InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Consent Order to Banking Subsidiaries Resolves Discriminatory Credit Card Term Practices in Puerto Rico and U.S. Territories
On August 23, the CFPB announced it was taking action against two banking subsidiaries of a multi-bank holding corporation for violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by allegedly offering credit card products and services to consumers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories that were inferior to those offered to consumers in the 50 states and discriminating against certain consumers with Spanish-language preferences. The consent order alleges the pattern of discrimination started in January 2005 and continued through November 2015. In 2013, the subsidiaries began self-reporting to the Bureau differences between credit cards and charge cards offered to consumers in the territories versus those offered to consumers in the 50 states, including disparities in pricing, terms and conditions, underwriting, rebates, promotional offers, customer and account management services, credit score requirements, credit limits, and debt collection practices. During the course of the CFPB’s review, the subsidiaries provided monetary and non-monetary relief to more than 200,000 affected consumers, resulting in approximately $95 million of remediation broken into the following amounts paid or credited to consumers: (i) roughly $55.7 million towards pricing, rebates, and promotional offer differences; (ii) approximately $3.2 million towards disparities in underwriting; and (iii) $35.7 million towards customer service, account management, collections, debt mitigation, and line assignment differences. The order also states that the subsidiaries instituted enhancements to their policies and procedures and compliance management systems. Pursuant to the consent order, the subsidiaries must (i) pay at least a $1 million more in restitution to fully compensate affected consumers; and (ii) develop and implement a compliance plan to ensure credit and charge card provisions are handled in a non-discriminatory manner in compliance with ECOA, make any necessary changes to their compliance management systems based on an annual compliance audit program assessment of current business structure, and correct any identified deficiencies. The Bureau further notes that penalties were not assessed due to efforts undertaken by the subsidiaries to self-report deficiencies, self-initiate remediation, and cooperate with the CFPB’s investigation. Furthermore, the Bureau concluded through its review that the subsidiaries did not intentionally discriminate against the consumers, but that the differences occurred as a result of business units utilizing different card management structures in the territories versus in the states.
FTC Announces Agenda for Joint Conference on Protecting Military Consumers
On August 22, the FTC released the agenda for the Protecting Military Consumers: A Common Ground Conference to be held on September 7 in Los Angeles. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the conference is geared towards military attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and consumer protection officials to provide training on consumer fraud and other issues affecting servicemembers and their families, and will be held in partnership with state and local authorities. Topics for discussion on the agenda include, among things:
- higher education;
- identity theft and imposter scams;
- real estate fraud;
- auto financing;
- debt collection;
- lending; and
- privacy issues such as data collection, storage, and sharing.
FTC Files Complaint Against Operators of Online Discount Clubs and Payment Processors for Allegedly Debiting More Than $40 Million from Consumers Without Their Consent
On August 16, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against the operators of a group of marketing entities and payment processors (defendants) for allegedly violating numerous laws when they enrolled consumers into online discount clubs and debited more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership without their authorization. According to the August 15 complaint, several of the defendants promoted their respective online discount club through websites and telemarking calls to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans. Other defendants then used “Remotely Created Payment Orders” and “Remotely Created Checks” without the consumers’ authorization to debit their bank accounts for the initial application fee as well as automatically-recurring monthly fees. Notably, during the period when one of the discount clubs was launched, several of the defendants were facing contempt proceedings for allegedly violating a 2008 stipulated final order with the FTC in another deceptive debiting scam. The defendants purportedly, among other things, (i) engaged in unfair billing practices; (ii) made false, misleading, and deceptive statements when they represented, “directly or indirectly,” to consumers seeking refunds that they were not entitled to a refund because the entities possessed personal and financial information, which served to confirm that the consumers agreed to “purchase the products or services” or authorize money to be debited from their bank accounts; and (iii) provided “substantial assistance or support” in the way of payment processing services while knowing—or “consciously avoiding knowing”—that the actions being supported were in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC also claims that hundreds of thousands of consumers called to cancel their memberships and request refunds, with thousands more informing their banks about the unauthorized debits. Additionally, more than 99.5 percent of consumers enrolled in a discount clubs apparently never accessed a single coupon—“the only service for which they had supposedly paid.”
