InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York requires student loan servicers to be licensed in broad legislation
On March 31, the New York governor announced the passage of the state’s FY 2020 Budget, which includes an amendment (known as “Article 14-A” or “the Act”) to the state’s banking law with respect to the licensing of private student loan servicers. Article 14-A requires student loan servicers to be licensed by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in order to service student loans owned by residents of New York. The licensing provisions do not apply to the servicers of federal student loans—defined as, “(a) any student loan issued pursuant William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; (b) any student loan issued pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which was purchased by the government of the United States pursuant to the federal Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act and is presently owned by government of the United States; and (c) any other student loan issued pursuant to a federal program that is identified by the superintendent as a ‘federal student loan’ in a regulation”—as the Act treats federal servicers as though they are a licensed student loan servicer. Banking organizations, foreign banking organizations, national banks, federal savings associations, federal credit unions, or any bank or credit union organized under the laws of any other state, are also considered exempt from the new state licensing requirements.
In addition to the licensing requirements, Article 14-A also prohibits any student loan servicer—including those exempt from licensing requirements or deemed automatically licensed—from, among other things, (i) engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or predatory act or practice with regard to the servicing of student loans, including making any material misrepresentations about loan terms; (ii) misapplying payments to the balance of any student loan; (iii) providing inaccurate information to a consumer credit reporting agency; and (iv) making false representations or failing to respond to communications from NYDFS within fifteen calendar days. Article 14-A requires student loan servicers (not including exempt organizations) to accurately report a borrower’s payment performance to at least one credit reporting agency if the organization regularly reports information to a credit reporting agency. Additionally, the Act specifies that a student loan servicer shall inquire on how a borrower would like nonconforming payments to be applied and continue that application until the borrower provides different directions. Article 14-A also outlines examination and recordkeeping requirements and allows for the NYDFS Superintendent to penalize servicers the greater of (i) up to $10,000 for each offense; (ii) a multiple of two times the violation’s aggregate damages; or (iii) a multiple of two times the violation’s aggregate economic gain. Article 14-A takes effect 180 days after becoming law.
Senate Democrats question the CFPB on PSLF oversight
On April 3, six Democratic Senators wrote to the CFPB seeking additional information on the Bureau’s oversight of student loan companies and servicers involved in the administration of the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF). In the letter, the Senators expressed concern that the Bureau’s leadership “has abandoned its supervision and enforcement activities related to federal student loan servicers.” The Senators noted that consumers owe more than $1.5 trillion in student loan debt in the U.S. and that loan servicing companies under contract with the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) are “covered persons” under Title X of the Dodd Frank Act, which allows the Bureau “broad oversight authority over their actions.” The Senators cited to a number of lawsuits brought by private citizens and state authorities challenging student loan servicing companies’ actions with regard to PSLF, and requested the Bureau respond to a series of questions regarding its activities overseeing student loan servicers’ handling of PSLF since December 2017. Among other things, the Senators requested information regarding (i) the Bureau’s examinations of student loan servicers’ PSLF administration; (ii) the effect of the Department’s December 2017 guidance to loan servicing contractors not to produce documents directly to other government agencies; (iii) the status of the CFPB’s alleged investigation into a specific student loan servicer’s actions; and (iv) the status of information sharing with the Department since August 2017.
Waters says housing finance reform and diversity are top priorities
On April 2, House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) spoke before the American Bankers Association’s Washington Summit to discuss several priorities and emerging issues, including comprehensive housing reform, diversity in financial services, fintech regulation, cannabis banking, and Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) reform.
- Housing finance reform. Waters discussed resolving the long-term status of GSEs and several core principles underlying housing finance reform including, among other things, (i) maintaining access to the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage; (ii) ensuring sufficient private capital is available to protect taxpayers; (iii) requiring transparency and standardization that ensures a level-playing field for all financial institutions especially community banks and credit unions; (iv) maintaining credit access for all qualified borrowers; and (v) ensuring access to affordable rental housing. “Many of the proposals for housing finance reform exclude small financial institutions from being able to access the secondary mortgage market. I believe that the inclusion of small financial institutions must be a critical part of any conversations about GSE reform,” Waters stated.
