InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit: Applying Pennsylvania usury laws to out-of-state lender does not violate “Commerce Clause”
On January 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that applying Pennsylvania usury laws to an out-of-state lender is not a violation of the “dormant Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. According to the opinion, the lender provides motor vehicle loans with interest rates allegedly “as high as 180%” to consumers, including residents of Pennsylvania. The opinion noted that the “entire loan process—from the application to the disbursement of funds—takes place . . . at one of [the lender’s] brick-and-mortar locations” outside of Pennsylvania, and that under the lender’s motor vehicle loan terms, the borrower receives the applicable loan proceeds “in the form of ‘a check drawn on a bank outside of Pennsylvania.’” Pursuant to its enforcement authority under Pennsylvania’s Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA) and the Loan Interest and Protection Law (LIPL), the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (Department) issued a subpoena asking the lender to provide documents related to its interactions with Pennsylvania residents. The lender stopped making loans to Pennsylvania residents after receiving the subpoena, and later filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Department claiming it “lost revenue as a result” of the Department’s actions. The suit sought “injunctive and declaratory relief for, among other things, violations of the Commerce Clause.” The Department separately filed a petition in state court to enforce the subpoena.
While the lender did not dispute that before 2017, it engaged in loan servicing activities and vehicle repossessions in Pennsylvania, the lender maintained that it “does not have any offices, employees, agents, or brick-and-mortar stores in Pennsylvania and is not licensed as a lender in the Commonwealth.” Additionally, the lender claimed that while “it has never used employees or agents to solicit Pennsylvania business, and [] does not run television ads within Pennsylvania,” advertisements may still reach Pennsylvania residents. The district court eventually determined that because the lender’s “loans are ‘completely made and executed outside Pennsylvania and inside. . .[brick-and-mortar] locations in Delaware, Ohio, or Virginia,’ the Department’s subpoena’s effect is to apply Pennsylvania’s usury laws extraterritorially in violation of the Commerce Clause.”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit examined the “territorial scope” of the transactions the Department “has attempted to regulate” and considered whether these transactions occur “wholly outside” of Pennsylvania. The appellate court concluded that the lender’s “conduct does not occur wholly outside of Pennsylvania,” and that the transactions are “more than a simple conveyance of money,” but rather "create a creditor-debtor relationship that imposes obligations on both the borrower and lender until the debt is fully paid.” Moreover, even if the appellate court considered the local benefits with respect to interstate commerce, it “would conclude that they weigh in favor of applying Pennsylvania laws to [the lender].” The CDCA and LIPL “protect Pennsylvania consumers from usurious lending rates,” the 3rd Circuit wrote, adding that applying Pennsylvania’s usury laws to the lender’s loans furthers the state’s local interest in prohibiting usurious lending. “Pennsylvania may therefore investigate and apply its usury laws to [the lender] without violating the Commerce Clause,” the appellate court explained. “[A]ny burden on interstate commerce from doing so is, at most, incidental.”
Harris confirmed as NYDFS superintendent
On January 25, the New York State Senate confirmed Adrienne A. Harris as Superintendent of NYDFS. “I am honored to serve as the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services. As the first African American woman to lead DFS, I am personally committed to working with all stakeholders to build a robust, fair and sustainable financial system, creating a better economic future for all New Yorkers,” Harris said in a press release announcing her confirmation. NYDFS highlighted many of Harris' actions to advance economic opportunities and financial services for consumers in the state during her first 100 days.
District Court finalizes BIPA class action settlement
On January 24, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a nearly $877,000 class action settlement to resolve allegations that a food manufacturer’s fingerprint-based timekeeping system violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Class members (both direct employees and temporary staffing workers who worked for the defendant between June 2015 and the date of preliminary approval) alleged that the defendant (i) collected biometric fingerprint identifiers and information without receiving informed written consent from employees; (ii) processed these identifiers and information “without establishing and following a publicly available data retention schedule and destruction policy”; and (iii) disclosed the employees’ identifiers and information to its timekeeping vendor without consent. The defendant contended that since 2020 it has maintained BIPA consents and compliance policies, and “does not retain any finger scan data for separated Illinois employees.” While denying all liability and wrongdoing, the defendant has agreed to pay $876,750 to cover class member payments, attorney fees and costs, settlement administrator costs, and the class representative’s service award.
