InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Florida amends money service businesses provisions to define “control persons”
On May 26, the Florida governor signed HB 389, which amends provisions related to money service businesses and related licensing requirements. The bill, among other things, replaces the term “officers” with “control person” and expands the definition of “control person” to designate the type of individuals that may be considered to control a licensee. As a result of this amendment, the bill sets forth and clarifies various requirements related to the vetting and reporting of control persons, as opposed to officers generally, going forward. The law is effective October 1.
DFPI requests comments on oversight of crypto asset-related financial products and services
On June 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a request for public comments from stakeholders on developing guidance related to the oversight of crypto asset-related financial products and services. DFPI will proceed with rulemaking under the authority of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The request is in accordance with an executive order issued by the California governor last month, which called on the state to create a transparent and consistent framework for companies operating in blockchain, cryptocurrency, and related financial technologies. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) DFPI’s request outlines various topics and questions concerning regulatory priorities, CCFPL regulation and supervision, and marketing monitoring functions, but notes that stakeholders “may comment on any potential area for rulemaking relating to crypto asset-related financial products and services,” including under other statutes administered or enforced by DFPI such as the Corporate Securities Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law, or Money Transmission Act. The deadline to submit comments is August 5.
DFPI issues NPRM to implement process for handling consumer complaints and inquiries under the CCFPL
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to adopt regulations to implement and interpret certain sections of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) related to consumer complaints and inquiries. (See also text of the proposed regulations here.) As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, AB 1864 was signed in 2020 to enact the CCFPL, which, among other things: (i) establishes UDAAP authority for DFPI; (ii) authorizes DFPI to impose penalties of $2,500 for “each act or omission” in violation of the law without a showing that the violation was willful, arguably representing an enhancement of DFPI’s enforcement powers in contrast to Dodd-Frank and existing California law; (iii) provides DFPI with broad discretion to determine what constitutes a “financial product or service” within the law’s coverage; and (iv) provides that administration of the law will be funded through the fees generated by the new registration process as well as fines, penalties, settlements, or judgments. While the CCFPL exempts certain entities (e.g., banks, credit unions, certain licensees), DFPI’s oversight authority was expanded to include debt collection, debt settlement, credit repair, check cashing, rent-to-own contracts, retail sales financing, consumer credit reporting, and lead generation.
The NPRM proposes new rules to implement section 90008, subdivisions (a), (b), and (d)(2)(D), of the CCFPL related to consumer complaints and inquires. According to DFPI’s notice, section 90008 subdivisions (a) and (b) authorize DFPI to promulgate rules establishing reasonable procedures for covered persons to provide timely responses to consumers and DFPI concerning consumer complaints and inquiries. Additionally, subdivision (d)(2)(D) “permits covered persons to withhold nonpublic or confidential information, including confidential supervisory information, in response to a consumer request to the covered person for information regarding a consumer financial product or service.”
Among other things, the NPRM:
- Identifies entities exempt from the consumer complaints and inquiries requirements;
- Requires covered persons to respond to consumer complaints and to establish policies and procedures for receiving and responding to complaints, including providing a complaint form, acknowledging receipt of complaints, tracking complaints, the timeline for responding to complaints, the contents for such a response, and recordkeeping of such complaints;
- Sets forth requirements for responding to complaints, including documenting when complaints do not require further investigation, performing an investigation of a complaint if warranted, and requiring corrective action to resolve a complaint such as an account adjustment, credit, or refund, and appropriate steps to prevent recurrence of the issue, which may include policy changes and employee training;
- Requires designation of an officer with primary responsibility for the complaint process;
- Requires covered persons to submit to DFPI a quarterly complaint report, which will be made public, and an annual inquiries report;
- Sets forth requirements for covered persons to respond to inquiries from consumers and develop and implement written policies and procedures for responding to such inquiries;
- Provides that covered persons must develop and implement written policies and procedures for responding to requests from DFPI regarding consumer complaints; and
- Exempts certain information, such as nonpublic or confidential information, including confidential supervisory information, from disclosure to consumers.
Written comments on the NPRM are due by July 5.
NAAG establishes cyber training center to help states understand emerging and evolving technologies
Recently, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) established a new center dedicated to the development of programs and resources for supporting states’ understanding of emerging and evolving technologies. The Center on Cyber and Technology will also assist with cybercrime investigations and prosecutions and “serve as an information clearinghouse for the attorney general community on trending technology issues.” Faisal Sheikh will serve as the Center’s first director, and “will be responsible for developing programming on cybersecurity, cybercrime, and new and emerging technologies, as well as forming strategic partnerships with other government agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and private sector entities that focus on these issues.” According to NAAG Executive Director Chris Toth, “digital evolution has highlighted the need for a sustained approach to addressing cyber and technology issues.”