- Diversity in financial services. Waters discussed the newly formed Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee (previously covered by InfoBytes here) when noting that minority representation in financial services management positions remains underrepresented. The new subcommittee will examine diversity trends to promote inclusion. “Diverse representation in these institutions, and particularly at the management level, is essential to ensure that all consumers have fair access to credit, capital, and banking and financial services,” Waters stated.
- Fintech regulation. Waters commented that fintech regulation is a committee priority. Waters stated that it is important “we encourage responsible innovation with the appropriate safeguards in place to protect consumers and without displacing community banks.”
- Cannabis banking. Waters highlighted her committee's work last month in advancing HR 1595, which would create protections for financial institutions that provide services to state-sanctioned cannabis-related businesses. The bill would create a safe harbor for depository institutions that would bar federal banking regulators from terminating banks’ deposit insurance or otherwise penalize them if they provide services to a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider.
- BSA/AML reform. Waters discussed a hearing that was held to look at “common sense” improvements that could be made to the current BSA/AML framework. She further stated that the committee is considering beneficial ownership legislation, in addition to exploring ways to work with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network regarding BSA/AML reporting.
CFPB issues Consumer Response Annual Report
On March 29, the CFPB published its Consumer Response Annual Report, providing a review of the Bureau’s complaint process and a description of complaints received from consumers from across all 50 states and the District of Columbia between January 1 and December 31, 2018. According to the report, the Bureau handled approximately 329,800 consumer complaints. Of these complaints, roughly 80 percent were submitted to companies for review and response, 14 percent were referred to other regulatory agencies, and four percent were determined to be incomplete. The top categories, representing approximately 89 percent of all complaints, were credit or consumer reporting, debt collection, mortgages, credit card, and checking or savings complaints. The Bureau also received complaints related to: (i) student, personal, and payday loans; (ii) money transfers and virtual currency; (iii) vehicle finance; (iv) prepaid cards; (v) credit repair; and (vi) title loans. As reported by the CFPB, the majority of consumers who submitted complaints indicated that they first tried to resolve their issues with the companies.
Law firms settle with CFPB over debt relief fee allegations
On March 27, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a consent judgment ending a CFPB lawsuit against a group of affiliated law firms and their managing attorneys. As previously covered by InfoBytes in 2017, the Bureau’s enforcement action alleged that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, (i) collecting improper fees in advance of providing debt relief services; (ii) misrepresenting that advance fees would not be charged; and (iii) providing substantial assistance to another company it knew or should have known was engaged in acts or practices that violated the rule. Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendants—who have neither admitted nor denied the Bureau’s allegations or the factual findings outlined in the judgment—agreed to pay approximately $35.3 million in redress to affected consumers and a $40 million civil money penalty. However, based on the defendants’ inability to pay this amount, full payment is suspended subject to the defendants paying $50,000 to affected consumers and $1.00 toward the CMP.
Agencies issue joint statement on Midwest flood disaster relief
On March 25, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (collectively, the “agencies”) issued a joint statement providing guidance to financial institutions impacted by flooding in the Midwest. In the statement, the agencies encourage lenders to work with borrowers in impacted communities and to consider, among other things (i) modifying existing loans based on the facts and circumstances; and (ii) requesting expedited approval to operate temporary bank facilities if faced with operational difficulties. The agencies ask institutions to contact their appropriate federal and/or state regulator if they experience disaster-related difficulties complying with publishing or regulatory reporting requirements. The agencies further note that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The statement also provides links to previously issued examiner guidance for institutions affected by major disasters.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
CFPB releases 50-state servicemember complaint snapshot
On March 19, the CFPB released the “Complaint Snapshot: Servicemembers, Veterans, and Military Families 50 State Report,” which provides state-specific data on the nearly 34,000 complaints received from servicemembers, veterans, and their families in 2018 (which the CFPB collectively defines as, “servicemember”). Specifically, for each state, the snapshot provides (i) the total number of servicemember complaints handled in 2018 and the percentage change since 2017; (ii) distribution of complaints by product for both servicemembers and non-servicemembers; (iii) distribution of complaints by branch of service; and (iv) a visual representation of complaints by zip code. Notably, servicemember complaints increased by 12 percent from 2017 to 2018. The states with the highest number of servicemember complaints include Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia. The Bureau has received over 133,000 complaints from servicemembers since 2011.
