Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Iowa Enacts Amendments to Consumer Credit Code

    State Issues

    Two amendments to the Iowa Consumer Credit Code (ICCC) recently signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad will go into effect July 1. The ICCC applies to, among others, consumer credit transactions, retail installment sales, lending transactions, and motor vehicle financing.

    Senate File 502, which relates to banks, credit unions, and specific consumer credit transactions, adds a new subsection 2A to the ICCC, which states a supervised loan made in violation of subsection 2 is void and “the consumer is not obligated to pay either the amount financed or the finance charge.” Additionally, “[i]f the consumer has paid any part of the amount financed or the finance charge, the consumer has the right to recover the payment from the [lender] . . . or from an assignee . . . who undertakes direct collection of payments or enforcement of rights arising from the debt.” Open-end loans have a statute of limitations of two years from the date of the violation, and closed-end loans have a statute of limitations of one year after the due date of the last scheduled payment. Other changes under Senate File 502 include a removal of the ban prohibiting returned check fees, an increase in the maximum late fee applied to transactions, and a clause that allows credit reporting charges to be excluded from finance charges.

    Senate File 503, which concerns “the deferral of unpaid installments and deferral charges for certain interest-bearing consumer credit transactions,” contains the following changes, among others: (i) parties may agree in writing to the deferral of unpaid installments before or after default, and (ii) deferral charges are permitted on closed-end, interest-bearing transactions and limited to $30.

    State Issues State Legislation Debt Collection Consumer Lending Consumer Finance

  • Pennsylvania-Based Bank Settles Overdraft Class Action for $1M

    Courts

    On June 12, a Pennsylvania-based bank resolved a class action lawsuit over claims the bank charged its customers improper overdraft fees by agreeing to a proposed $975,000 settlement. According to plaintiff’s unopposed motion for approval of the settlement, the bank had a “practice of assessing overdraft fees even when a customer has sufficient funds in their account to cover all merchant requests for payment.” The plaintiff further alleged that the bank incorrectly charged the fees “to maximize its overdraft fee revenue.” Transactions triggering an overdraft fee using the available balance, but which would not trigger an overdraft fee using the ledger balance, are included in the settlement. The proceeds of the proposed settlement will be distributed to eligible class members within 20 days of the effective date of the settlement.

    A preliminary issue in this case was the bank’s belief that the suit was subject to arbitration. The bank claimed the dispute was governed by an agreement to arbitrate contained in plaintiff’s 2008 account agreement, and not, as plaintiff contended, by plaintiff’s 2010 account agreement, which did not contain an arbitration agreement. The trial court disagreed with the bank. In fact, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that there was no agreement to arbitrate the action, after which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the bank’s petition to appeal that decision.

    Courts Consumer Finance Banking Overdraft Litigation Class Action

  • Bipartisan HOME Act Introduced to Protect Access to Affordable Housing

    Consumer Finance

    On June 13, Representatives Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) introduced legislation to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) System by ensuring access to mortgage credit and affordable housing assistance for millions of consumers. As set forth in a June 15 press release issued by Rep. Hultgren’s office, the Housing Opportunity Mortgage Expansion (HOME) Act (H.R. 2890) would allow lenders to regain membership in the FHLB System provided they (i) joined before the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) proposed its recently finalized membership rule, and (i) are able to “demonstrate a commitment to residential mortgage activities.”

    As previously discussed in InfoBytes, FHFA’s final rule added a revision intended to help streamline membership applications. However, Hultgren asserts that the rule “restricts FHLB membership eligibility” by excluding “captive insurers” under its definition of an “insurance company” thereby prohibiting membership. The HOME Act, Hultgren states, “would clarify that companies with a history and mission of supporting residential housing should be able to continue to serve our communities.”

    Consumer Finance Federal Issues Federal Legislation Mortgages Affordable Housing FHLB FHFA

  • 15 State Attorneys General Clarify Data Breach Notification Laws

    Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security

    On June 5, 15 state attorneys general issued a joint letter to an e-commerce hosting company refuting the company’s assertion in its FAQ provided to online retailers that they are not obligated to notify customers of a data breach in situations where credit card CVV numbers were not disclosed. According to claims made by the attorneys general, the company erroneously stated that, pursuant to the identified states’ data breach notification laws, “there is no obligation to notify in those states . . . if your customers’ CVV data was not exposed.” The attorneys general argued that this is incorrect and stated, “[t]he CVV number does not have to be disclosed to trigger our states’ notification obligations.” The letter noted as an example, New York General Business Law § 899-aa(1)(b)(3), which stipulates that companies must provide notification of a data breach to affected customers when a credit or debit card number plus “any required security code, access code, or password” that would permit access to the account is obtained by an unauthorized party. The attorneys general stated that a CVV code is not a required access code because the card can be used without it. The company is required to provide clarification regarding its FAQ to affected client retailers.

    Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security State Attorney General Data Breach Credit Cards Consumer Finance

  • CFPB’s CARD Act Request for Information Garners Consumer and Industry Comments

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a notice and request for information seeking public comments regarding the consumer credit card market. The request, which closed for public comment on June 8, received 32 public comments from consumer education groups as well as retail industry groups.

    The Financial Services Roundtable and the Consumer Bankers Association (the Associations). On June 8, the Associations—one representing integrated financial services companies, and the other representing retail banking and personal banking services—submitted a joint comment letter addressing a number of the issues in the CFPB’s request. The Associations put forth the following recommendations, among others, for consideration:

    • “With respect to deferred interest products, we encourage the Bureau to rely on the existing, robust regulatory regime and to not take further action on these products”;
    • “hold third-party comparison sites making representations about credit cards responsible for their interactions with consumers”;
    •  “streamline processes for consumers to elect to receive electronic disclosures”;
    • “credit card rewards programs have successfully developed under an effective self-regulatory construct, and that consumers with variable interest rate products are generally aware of the current interest rate environment, negating the need for additional regulations in both regards”; and
    • “strong debt collection rules are important for consumers and issuers alike, and burdensome restrictions on communications should be avoided”.

    Consumer Action (CA). Also on June 8, the CA—advocating for underrepresented consumers—submitted a comment letter to the CFPB request for information suggesting that the Card Act has been mostly effective “to keep credit card issuers in check” but that “some practices . . . have worsened over time.” Specifically, among other things, the CA provided the following recommendations:

    • “retailers and cards that offer deferred interest not be allowed to apply interest until the end of the deferral period, and that retroactive interest be prohibited, and that the interest charged when a deferred interest period ends be on a going forward basis only”;
    • “the clause alerting applicants that the terms, rates, and fees ‘are subject to change at any time for any reason’ remains in some card notices . . . While technically legal, this one-sided contract that penalizes consumers who [do] not perfectly abide by account terms and conditions yet gives card issuers a pass on committing to its end of the contract remains an unfair business practice and should be prohibited by the Bureau “;
    • “consider requiring more prominent disclosure of a financial link between comparison sites and card issuers”;
    • “true secured cards are remarkably risk-free. One danger is when the issuer does not report payment history to credit bureaus. Most consumers want a secured card to build credit and failure on the part of the issuer to report to credit bureaus means the customer is captive to the secured issuer. Users should be educated beforehand as to the proper use of a secured card so they can see it as a tool to help them graduate to an unsecured card eventually. For example, they should be aware that cash advances carry very high interest rates and start accruing interest on transactions immediately”; and
    • “we also strongly support the Bureau’s planned prohibition on class-action bans in arbitration clauses and hope to see the Bureau release a final rule shortly.”

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Consumer Finance Credit Cards CFPB

  • CFPB Encourages Alternatives to Deferred Interest Promotional Offers to Provide Transparency to Consumers

    Consumer Finance

    On June 8, the CFPB reported that it sent letters encouraging top retail credit card companies to consider consumer financing promotions that are more transparent than the often-used deferred-interest credit card. These deferred-interest cards offer no interest on the promotional balance, but only if it is paid off by the end of the promotional period. If any promotional balance remains when the promotional period ends, consumers are charged retroactive interest on the entire promotional balance from the time of purchase.

    The CFPB suggests that a zero percent introductory interest rate is a better option for consumers who are sometimes confused by the retroactive interest in the deferred-interest products. Unlike with deferred interest, under 0% interest promotions, consumers are not assessed interest retroactively if the promotional balance is not paid in full by the end of the promotional period. As previously reported in InfoBytes, some consumers may have difficulty understanding the different credit terms when comparing deferred-interest promotions to zero interest promotions. According to the letters, because deferred-interest programs may be more difficult to understand than zero interest promotions, they require credit card companies to have robust compliance management systems and third party oversight measures to ensure consumers are fully informed of the true costs of the promotional financing.

    In a blog post from June 8, the CFPB explains the differences between zero interest promotions and deferred-interest promotions, and offers examples of each promotion.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Credit Cards Debit Cards Prepaid Cards Compliance Deferred Interest

  • CFPB Releases Study on Credit Visible Consumers

    Consumer Finance

    On June 7, the CFPB published analysis of how consumers transition out of credit invisibility. “Credit invisibility” refers to an individual who lacks a credit record at any of the three nationwide credit reporting agencies. The report, entitled CFPB Data Point: Becoming Credit Visible, highlights the results of its latest study of the credit reporting industry, finding that consumers in low-income areas are more likely to gain credit visibility in negative ways such as through an account in collection or some form of public record. In a previous study, the CFPB estimated approximately 26 million Americans were credit invisible with an additional 19 million consumers having “unscorable” credit files—i.e. files that contain insufficient or too brief credit history. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) Without such a record, lenders find it more difficult to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness, resulting in credit invisible individuals having a harder time accessing credit.

