InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Multiple states address cost of security freezes
On March 19, the Michigan governor signed legislation, HB 5094, which amends the Michigan Security Freeze Act to prohibit consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from charging a fee for “placing, temporarily lifting, or removing a security freeze” on a credit report. Previously, the state allowed for a fee of up to $10 to use the service, if the consumer had not previously filed a police report alleging identity theft. HB 5094 is effective immediately.
On March 15, the Utah governor signed legislation, HB 45, which amends the Utah Consumer Credit Protection Act to prohibit CRAs from charging a fee in connection with placing or removing a security freeze. Additionally, the bill also prohibits CRAs from charging a fee in connection with mobile applications through which a consumer would place or remove a security freeze. The legislation outlines the manner in which a consumer may request a security freeze and the requirements CRAs must follow in responding to the requests. Previously, Utah allowed for CRAs to charge a “reasonable fee” in connection with a security freeze service.
Washington state enacts student education loan bill of rights, outlines servicer requirements
On March 15, the Washington governor signed Senate Bill 6029, which establishes the “Washington student education loan bill of rights” and outlines licensing requirements and responsibilities for student loan servicers. The act, among other things, requires that the council designate a “student loan advocate” whose responsibilities include providing timely assistance to borrowers, reviewing borrower complaints, referring servicing-related complaints to the state’s Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) or the Attorney General’s office, compiling and disseminating data regarding borrower complaints, and establishing a student education loan borrower education course by October 1, 2020. The act also requires that student loan servicers be licensed through the state (certain entities that are exempt from the licensing requirement must still comply with the act’s other requirements). Under the act, student loan servicers—in addition to complying with applicable federal program requirements—must also (i) provide information to borrowers concerning repayment options, account history, and assessed fees; (ii) notify borrowers when acquiring or transferring servicing rights; and (iii) provide disclosures concerning the possible effects of refinancing student loans. The act further provides that third-parties offering student education loan modification services may not charge or receive money “prior to full and complete performance of the [agreed upon] services,” may not charge fees that are in excess of what is customary or reasonable, and must immediately inform a borrower in writing if the owner or servicer of a loan requires additional documentation or if “modification, refinancing, consolidation, or change in repayment plans . . . is not possible.”
Furthermore, the act exempts from the outlined requirements “any person doing business under, and as permitted by, any law of this state or of the United States relating to banks, savings banks, trust companies, savings and loan or building and loan associations, or credit unions.”
Wyoming allows state board to use NMLS to assist in regulation of debt collection industry
On March 12, the Wyoming governor signed SF 26, which amends the preexisting licensing law to authorize the state’s collection agency board to use information from, and furnish information to, the nationwide multistate licensing system (NMLS) to assist in the regulation of the debt collection industry. In addition, among other things, SF 26 allows the board to establish application requirements; require background investigations of licensees and applicants; and receive criminal history record information. The law also amends provisions relating to the disposition of fees and expiration and renewal of licenses. The law is effective immediately.
Washington governor enacts amendment relating to security freeze fees
On March 13, the Washington governor signed Senate Bill 6018, which amends sections of the state’s Fair Credit Reporting Act addressing the removal of security freezes. Among other things, the amended act prohibits credit reporting agencies (CRAs) from charging a fee for placing, temporarily lifting, or removing a security freeze, or when assigning consumers unique personal identification numbers. Additionally, the offices of cybersecurity and privacy and data protection and the Attorney General’s office are instructed to work with stakeholders to evaluate the amendment’s impact on consumers and CRAs. A findings report must be submitted by December 1, 2020, and include data breach trends and recommendations by federal and state agencies. The amendment takes effect June 7.