New Jersey Superior Court grants summary judgment in favor of debt buyer
On January 21, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted a defendant debt buyer’s cross-motion for summary judgment following the Appellate Division’s partial remand. The plaintiff filed a proposed class action lawsuit in 2017, claiming that the defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by unlawfully acquiring defaulted credit card accounts without obtaining a license to engage as a sales finance company or a consumer lender. The case was dismissed, but later partially remanded on appeal. The Superior Court struck the portion of the complaint alleging class claims and focused on the remaining individual claim concerning the plaintiff’s account. The Superior Court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s CFA claim failed because the alleged conduct did not rise “to the level of deception, fraud, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise or services” required for a claim under CFA. According to the Superior Court, the CFA requires that claimants show an ascertainable loss. The plaintiff’s claim that she suffered a loss by paying the defendant rather than the bank that originally extended the credit was not convincing, the Superior Court stated. The plaintiff admitted “that after the [account] was sold to Defendant, [the bank] did not seek payment of the credit card account. Thus, the record establishes that Plaintiff has not suffered any harm. Without an ascertainable loss, Plaintiff’s CFA claim fails,” the decision said. The Superior Court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant was required to obtain a consumer lending license under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act. Noting that the defendant is a debt buyer and not a consumer lender, the Superior Court held that the defendant was not required to be licensed.
CFPB may revisit EWA guidance
On January 18, acting CFPB General Counsel Seth Frotman sent a letter to consumer advocates responding to their concerns that the Bureau’s November 2020 advisory opinion on earned wage access (EWA) products was being misused as justification for passage by proponents of a pending New Jersey bill that would permit third-party earned wage access companies to charge fees or permit “tips” for their products without having to abide by the state’s 30 percent usury cap. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an advisory opinion on EWA products to address the uncertainty as to whether EWA providers that meet short-term liquidity needs that arise between paychecks “are offering or extending ‘credit’” under Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The advisory opinion stated that “‘a Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of ‘credit,’” and noted that the “totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau would generally consider to be credit.” In December 2020, the Bureau approved a compliance assistance sandbox application, which confirmed that a financial services company’s EWA program did not involve the offering or extension of “credit” as defined by section 1026.2(a)(14) of Regulation Z. The Bureau noted that various features often found in credit transactions were absent from the company’s program, and issued a two-year approval order, which provides the company a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f) as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order (covered by InfoBytes here).
In his letter, Frotman stated that “[i]t appears from your recounting of the legislative history that the advisory opinion has created confusion, as proponents of the bill seem to have misunderstood the scope of the opinion. The CFPB’s advisory opinion, by its terms, is limited to a narrow set of facts—as relevant here, earned wage products where no fee, voluntary or otherwise, is charged or collected.” Frotman acknowledged that the Bureau’s advisory opinion has also received pushback from consumer groups who sent a letter last year urging the Bureau to rescind the advisory opinion and sandbox approval and regulate fee-based EWA products as credit subject to TILA (covered by InfoBytes here). “Given these repeated reports of confusion caused by the advisory opinion due to its focus on a limited set of facts, I plan to recommend to the Director that the CFPB consider how to provide greater clarity on these types of issues,” Frotman wrote. He further stated that the advisory opinion did not purport to interpret whether the covered EWA products would be “credit” under other statutes other than TILA, including the CFPA or ECOA, or whether they would be considered credit under state law.
DFPI reminds licensees about submitting annual reports
On January 5, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that, pursuant to Financial Code section 22159(a), all DFPI California Financing Law licensees are required to submit their annual reports by March 15, even if the licensee had no business activity during the 2021 calendar year. According to DFPI, pursuant to Financial Code section 22715(b), failing to submit the annual report by March 15 will result in penalties. Among other things, DFPI also noted that the form and instructions for submitting the Annual Report are available on DFPI’s website, and that the annual report must be submitted electronically through the DFPI portal.