CFPB Issues New Student Loan Repayment Study
On August 16, the CFPB published a study of student loan repayment patterns over a 14-year period. The report, entitled “Data Point: Student Loan Repayment,” analyzed borrower balance and payment status data from the Bureau’s Consumer Credit Panel (CCP). By tracking overall repayment history for borrowers who entered repayment at different points in time, the CFPB observed borrower behavior, including delinquency patterns for those who have not paid down their loan balances. Key findings in the report include:
- Borrowers with recent repayment periods have repaid their loans fully at rates similar to those with repayment periods starting 15 years ago when the loan amount is held constant. “However, 25 to 30 percent of the borrowers in the older cohorts do not pay off their loans within the standard 10-year repayment period, and the more recent cohorts appear to be following the same trend.”
- An apparent relationship exists between the loan amount and repayment speed. Borrowers with loan amounts less than $5,000 are two and a half to four times more likely to fully repay their loans within eight years of entering repayment than borrowers with loans of $50,000 or more. Additionally, more than 40 percent of all borrowers entering repayment today have loan amounts exceeding $20,000—a 20 percent increase from 15 years ago.
- The proportion of student loan borrowers aged 35 or older doubled between 2002 to 2014, whereas the proportion of borrowers younger than 25 declined from 30 to 15 percent between 2002 to 2014. Notably, the CFPB found “remarkably little variation in repayment speed by consumer age despite potential differences in income or resources.”
- Of the student loan borrowers making loan payments large enough to reduce loan balances, recent cohorts are reducing their loan balances faster than earlier cohorts.
- There is an increase in the proportion of borrowers—particularly those with loans less than $20,000—not making large enough payments to lower their loan balances. Specifically, the Bureau claims this trend is in part due to the prevalence of income-driven repayment plans as well as borrowers who are either delinquent or in default on their loans.
The Bureau’s study further recognizes the need to understand how large loan balances could affect consumers’ access to and use of other credit products, such as mortgages. While most borrowers have continued to repay their student loans over the 14-year observation period, the CFPB has suggested that (i) delinquent borrowers may not be taking advantage of alternative repayment options such as income-driven repayment plans, or (ii) servicing delivery platforms may be inadequate for student loan borrowers.
Massachusetts Regulator Fines Auto Finance Companies for Violations of State Fair Lending Rules
On August 7, the Division of Banks of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (Division) announced it had entered into consent orders with several motor vehicle sales finance companies to address allegations of unlicensed and illegal auto lending practices uncovered during an investigation of approximately 200 car dealerships. According to a press release issued by the Division, the investigation resulted in “five enforcement actions, 135 cease directives, $170,000 in fines and penalties, and more than $200,000 in consumer reimbursements.” Violations include, among others, (i) pricing vehicles far above blue book value; (ii) charging interest rates that approach or are at, or exceed the state’s maximum level, which is set at 21 percent, including interest rate violations occurring as a result of the financing of debt cancellation (GAP) coverage premiums; (iii) assessing interest and/or late fees after repossession of a vehicle “on which a repossession of the collateral has been executed”; and (iv) failure to obtain a motor vehicle sales finance company license through the Division, failure to address license renewal application deficiencies, or operating without a valid license. According to one consent order, the company allegedly failed to provide consumers an opportunity to “cure a default” before using starter interrupt devices to shut down their cars. A different consent order ordered the company to identify borrowers for whom their finance charges were calculated incorrectly, or those who overpaid due to a total loss insurance claim, and reimburse borrowers the amount that was overcharged or overpaid. A third consent order was issued to a California-based auto lender who purchased finance contracts from Massachusetts auto dealers without being licensed through the Division and engaged in several of the aforementioned violations.
None of the companies entering into the consent orders admitted to any of the allegations or the existence of any violation of state or federal law concerning their operations as motor vehicle sales finance companies.
FTC Files Complaint Against Independent Sales Organization and Sales Agents for Alleged Credit Card Laundering Charges
On August 7, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against 12 defendants, comprised of an independent sales organization (ISO), sales agents, payment processors, and identified principals, for allegedly violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by laundering credit card transactions on behalf of a “telemarketing scam” operation (operation) through fictitious merchant accounts. According to a July 28 complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants engaged in a scheme with the operation to process credit card charges through merchant accounts set up by the operation under fictitious company names instead of processing charges through a single merchant account under the operation’s name. This type of practice, the FTC claims, is known as “credit card laundering” or “factoring” and violates the TSR. The defendants purportedly (i) underwrote and approved the operation’s fictitious companies; (ii) set up merchant accounts with its acquirer for the fictitious companies; (iii) used sales agents to market processing services to merchants; (iv) processed nearly $6 million through credit card networks; and (v) transferred sales revenue from the transactions to companies controlled by the defendants. The FTC seeks “permanent injunctive relief, recession or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten moneys, and other equitable relief.”