Bipartisan group of state Attorneys General denounce potential limitations on state oversight of student loan industry
On March 15, a bipartisan group of 30 state Attorneys General released a letter urging Congress to reject Section 493E(d) of the Higher Education Act reauthorization – H.R. 4508, known as the “PROSPER Act” – which would prohibit states from “overseeing, licensing, or addressing certain state law violations by companies that originate, service, or collect on student loans.” Led by the New York and Colorado Attorneys General, the letter characterizes Section 493E(d) as an “an all-out assault on states’ rights and basic principles of federalism.” According to the letter, if enacted, parts of the student loan industry would be immunized from state-level enforcement, placing a larger consumer protection role on the Department of Education for which the agency is not equipped to handle. The Attorneys General assert that the states have the legal capacity and track record to enforce against abuses in the student loan market; citing to a statistic which estimates $1.38 trillion in student loan debt, the letter highlights previous state enforcement actions and emphasizes the need for states and the federal government to work together to protect U.S. borrowers.
In addition to Section 493E(d) of the PROSPER Act, the Department of Education recently published an interpretation in the Federal Register which takes the position that state regulation of certain federal student loan programs is preempted by federal law, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
California appellate court says mortgage servicers can be debt collectors under Rosenthal Act
On March 13, a California appellate court held that a mortgage servicer that engages in debt collection activities may be considered a “debt collector” under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). The decision results from a class action lawsuit alleging that the mortgage servicer made hundreds of phone calls demanding mortgage payments that had already been paid or were not yet due, including making calls at inconvenient times throughout the day and using threats of negative credit reporting and foreclosure. The class action suit alleged that the mortgage servicer’s activity violated the Rosenthal Act and the California’s Unfair Competition Law. The trial court sustained the mortgage servicer’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, concluding that servicing a mortgage is not a form of collecting consumer debts. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court held that, although the language in the Rosenthal Act was ambiguous with regard to mortgage debt servicing, it should be “construed broadly in favor of protecting the public,” and thus mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers can be considered “debt collectors” within the law’s purview. The appellate court acknowledged a split among California federal courts on the issue.
NYDFS issues cybersecurity compliance certificate reminder
On March 5, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) published FAQs for regulated entities that have not yet filed cybersecurity certifications of compliance (Certification of Compliance) required under 23 NYCRR 500. The deadline to file was February 15 and notices recently were sent to regulated entities. Among other things, the FAQs state that a separate Certification of Compliance must be filed for each license an entity holds, and that entities who have failed to submit a Certification of Compliance must do so “as soon as possible.” Entities that received a reminder to certify their compliance but filed for an exemption under Section 500.19 are still required to file the Certificate of Compliance to “confirm that they are in compliance with those provisions of the regulation that apply.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on NYDFS’s cybersecurity regulation here.
Virginia governor enacts amendment relating to security freeze fees
On March 9, the governor of Virginia signed House Bill 1027, which amends sections of the Code of Virginia relating to security freezes and lowers the maximum amount that a credit reporting agency may charge to place, remove, or lift a security freeze on a protected consumer’s credit report from $10 to $5. Victims of identity theft remain exempt from the fee. The amendment takes effect July 1.
Payday lender settles with California DBO for interest rate cap avoidance
On March 12, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a $160,000 settlement with the California subsidiary of a payday lender for allegedly adding improper fees to installment loan principle amounts in order to avoid the California Finance Law’s (CFL) interest rate cap. The settlement resulted from a DBO examination in which the DBO issued a finding that: (i) the lender failed to exclude fees payable to the California DMV when calculating the principal amount of certain vehicle title loans; (ii) excluding the DMV fees, the bona fide principal amount of the loans at issue was less than $2,500; and (iii) the loans were, therefore, subject to the CFL interest rate cap on loans with a principal amount of less than $2,500, which was exceeded on 591 loans. Without admitting to any wrongdoing, the lender agreed to pay an administrative penalty of approximately $78,000 to the DBO and to refund approximately $82,000 to allegedly affected borrowers.
South Dakota amends money lending licenses statute
On March 1, the South Dakota governor signed H.B.1082, amending South Dakota’s money lending licenses statute. Pursuant to H.B. 1082, engagement in the “business of lending money,” for which a license is required, is expressly defined not to include engagement in: (i) “any seller-financed transaction for the sale of assets to a purchaser”; or (ii) “any seller-financed transaction for the sale of real estate through a contract for deed,” so long as the interest rate for such transactions does not exceed the rate permitted under S.D. Code Ann. § 54-4-44.