Collection agency must pay $100,000
On January 10, the Connecticut Department of Banking (Department) issued an order against a California-based collection agency (respondent) for failing to request a hearing within the prescribed time period after a notice regarding submission of certain information was sent by the Department. According to the order, the Department sent the respondent an information request and after requesting additional time to supply the information, the respondent notified the Department that it was voluntarily surrendering its license to collect in Connecticut. However, the respondent still failed to submit the requested information, which the state said is mandatory before it would consider the surrender of the respondent’s license. The Department ordered the respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-17(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes and to pay a $100,000 civil money penalty. The Department also revoked the respondent’s license to act as a consumer collection agency in Connecticut.
Texas adopts home equity lending amendments
On December 31, the Texas Department of Banking, Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending, Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, and Credit Union Department issued amendments related to home equity lending to specify requirements for electronic disclosures. With respect to oral and electronic loan applications, one of the provisions “provides that a home equity loan closing must occur at least 12 days after the owner ‘submits a loan application to the lender,’” and “explains that a loan application may be submitted electronically in accordance with state and federal law governing electronic disclosures, with references to the UETA and the E-Sign Act.” Additionally, among other things, the provisions describe Texas Constitution, Article XVI, Section 50’s applicability to out-of-state financial institutions. The amendments are effective January 6.
States reach $1.2 million settlement with MLOs over fraudulent SAFE Act education certifications
On January 18, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that 441 mortgage loan originators (MLOs) have agreed to pay approximately $1.2 million to settle allegations that they falsely claimed to have completed annual mortgage education programs required under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act). The enforcement action, which included the participation of 44 state agencies from 42 states, targeted a mortgage education scheme offered by a California-based company and its owner that provided false certificates claiming that MLOs took mandatory eight-hour continuing education courses as required for licensure under state and federal law. (See additional background information on the enforcement action here.) The states’ investigation—led by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation—revealed that the owner allegedly, in some instances, completed online education courses on behalf of the MLOs, and in other instances “granted course credit to [MLOs] who had enrolled in his approved course but who neither attended the course nor completed the required coursework necessary to receive course credit.” Administrative enforcement actions have been taken against the company, the owner, and members of the owner’s family. The settling MLOs have agreed to surrender their licenses for three months, pay a $1,000 fine to each state that is a signatory to the consent order in which the MLO holds a license, and take pre-licensing and continuing-education courses before petitioning or reapplying for an MLO endorsement or license. CSBS noted that MLOs implicated in the investigation that did not sign a consent order will face further enforcement actions with their appropriate state financial regulator for additional disciplinary action against their MLO licenses.
CSBS drops suit against OCC fintech charter after revised application
On January 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that it has withdrawn its complaint challenging the OCC’s Special Purpose National Bank (SPNB) Charters and a financial services provider’s application for an OCC nonbank charter. CSBS filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to close the case. According to its press release, CSBS voluntarily took this action after the company, which had previously filed an application for an OCC SPNB charter, “amended its application to include seeking FDIC deposit insurance, thus complying with the legal requirement that national banks obtain federal deposit insurance before operating as a bank.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, CSBS filed a complaint in December 2020, to oppose the OCC’s potential approval of the company’s SPNB charter application. CSBS argued that the company was applying for the OCC’s nonbank charter, which was invalidated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2019 (the court concluded that the OCC’s SPNB charter should be “set aside with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” covered by InfoBytes here). At the time, CSBS argued that “by accepting and imminently approving” the company’s application, the “OCC has gone far beyond the limited chartering authority granted to it by Congress under the National Bank Act (NBA) and other federal banking laws,” as the company is not engaged in the “business of banking.” CSBS sought to, among other things, have the court declare the agency’s nonbank charter program unlawful and prohibit the approval of the company’s charter under the NBA without obtaining FDIC insurance.
OCC acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu issued a statement following the withdrawal of the legal challenge. “We must modernize the regulatory perimeter as a prerequisite to conducting business as usual with firms interested in novel activities. Modernizing the bank regulatory perimeter cannot be accomplished by simply defining the activities that constitute ‘doing banking,’ but will also require determining what is acceptable activity to be conducted in a bank. Consolidated supervision will help ensure risks do not build outside of the sight and reach of federal regulators.”