California Supreme Court: FTC Holder Rule does not limit attorney’s fees
On May 26, the California Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the FTC’s Holder Rule does not limit liability for attorney’s fees. According to the opinion, the plaintiff bought a used vehicle from the dealership (defendant) pursuant to an installment sales contract, which was subsequently assigned to a bank that became the “holder” of the contract. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and the bank, alleging misconduct by the dealership in the sale of the car regarding advertised features she needed due to a disability. A jury found for the plaintiff on one of her causes of action — breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and awarded her $21,957.25 in damages. The plaintiff filed a posttrial motion seeking attorney’s fees in the amount of $169,602 under the Song-Beverly Act. The bank argued that it could not be liable for attorney’s fees based on the provision of the Holder Rule limiting recovery to the “amount[] paid by the debtor.” The trial court disagreed and granted the plaintiff’s motion.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split among the appellate courts on whether ‘“recovery’ under the Holder Rule includes attorney’s fees and limits the amount of fees plaintiffs can recover from holders to amounts paid under the contract.” The opinion noted the divide among the state’s appellate courts on this issue, citing on the one hand Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (holding that the Holder Rule does not limit the attorney’s fees a plaintiff may recover), and on the other hand, Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (stating that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney fees for a Holder Rule claim that collectively exceed the amount paid by the debtor under the contract) and Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc., (finding that the Holder Rule preempts California Civil Code section 1459.5, which authorizes a plaintiff to recover attorney fees on a Holder Rule claim even if it results in a total recovery that exceeds the amount the plaintiff paid under the contract, covered by InfoBytes here).
On appeal, the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded that “the Holder Rule does not limit the award of attorney’s fees where, as here, a buyer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute,” as opposed to seeking fees under the Holder Rule itself. Specifically, “[t]he Holder Rule’s limitation extends only to ‘recovery hereunder.’” The California Supreme Court continued that “[t]his caps fees only where a debtor asserts a claim for fees against a seller and the claim is extended to lie against a holder by virtue of the Holder Rule. Where state law provides for recovery of fees from a holder, the [Holder] Rule’s history and purpose as well as the Federal Trade Commission’s repeated commentary make clear that nothing in the Rule limits the application of that law.”
District Court preliminarily approves $2 million debt collection settlement over garnishment issuance fees
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily approved a class action settlement resolving claims concerning a debt collection agency’s $45 garnishment “issuance fee.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant issued garnishments to debtors’ employers and banks through its in-house attorneys to collect revenue for outstanding debts. While Oregon law allows debt collectors to charge fees as a means of compensating for the expense of hiring attorneys who issue such garnishments, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s “$45 fee is an abuse of the cost recovery statute because using in-house attorneys relieves defendant from ever incurring such an expense.” The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FDCPA, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act. While the defendant denied any wrongdoing as part of the preliminarily approved settlement, it has agreed to pay $2 million to settle the claims. Class members, defined as more than 10,000 Oregonians allegedly injured by the $45 issuance fees between January 2018 and September 2019, will each receive “an amount three times greater than the actual damages caused originally by Defendant’s issuance fees.”
Arizona passes money transmitter licensure legislation
On May 20, the Arizona governor signed SB 1580, which revises provisions related to money transmitters. The bill, among other things, provides that “a person may not engage in the business of money transmission or advertise, solicit or hold itself out as providing money transmission unless the person is licensed." The provision does not apply to “a person that is an authorized delegate of a person licensed under this article that is acting within the scope of authority conferred by a written contract with the licensee,” and to exempt persons provided the person “does not engage in money transmission outside the scope of the exemption.” The bill also creates provisions related to consistent licensure, application for licensure, and information requirements for certain individuals.
Florida amends consumer finance loan provisions
On May 20, the Florida governor signed SB 546, which amends certain provisions related to the making of consumer finance loans. The provisions allow persons applying for a license to make and collect loans under the Florida Consumer Finance Act (FCFA) “to provide certain documents in lieu of evidence of liquid assets,” including a surety bond, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit. The bill also prohibits licensees from charging borrowers a prepayment penalty for paying all or part of a loan’s principle before the payment due date. Additionally, provisions related to the grounds for denying a license or taking disciplinary action for certain violations for the FCFA are modified to include “[f]ailure to maintain liquid assets of at least $25,000 or a surety bond, certificate of deposit, or letter of credit in the amount required by s. 516.05(10) at all times for the operation of business at a licensed location or proposed location.” SB 546 takes effect October 1.
DFPI says debt collection licenses “unavoidably delayed”
On May 23, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) sent a notice to applicants and prospective applicants announcing unforeseen delays in the issuance of licenses under the Debt Collection Licensing Act. The FBI informed DFPI that new changes are needed to state agency protocols for requesting federal background checks. Prospective licensees are encouraged to continue submitting applications through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System. DFPI stated that during this delay (which “is necessary to enable the Department to effectuate the licensing background check required under the Debt Collection Licensing Act”), “applicants may continue to engage in business, and the Department will not take action for unlicensed activity against applicants who filed their applications after December 31, 2021.” DFPI will reach out to applicants with instructions for submitting fingerprints for background checks when the process becomes available, and advised licensees that “[f]or purposes of including California debt collector license numbers when contacting or communicating with debtors as required under Civil Code section 1788.11, an applicant who has filed its application through NMLS may indicate “license number pending” or similar verbiage until a license is issued.” DFPI will notify applicants when it begins issuing licenses and encourages applicants to check the Department’s website for updates.
District Court issues judgment against student debt relief operation
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against an individual defendant who participated in a deceptive debt-relief enterprise operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the student loan debt relief operation for allegedly deceiving thousands of student-loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. In the third amended complaint, the Bureau and the states alleged that since at least 2015 the debt relief operation violated the CFPA, TSR, FDCPA, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the Bureau and the states claimed that the debt relief operation engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting, among other things: (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness for borrowers; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments. Moreover, the debt relief operation allegedly failed to inform borrowers that it was their practice to request that the loans be placed in forbearance and also submitted false information to student loan servicers to qualify borrowers for lower payments. Under the terms of the final judgment, the individual defendant must pay a $483,662 civil money penalty to the Bureau.