See recent article by Buckley attorneys, "Takeaways from military complaints at the CFPB."
FTC report highlights 2018 privacy and data security work
On March 15, the FTC released its annual report highlighting the agency’s privacy and data security work in 2018. Among other items, the report highlights consumer-related enforcement activities in 2018, including:
- an expanded settlement with a global ride-sharing company over allegations that the company violated the FTC Act by deceiving consumers regarding the company’s privacy and data practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
- a settlement with a global online payments system company to resolve allegations that its payment and social networking service failed to adequately disclose to consumers that transfers to external bank accounts were subject to review and that funds could be frozen or removed based on a review of the underlying transaction (covered by InfoBytes here).
- a settlement with a Texas-based company over allegations that it violated the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of tenant-screening information furnished to landlords and property managers (covered by InfoBytes here).
The report also highlighted the FTC’s hearings on big data, privacy, and competition conducted through its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century initiative. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.)
3rd Circuit affirms no actual harm in FACTA suit
On March 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit issued a precedential opinion holding that, without concrete evidence of harm, a consumer lacks standing under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) to sue a merchant for including too many digits of his credit card account number on a receipt. According to the opinion, the plaintiff claimed that he received receipts from three different stores owned by the defendant, all of which included both the final four digits and the first six digits of his account number. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging the defendant willfully violated FACTA, which prohibits printing more than the last five digits of credit card number on a receipt. The plaintiff alleged that this violation, which he also claimed increased the risk of identity theft, constituted an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing as required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). The district court dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the lower court, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege actual harm from the defendant’s practice. The appellate court held that the defendant’s technical violation of FACTA did not give the plaintiff standing to sue. Moreover, in the absence of actual harm, or a material risk of actual harm (the plaintiff did not allege that anyone—aside from the cashier—saw the receipt, that his credit card number had been misappropriated, or that his identity was stolen), the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury-in-fact that created federal court jurisdiction.
District Court allows usurious interest and TILA violation claims to proceed
On March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied a request for summary judgment by several defendant pawnbrokers and pawnshops concluding there exists “disputed general issues of material fact” concerning claims filed by two plaintiffs who entered into pawn-loan contracts with the defendants. Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Amendment 89 of the Arkansas Constitution (Amendment 89) and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) by charging usurious rates of interest, and violated ADTPA by making false statements on pawn loan contracts (pawn tickets). The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the defendants violated TILA by failing to identify creditors on the face of their pawn tickets.
In dismissing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined that success of the claims hinged upon whether “the pawn transactions . . . are ‘loans’ charging usurious rates of interest under Arkansas law.” Specifically, genuine issues of material fact remained on: (i) whether the defendants knowingly entered into loans charging usurious interest because “the differences between traditional bank loans and pawn transactions . . . may not prevent the pawn transactions entered into by [the plaintiffs] from being classified as ‘loans’ under Arkansas law”; (ii) whether the plaintiffs were charged usurious interest or otherwise suffered damages under Amendment 89 or ADTPA as a result of the pawn transactions; (iii) whether the language on the pawn tickets stating that “the finance charge ‘is not interest for any purpose of the law,’” was a false statement in violation of the ADTPA; and (iv) whether the defendants’ failure to disclose the identity of the creditors on the pawn tickets is a violation of TILA, because, among other things, there remains a dispute as to whether the identified finance charges constitute as “credit,” and whether certain defendants qualify as “creditors” under TILA. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that they were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ TILA claims “due to plaintiffs’ alleged failure to demonstrate detrimental reliance.”