    The report notes that credit invisibility can present a “Catch-22” scenario, whereby a consumer needs credit history to get access to credit but cannot establish a credit history without first being extended credit. However, the report concludes that because 91 percent of consumers acquire a credit record before turning 30, it is possible to avoid a “Catch-22” situation.

    The Bureau highlighted the following key findings:

    • Most consumers – almost 80 percent – become credit visible before age 25, but Consumers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are likely to be older when they establish a credit history.
    • Members of all age groups and income levels most commonly use credit cards to establish credit history, with student loans ranking second.
    • Approximately 1-in-4 consumers first establish credit history through an account either held by another responsible party—i.e. becoming an “authorized user”—or with a co-borrower. This trend is more common among higher-income groups.
    • Consumers in lower-income neighborhoods, however, are more likely to establish a credit history through “non-loan items,” which usually convey negative information (e.g., third-party collections, delinquent utility bills, child support payments, etc.).
    • In recent years, more consumers create a credit history using a credit card, except within the under 25 age group. The report attributed the trend in the under 25 age group to a number of factors including increased student loans and the restrictions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which made credit cards less available to young consumers.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Credit Scores Credit Reporting Agency

  • Special Alert: Treasury Issues Report Encouraging Sweeping Reforms to Regulation of Consumer Financial Products and Services

    Federal Issues

    On June 12, the Treasury Department issued the first of four reports to the president detailing its review of financial regulation in the United States and making recommendations to reform federal regulatory oversight of depository institutions. For depository (and nondepository) institutions offering consumer financial products and services, the report sets forth a series of recommendations to reform the supervision and enforcement practices of federal financial regulators, and in particular the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The report also details a number of recommended reforms to regulations governing mortgage lending and servicing and indicates that the Treasury Secretary is particularly interested in modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

    The report makes clear that the Treasury Department supports substantial structural reforms at the CFPB, many of which complement concepts included in the Financial CHOICE Act, which passed the House on June 8. The Treasury Department is particularly interested in reducing the autonomy of the CFPB by making the CFPB Director removable at will by the president or converting the CFPB to a commission, as well as by subjecting the CFPB’s budget to Congressional appropriations. The Treasury Department also proposes eliminating the CFPB’s supervisory authority, and would return that authority to the federal prudential regulators for depository institutions and to state regulators for other financial institutions, as applicable. The report also contains a number of recommendations to amend the CFPB’s enforcement authority, which are aimed at giving regulated institutions better advance notice of regulatory expectations and stronger procedural rights when responding to CFPB investigations. The proposed CFPB reforms come within a broader set of recommended reforms to the entire federal financial oversight structure designed to ensure consistency and fairness across regulators.

    ***
    Click here to read full special alert.

    If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues Financial CHOICE Act Special Alerts Consumer Finance CRA Department of Treasury

  • CFPB Fines Mortgage Servicer for RESPA Violations

    Consumer Finance

    On June 7, the CFPB ordered a mortgage servicer to pay up to $1.15 million in restitution for failing to provide borrowers with required foreclosure protections when handling loss-mitigation applications. The consent order alleges the servicer violated RESPA by failing to send critical information to consumers who were applying for foreclosure relief, and, in some circumstances, beginning foreclosure proceedings on borrowers who had submitted completed applications. Pursuant to the consent order, in addition to restitution, the servicer is required to provide borrowers the opportunity to pursue foreclosure relief, must cease its illegal practices, and develop policies and procedures to ensure compliance with mortgage servicing rules.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Enforcement Mortgages Foreclosure RESPA Mortgage Servicing

  • Cordray Speaks at Consumer Advisory Board Meeting; Extends Comment Period for RFI on Small Business Lending Market

    Consumer Finance

    On June 8, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered prepared remarks at the Consumer Advisory Board Meeting in Washington, DC announcing, among other things, that the Bureau has extended the comment period of the “Request for Information Regarding the Small Business Lending Market” an additional 60-days. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the RFI—which was issued May 10—will provide feedback on various aspects of the small business lending market. Cordray noted the CFPB is “mindful of the potential complexity and cost of small business data collection and reporting” and that it plans to “explore ways to fulfill this duty in a balanced manner, seeking to provide timely data with the highest potential to meet the statutory objectives, while minimizing the burdens for both industry and the Bureau.” Allowing for more time to receive “quality responses from the public,” Cordray extended the comment period.

    Additionally, Cordray discussed three other topics: (i) the Bureau’s emphasis on encouraging credit card market transparency to reduce consumer risk; (ii) updates to the Bureau’s continued “credit invisibility” research; and (iii) the need to formulate new rules governing the debt collection market.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Small Business Lending Debt Collection Credit Scores

Pages

Upcoming Events