department, or district attorney in the state—the authorization to request information from financial institutions in certain circumstances associated with crime reports involving the alleged fraudulent use of drafts, checks, access cards, or other orders. Specifically, AB 3229 states that banks, credit unions, and savings associations must furnish a statement with the requested customer account information for a period of 30 days prior, and up to 30 days following, the date of the alleged illegal act’s occurrence. AB 3229 further states that financial institutions will be required to furnish account information—subject to the outlined procedures—to a DOJ special agent upon request.
New Jersey Attorney General announces settlement with data management software company over auto dealer data breach claims
On September 7, the New Jersey Attorney General announced a settlement with an Iowa-based data management software company related to an alleged data breach that exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) of auto dealership customers across the country. According to the consent order, the company—which develops and operates a dealer management system that stores and secures customer and employee data accessed by 130 auto dealerships nationwide—experienced a breach of security in 2016 that allowed unauthorized public access to unencrypted files containing PII. Following the breach, the state commenced an investigation into whether the company violated either the state’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) or its Identity Theft Prevention Act (ITPA). Under the terms of the settlement, the company—without admitting to the allegations—has agreed to pay a $49,420 civil money penalty, of which $20,000 will be suspended and automatically vacated after two years provided the company complies with the consent order and does not engage in any future violations of the CFA and/or the ITPA. Furthermore, the company will pay $31,365 to reimburse attorneys’ fees, and has, among other things, agreed to implement a comprehensive security program to prevent similar breaches from occurring in the future.
California updates notice requirements on time-barred debt collection efforts
On September 5, the California governor signed AB 1526, which, among other things, amends state debt collection law to require certain written notices to be included in the first written communications provided to the debtor after the debt became time-barred and after the date for obsolescence under the FCRA. If the debt is not past the date of obsolescence, the debt collector is required to include specific language in the first written communication to the debtor after the debt has become time-barred that indicates the debtor will not be sued for the debt, but the debt may be reported as unpaid to credit reporting agencies as allowed by law. If the debt is past the date of obsolescence, the debt collector is required to include specific language in the first written communication to the debtor after the date for obsolescence indicating the debtor will not be sued for the debt and the debt will not be reported to credit reporting agencies. The law also incorporates a four-year statute of limitations on the collection of debt by specifically prohibiting a debt collector from initiating a lawsuit, an arbitration, or other legal proceeding to collect the debt after the four-year period in which the action must have been commenced has ended.
District court denies bank’s motion to dismiss; rules homeowner’s claims under California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices can proceed
On September 5, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a national bank’s motion to dismiss certain alleged violations of both the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) and the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) as cited in the homeowner’s first amended complaint. According to the order, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the bank engaged in debt collection activities that went “beyond the scope of an ordinary foreclosure process” under the Rosenthal Act “when it attempted to collect on the original amount due under the promissory note rather than the [loan modification] agreement.” The bank countered and argued that when it acted as the mortgage loan servicer for the homeowner in the context of foreclosure proceedings it was not subject to liability under the Rosenthal Act because “courts have held ‘that the Rosenthal Act [is] not applicable to residential mortgage loans.” However, the court rejected the bank’s argument and found, among other things, that (i) the homeowner adequately pleaded the bank engaged in debt collection activities; (ii) as determined by the 9th Circuit, “mortgage servicers may be subject to the Rosenthal Act for collection activities surrounding a loan modification agreement”; and (iii) the plaintiff’s allegations concerning the bank’s debt collection practices may be subject to the Rosenthal Act and are sufficient to withstand the bank’s motion to dismiss. Concerning the alleged UCL violation, the court determined that the plaintiff’s factual allegations supported her claims.
New Jersey amends mortgage statute, includes “transitional mortgage loan originator license”
On August 24, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed AB 2035, which amends the New Jersey Residential Mortgage Lending Act and certain related statutes. Among other technical and clarifying changes, the amendments create a framework for the issuance of a “transitional mortgage loan originator license,” which would allow an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator” or a “registered mortgage loan originator” to obtain temporary authority to engage in the business of mortgage loan origination in New Jersey for 120 days before obtaining a New Jersey mortgage loan originator license. The amendments provide specific definitions for what constitutes a “registered mortgage loan originator” and what constitutes an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator.” Specifically, the amendments define an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator” as an individual who is registered with Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and currently holds a valid mortgage loan originator license issued under the law of any other state or jurisdiction in the country. And the law amends the definition of “registered mortgage loan originator” to include a requirement that such a person must be validly registered as a mortgage loan originator with a depository institution employer for at least the one-year period prior to applying for licensure under the act.
The amendments revise the types of fees that residential mortgage lenders have the right to charge related to the origination, processing, and closing of a mortgage loan: (i) application fee; (ii) origination fee; (iii) lock-in fee; (iv) commitment fee; (v) warehouse fee; (vi) discount points; and (vii) fees necessary to reimburse the lender for charges imposed by third parties, such as appraisal and credit report fees. The amendments also create a different list of fees a mortgage broker may charge in connection with the brokering of any mortgage loan transaction.
The amendments take effect 90 days after the bill’s enactment.