Notably, in 2013, the FTC accused the same “telemarketing scam” operation of allegedly promoting “worthless business opportunities” to consumers and falsely promising that they would earn thousands of dollars. A 2015 summary judgement resulted in over $7 million in consumer injury. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
CFPB Releases New Overdraft Protection Study and Prototype “Know Before You Owe” Disclosures
On August 4, the CFPB concurrently announced the release of a new study titled “Data Point: Frequent Overdrafters” on the use of overdraft services by consumers, as well as four new “Know Before You Owe” overdraft disclosure prototype templates. The announcement highlights findings in the study regarding the frequency of use and the costs associated with optional overdraft services. Alongside the publication of the study, the Bureau published four prototype templates currently under testing. These templates—which are not yet effective—are meant to improve on existing model forms by more “clearly laying out the size of the fees and when they can be charged,” as well as clarifying “the institution’s overdraft policies” and explaining that the decision to opt-in to the overdraft services is optional and covers only one-time debit card and ATM transactions. The Bureau continues to test the prototypes and consider further changes. The 2010 model form continues to apply until further notice from the CFPB. These developments reflect the CFPB’s years-long interest in overdraft products and build upon a prior 2014 Data Point study of this issue, as previously reported in Infobytes.
Buckley Sandler Special Alert: CFPB Releases Four Prototype Overdraft Disclosure Forms and a Report on Frequent Overdrafters
On August 4, the CFPB released four new prototype overdraft opt-in model disclosure forms and a report titled “Data Point: Frequent Overdrafters.” A summary of the forms and report are provided below. The prototype forms are still in the process of being developed, and the Bureau is requesting feedback as it works toward finalizing them, but the prototypes are intended to replace the current model form A-9 found in Appendix A of Regulation E. The report focuses on bank customers who overdraft their accounts more than 10 times per year and provides context to the Bureau’s concerns on the impact overdraft services may have on financially vulnerable consumers.
Although overdrafts have long been a focus of the CFPB’s enforcement and supervisory activities, this represents the first sign of movement by the Bureau toward the potential new overdraft services rulemaking listed on its 2017 rulemaking agenda, which is currently in the pre-rule stage. We anticipate that aspects of the approach and language contained in these prototype forms may eventually make their way into account agreements. We invite you to review the forms and report to gain insight into the CFPB’s view of overdraft services and the types of concerns the Bureau may attempt to address in future rulemaking.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the report or other related issues, please visit our Retail Banking practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
CFPB Fines National Bank $4.6 Million for FCRA Violations
On August 2, the CFPB ordered a national bank to pay $4.6 million for allegedly failing to establish adequate policies and procedures for providing consumer deposit account information to nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies (NSCRAs). The consent order alleges that the bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V by failing to provide consumers the results of investigations into their disputes and by withholding the contact information for the consumer reporting company supplying the information used to deny a checking account application. Pursuant to the consent order, in addition to the civil money penalty, the bank must (i) implement policies and procedures to ensure NSCRAs receive accurate consumer deposit account information; (ii) provide consumers with the results of its dispute investigations concerning information furnished to NSCRAs; and (ii) give consumers NSCRA contact information in situations of adverse action.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Focuses on Consumer Complaint Process
On August 1, the CFPB released a special edition of its monthly complaint report, highlighting company and consumer responses to the Bureau’s consumer complaint process. According to the Bureau, it has handled over 1.2 million complaints from 2011 through July 1 of this year. In the last three years, debt collection, credit reporting, and mortgage complaints were the top three consumer complaint categories. The report illustrates the handling of a consumer complaint:
- Consumer Resource Centers answer questions about consumer financial products and services and provide status updates on existing complaints;
- The CFPB states that companies receive complaints typically within a day, and that within 15 days, consumers generally receive a response in one of the following four categories: (i) closed with monetary relief; (ii) closed with non-monetary relief; (iii) closed with explanation; and (iv) closed. The Bureau states that companies have provided “timely responses to approximately 97% of complaints”;
- Consumers can check the status of their complaints through the Bureau’s portal, review responses received from the company, and provide feedback on the company’s response.
Consumer feedback, the CFPB stated, primarily concerns disputes regarding companies’ responses. Among the dispute categories, 23 percent related to mortgages, 22 percent to consumer loans, and 20 percent to credit cards. The Bureau reported that negative and positive feedback is used to improve the complaint process.