InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Maryland Court of Special Appeals: Borrower may maintain cause of action before credit grantor’s collections exceed principal amount
On July 1, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed a state circuit court’s ruling, holding that “a consumer borrower may maintain a cause of action against a credit grantor under the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC). . .before the credit grantor has collected more than the principal amount of the loan.” In 2014, the borrower entered into a loan agreement with the credit grantor. Although the borrower allegedly made numerous payments on the credit contract, her personal property was repossessed in 2017. She filed a CLEC claim against the credit grantor, alleging the company “specifically refused” to provide her with a requested written statement memorializing her account history, “including all debits and credits to her account and any monthly statements sent to [her] and all other documents which refer to payments due or received.” The credit grantor moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the borrower was not entitled to monetary recovery under CLEC and that she failed to allege that she paid amounts in excess of the principal, and as such, did not assert a proper claim under CLEC. The borrower countered “that ‘CLEC damages are available regardless of whether a credit grantor has collected more than [the] principal amount of the loan,” and that furthermore, citing several cases, “‘[t]he relief that is provided by CLEC § 12-1018 has also already been determined by Maryland Appellate Courts and includes monetary, equitable and declaratory relief[.]’” The circuit court granted the credit grantor’s motion to dismiss, in part, as to the CLEC claim, holding that when relying on the plain language of the statute, the consumer was not entitled to relief.
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held, based on CLEC’s plain language, statutory construction, legislative history, and precedent that a consumer can bring a claim under CLEC for damages, and/or declaratory and injunctive relief before the consumer has paid amounts in excess of principal. However, because the borrower had “failed to allege actual damages or request other appropriate relief under CLEC,” the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing her CLEC claim.
DFPI reports significant decline in payday lending during pandemic
On July 22, DFPI reported that California payday lenders made fewer than 6.1 million loans during the Covid-19 pandemic—a 40 percent decline from 2019. Key findings in the 2020 Annual Report of Payday Lending Activity Under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, include: (i) nearly 61.8 percent of licensees reported serving consumers who received government assistance; (ii) borrowers who take out subsequent loans accounted for 69 percent of payday loans in 2020; (iii) licensees collected $250.8 million in payday loan fees, of which 68 percent came from borrowers who made at least seven transactions during the year; (iii) 49 percent of borrowers had average annual incomes of $30,000 or less, and 30 percent had average annual incomes of $20,000 or less; (iv) online payday loans made up one-third of all payday loans (41 percent of borrowers took out payday loans over the internet); and (v) cash disbursement continued to decrease in 2020, while other forms of disbursement, such as wire transfers, bank cards, and debit cards increased. DFPI also noted that during this time period the number of payday loan borrowers referred by lead generators declined by 69 percent, and that the number of licensed payday lending locations also dropped by 27.7 percent. DFPI acting Commissioner Christopher S. Shultz commented that the decrease in payday loans during the pandemic may be attributable to several factors, “such as stimulus checks, loan forbearances, and growth in alternative financing options,” adding that DFPI continues to closely monitor financial products marketed to consumer in desperate financial need.
Colorado expands student loan servicer provisions
On June 29, the Colorado governor signed SB21-057, which expands the Colorado Student Loan Servicers Act by adding new provisions covering private lenders, creditors, and collection agencies connected to postsecondary non-federal student loans. The act adds “Part 2” to the Colorado Revised Statutes, which, among other things, provides new definitions and stipulates that on or after September 1, lenders may not offer or make a private education loan to a state resident without first registering with the administrator and then annually providing specific loan data and contact information. Additionally, the act (i) outlines cosigner disclosure requirements and specifies that private education lenders are required to grant a release to cosigners provided certain conditions are met; (ii) provides that if a cosigner dies, the lender will not attempt to collect against the cosigner’s estate except for payment default; (iii) expands disability discharge requirements so that a borrower or cosigner may be released from payment obligations if permanently disabled; (iv) requires lenders to provide additional disclosures related to loans that will be used to refinance an existing loan; (v) outlines prohibited conduct concerning unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, such as placing a loan into default or accelerating a loan while a borrower is seeking a loan modification or enrolling in a flexible repayment plan; (vi) discusses debt collection prerequisites; and (vii) allows borrowers to bring a private right of action, including a counterclaim, against a lender or collection agency to recover or obtain actual damages or $500 (whichever is greater), restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, credit report corrections, attorney fees and costs, among others. Additionally, if it is proven that a lender or a collection agency has provided false information, the court will award the borrower the greater of treble damages or $1,500. Moreover, a violation of Part 2 is defined as a deceptive trade practice. Lenders or collection agencies that fail to comply with the outlined provisions will be liable for, among other things, actual damages sustained by a borrower or cosigner, as well as a monetary award equal to three times the total amount collected from the borrower in violation of Part 2. The act takes effect immediately.
Vermont rescinds combination license option
On July 6, the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry (NMLS) published a notice announcing the rescission of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation’s “Combination of License Types” option. Between July 1 and September 30, companies that hold a combination license must transition back to the following appropriate licenses in order to conduct business in the state: lender license, mortgage broker license, loan solicitation license, and/or loan servicer license. Companies will need to file a company form application (MU1) and an individual form (MU2) for each of their control persons, and electronic surety bonds will need to be obtained for each new license to pass NMLS’s completeness check. However, companies will only need to update their MU1 and MU2s, and not need to re-enter information that has already been provided. Additionally, companies are required to complete the transition process for each branch that holds a combination license. NMLS reminds companies that this transition is not optional.
