InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB updates TRID Small Entity Compliance Guide and Guide to Forms
On May 15, the CFPB released the 2018 updated versions of the “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule Small Entity Compliance Guide (versions 4.1 and 5.2) and Guide to Forms (versions 1.5 and 2.1). Because the optional compliance period with the 2017 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) extends through October 1, the CFPB updated both versions of each guide. Additionally, all four versions are updated with the 2018 TRID changes (covered by InfoBytes here), which will become effective prior to the end of the 2017 optional compliance period.
DOJ, CFPB agree to early termination of consent order with indirect auto lender
On May 15, the auto lending branch of an international automobile company (indirect auto lender) reported in an 8-K filing that the DOJ and CFPB had reached an agreement that the indirect auto lender has met the requirements for early termination of a consent order entered into in 2016 over allegations of unfair lending practices. As previously covered in InfoBytes, a joint agency investigation under ECOA found that the indirect auto lender’s policies allowed for dealers to mark up a consumer’s interest rate on the retail installment contract above the established risk-based buy rate. The parties currently await final court approval of a joint stipulation and proposed order for early termination of the consent order from three years to two years in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
3rd Circuit reverses district court’s decision, rules TILA provisions misapplied to unauthorized-charge suit
On May 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, holding that the lower court, among other things, misapplied a TILA provision under Regulation Z that requires cardholders to dispute charges within 60 days of the “first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the bank after he was allegedly rebilled for a $657 fraudulent money transfer charge that originally appeared on his statement in July 2015. The charge was originally removed from his account but reappeared in mid-September of that year after the bank claimed the charge was valid after verifying transaction details. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the decision in writing, and later filed a complaint against the bank, alleging he had “timely submitted a written notice of billing error,” and that the bank “had neither credited the charge nor conducted a reasonable investigation” and imposed liability of more than $50. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, which the plaintiff appealed.
At issue, the three-judge panel determined, were two provisions under TILA: (i) the “Fair Credit Billing Act” (FCBA), which stipulates that creditors must “comply with particular obligations when a consumer has asserted that his billing statement contains an error,” and (ii) the “unauthorized-use provision,” which requires certain conditions to be met before a credit card issuer can hold the cardholder liable, up to a limit of $50, for any unauthorized use. The panel first addressed the district court’s finding that the bank’s obligations under FCBA were “never triggered” because his written notice came 63 days after the July statement first included the charge. The panel held that, because the plaintiff-appellant’s August billing statement showed a credit to his account for the charge and that “there was no longer anything to dispute” and no reason to believe his statement contained a billing error, the 60-day time limit should have started when the bank rebilled him in September. In addressing the second issue, the district court held that plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to “reimbursement” under the unauthorized-use claim. However, the panel opined that he was not seeking reimbursement but rather “actual damages,” for which the statute does provide relief. “We conclude that a cardholder incurs ‘liability’ for an allegedly unauthorized charge when the issuer, having reason to know the charge may be unauthorized, bills or rebills the cardholder for that charge,” the panel wrote.
FCC seeks comments on interpretation of autodialer under TCPA
On May 14, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a notice seeking comment on the interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in light of the recent D.C. Circuit decision in ACA International v. FCC. (Covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert.) The notice requests, among other things, comment on what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer) due to the court setting aside the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of an autodialer as “unreasonably expansive.” Specifically, the FCC requests comment on how to interpret the term “capacity” under the TCPA’s definition of an autodialer (“equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers”) and requests comment on the functions a device must be able to perform to qualify as an autodialer, including how “automatic” the dialing mechanism must be. Additionally, the notice seeks comment on (i) how to treat reassigned wireless numbers under the TCPA; (ii) how a party may revoke prior express consent to receive robocalls; and (iii) three pending petitions for reconsideration, including the 2016 Broadnet Declaratory Ruling and the 2016 Federal Debt Collection Rules. Comments are due by June 13 and reply comments are due by June 28.
On May 3, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and over a dozen more trade associations petitioned the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling on the definition of an autodialer under the TCPA, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
FDIC Chairman delivers remarks on the impact of technology in the business of banking
On May 7, FDIC Chairman, Martin J. Gruenberg, spoke at the Forum on the Use of Technology in the Business of Banking about the importance of understanding the ways in which emerging technology is positively affecting banking operations, while also recognizing associated risk management challenges. Gruenberg noted that the benefits of technology—such as reduced transaction costs, operational efficiency, payment speed improvements, and economic inclusion and access to mainstream banking—also pose challenges to financial institutions that may be amplified as new products and services are adopted. Challenges include: (i) cybersecurity risks; (ii) Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering concerns; and (iii) various other consumer protection issues. Gruenberg also discussed the role of the FDIC’s Emerging Technology Steering Committee, which was established to address these issues, and its two working groups responsible for “monitoring trends, opportunities, and risks in this area, and evaluating impacts on banking, general safety and soundness, deposit insurance, financial reporting, economic inclusion, and consumer protection.” He stressed that the committee’s work will inform the agency’s “supervisory strategy for responding to opportunities and risks presented by the use of emerging technologies to supervised institutions.”