DFPI addresses cryptocurrency MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to certain cryptocurrency activities. According to the letter, the requesting company intends to provide an internet-enabled peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplace for the purchase and sale of certain decentralized digital currencies. The P2P marketplace will enable buyers and sellers of the specified cryptocurrency “to connect and arrange for the direct settlement of purchases and sales between such users” through a variety of means, such as bank transfers, gift cards, money transmission, debit card, credit card, among others. Additionally, the company’s P2P marketplace will allow customers to (i) buy goods or services with the specified cryptocurrency from unaffiliated, third-party online retailers who accept that cryptocurrency as a form of payment; (ii) exchange their cryptocurrency for the rights to a US dollar-backed stablecoin; and (iii) remit funds in different currencies, including foreign currency. The company emphasized that it will “not collect, store, or transmit any digital or fiat currency” in any of its four proposed products. DFPI concluded that the Delaware company’s proposed services are not subject to licensing under the MTA, explaining that the sale and purchase of cryptocurrency directly between two parties, in which the company does not facilitate the exchange of the fiat currency or the cryptocurrency, does not meet the definition of money transmission. Likewise, the company’s other proposed products do not constitute money transmission either. DFPI reminded the company, however, that its determination is limited to the facts as presented and that at any time DFPI may determine that the activities are subject to regulatory supervision. Moreover, the letter does not relieve the company from any FinCEN or federal agency obligations.
District Court allows usury claims to proceed, calling tribal immunity “irrelevant”
On July 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a consolidated class action concerning whether a now-defunct online lender can use tribal immunity to circumvent state interest rate caps. The plaintiffs took out short-term loans carrying allegedly usurious interest rates from entities run through several federally recognized tribes. While the defendants attempted to rely on tribal immunity as a defense, the court determined that California law applies to the plaintiffs and class members who took out loans in the state. According to the court, “California, with its strong history of prohibiting usury, has the materially greater interest in enforcing its usury laws and protecting its consumers from usurious conduct than either of the relevant [t]ribal [e]ntities whose connection to the loans—while not insignificant—was temporal and whose aims were to avoid state usury laws.” Calling tribal immunity “irrelevant,” the court added that the “claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the [t]ribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the [t]ribes where the [t]ribes are not defendants in this case and no [t]ribal [e]ntities remain.”
District Court approves $35 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 14, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against the named defendant in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which had alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. A second amended complaint also included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the FDCPA and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
In 2019, the named defendant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 case. As the defendant is a Chapter 7 debtor and no longer conducting business, the Bureau did not seek its standard compliance and reporting requirements. Instead, the finalized settlement prohibits the defendant from resuming operations, disclosing or using customer information obtained during the course of offering or providing debt relief services, or attempting “to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment” from any consumers who purchased or agreed to purchase debt relief services. The defendant is also required to pay more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states.
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here).
Connecticut adds additional protections for student loans
On July 13, the Connecticut governor signed SB 716 to provide additional protections for student loan borrowers and impose new requirements on student loan servicers. Among other things, the act requires servicers to provide certain information to borrowers and cosigners regarding their rights and responsibilities, including cosigner release eligibility and the cosigner release application process. The law also prohibits a student loan servicer from engaging in an abusive act or practice when servicing a student loan and expands the definition of “servicing” in state student loan servicer law. The law provides a list of exempt persons, which includes banks and credit unions and their wholly-owned subsidiaries. The act states it took effect July 1.
New York expands definition of telemarketing to include text messages
On July 13, the New York governor signed S.3941, which expands the state’s definition of telemarketing to include marketing by text message. A press release issued by the governor noted that expanding the definition closes a loophole in state law that previously limited the definition to phone calls, including unwanted robocalls. “Electronic text messages to [] mobile devices have become the newest unwelcomed invasive marketing technique. Consumers should not be burdened with excessive and predatory telemarketing in any form, including text messages,” the press release stated. The act takes effect 30 days after becoming law.
District Court says retailer not an intended third-party beneficiary of a credit card arbitration provision
On July 8, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a retailer’s motion to compel arbitration in a consumer data sharing putative class action, ruling that the retailer was not an intended third-party beneficiary of an arbitration provision in a credit card agreement. The proposed class had filed an amended complaint accusing several national retailers of illegally sharing consumer transaction data in violation of the FCRA, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and California’s unfair competition law, among others. The motion at issue, filed by one of the retailers, addresses a named plaintiff’s opposition to compel arbitration. The retailer argued that as an “intended” third-party beneficiary of the contract, it had the right to enforce an arbitration clause contained in a credit card agreement purportedly signed by the plaintiff when she opened a retailer credit card account issued by an online bank.
The court disagreed, finding that the contract’s arbitration provisions specifically referred to the bank, and that the contract did not clearly “express an intention to confer a separate and distinct benefit on [the retailer].” Moreover, the court noted the contract at issue instructed the plaintiff to send any arbitration demand notices to the bank, adding that “[i]t seems unlikely that the parties would expect a demand for arbitration solely against the [retailer]—that does not involve [the bank]—to be sent to [the bank].”