District Court partially denies defendants’ time-barred claims, rules certain TSR violations may proceed
On May 3, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California addressed time-barred claims raised by a group of affiliated law firms and their managing attorneys (defendants) that partnered with a now-defunct entity to offer debt relief services to consumers. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request for summary judgment after determining that many of the allegedly improper up-front fees charged to consumers seeking debt relief were collected within the three-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions. As previously covered in InfoBytes last January, the CFPB claimed, among other things, that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by allegedly assisting a different, now-defunct debt relief service company with charging up-front fees. Last May, the district court denied the defendants’ bid for dismissal but at the time “declined to resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable statute of limitations.” While the CFPB agreed to limit its request for relief to the three years preceding the filing of the suit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the entire action should be barred because the alleged violations relate to a “singular scheme” discovered by the CFPB in 2012. However, according to the court, federal consumer financial law states that “any violations of the TSR that occur within the relevant limitations period are not time-barred.” Therefore, because the CFPB provided evidence that fees were collected in 2015—well within the applicable statute of limitations—the defendants’ request as to violations of the TSR that allegedly occurred within three years of the filing is denied. Notwithstanding, the court granted part of the defendants’ request for summary judgment and barred all claims related to conduct that occurred outside the three-year window because the CFPB did not oppose the motion.
Trade groups petition FCC to clarify definition of autodialer under TCPA
On May 3, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and over a dozen more trade associations petitioned the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling on the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The petition results from the recent D.C. Circuit decision (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert), which struck down the FCC’s 2015 definition of an autodialer as “unreasonably expansive” because it failed to adequately describe what functions qualify a device as an autodialer. The petition seeks clarity on the definition of an autodialer that is subject to Section 227(b) of the TCPA, and specifically requests the FCC state that in order to be considered an autodialer, the equipment must “store or produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and dial such numbers.” Additionally, the petition requests that only calls made using the actual autodialer capabilities be subject to the restrictions of the TCPA. The petitioners argue that adopting the requested definition would “ensure that legitimate businesses can contact their consumers without fearing a lawsuit under Section 227(b) of the TCPA.”
Florida District Court of Appeal holds contract for used car not covered by state usury law
On April 25, a Florida District Court of Appeal held that a Florida usury law did not apply to the purchase of a used car because the contract for purchase was a retail installment sales contract covered under the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act (the Finance Act). According to the opinion, a consumer filed a lawsuit against a used car seller and a lender claiming violations of Florida’s general usury law, which prohibits interest of more than 18 percent per year, because the contract for purchase of a used car had a 27.81 percent interest rate. In affirming the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the car seller and lender, the appeals court found that the contract for purchase met the state’s definition of a retail installment sales contract and, therefore, was governed by the Finance Act (which both the seller and lender were licensed under) rather than the general usury statute. Additionally, because the car was financed over a four-year period, the appeals court found that the finance charge per year was permissible under the Finance Act at $16.48 for every $100. The court also held that the general usury law did not apply to a contract to secure the price of personal property sold, as opposed to a contract for the “loan of money.”
NYDFS announces online lending study
On April 24, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced a study of the practices, economic impact, and operations of online lending in New York. The study will culminate in a public report with recommendations to the state legislature by July 1. NYDFS indicates that the report will cover, among other things, an analysis of the differences between online lending products and services and those of traditional lending institutions, the risks/benefits of the products offered, and the availability of various credit products in the absence of online lending. The report will also provide information on the business practices of online lenders operating in New York.
NYDFS is requesting comments and feedback on this study by May 24.
Arizona prohibits gift card fees and certain expiration dates
On April 17, the Arizona governor signed SB 1264, which prohibits the issuance or sale of gift cards in Arizona that are subject to fees or certain expiration dates. Arizona previously allowed gift cards to be subject to an expiration date, a fee, or both as long as the relevant information was clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer before the purchase was made. SB 1264 prohibits gift cards from begin subject to a fee and prohibits the underlying money on a gift card from being subject to an expiration date. The law allows an expiration date with respect to the card, code, or device associated with a gift card, only if the gift card contains a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the underlying monies associated with the card do not expire and the consumer may obtain a replacement. The prohibition on gift card fees and expiration dates does not apply to (i) gift cards that are sold below face value or donated to nonprofit or charitable organizations; (ii) gift cards distributed pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotion program when the consumer has given no money or other property in exchange for the card; and (iii) cards for prepaid telecommunications services, electronic funds transfer cards, bank-issued debit or general purpose reloadable prepaid cards not marketed or labeled as gift cards or gift certificates. The law becomes effective 91 days after the end of the legislative session.