InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB provides update on student loan borrowers
On November 2, the CFPB’s Office of Research released an update showing that student loan borrowers are increasingly likely to struggle to make monthly payments when federal Covid-19 payment suspensions end in January 2023. The findings follow a report issued in April discussing the credit health of student loan borrowers during the pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the April report, researchers found that borrowers most at risk when payment suspension ends include those who are 30 to 49 years of age and who live in low-income, high-minority census tracts. However, the Bureau pointed out that since the report was released, inflation has risen and delinquencies and balances have increased for consumers across credit products—both of which may contribute to potential payment challenges for borrowers. The Bureau also noted that during this time, payment suspensions were extended through the end of 2022, and President Biden announced a student debt cancellation plan to reduce payment burdens for many borrowers and completely eliminate loans for others (covered by InfoBytes here).
The Bureau’s recent findings examined data from its Consumer Credit Panel (a deidentified sample of credit records from one of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies) on consumers who are expected to resume scheduled loan payments at the end of the suspension. Findings show, among other things, that (i) an increasing number of borrowers are 60 days or more past due on a non-student-loan credit account since mid-2021; (ii) monthly payments across credit products aside from student loans have increased; and (iii) since the April report, delinquencies on non-student-loan products have risen further, with an overall increase in the number of borrowers (5.1 million to 5.5 million) who meet two or more potential risk factors that indicate a borrower may struggle when the payment suspensions end. These risk factors are: “pre-pandemic delinquencies on student loans, pre-pandemic payment assistance on student loans, multiple student loan servicers, delinquencies on other credit products since the start of the pandemic, and new non-medical collections during the pandemic.” The Bureau noted, however, that as many as one-third of borrowers with two or more risk factors may have their balances completely canceled under the student debt cancellation plan, so “despite worsening credit outcomes overall, the cancellation of some student loan debt means that fewer student loan borrowers are likely to be at risk of payment difficulties when federal student loan payments resume in January 2023 than they otherwise would be.”
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of NSF fees action
On October 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling dismissing a putative class action alleging an internet credit union improperly charged account holders non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees. Plaintiff claimed she signed an account agreement with the credit union, which required the use of a ledger-balance method when assessing NSF fees, and that only one NSF fee is permitted per transaction. According to the plaintiff, the credit union breached its contract by charging her a $25 NSF fee when she attempted to pay a $6,000 bill, even though her account’s ledger balance was $6,670.94 at the time. She further claimed the credit union charged multiple NSF fees for the same item. The credit union maintained, however, that the contract allowed it to use the “available-balance method” to assess such fees instead. The opinion explained that the ledger-balance method calculates a balance based on posted debits and deposits (and does not incorporate transactions until they are settled), whereas the available-balance method considers holds on deposits and transactions that have been authorized but not yet settled when calculating a customer’s balance. The district court granted the credit union’s motion to dismiss, rejecting the plaintiff's account balance theory by “explaining that ‘the plain, unambiguous language states that a member needs sufficient available funds’ and reasoning that [plaintiff’s] proposed reading would render [the contract’s] use of the word ‘available’ meaningless.” The district court also maintained that the plural use of the word “fees” permitted the credit union to charge multiple fees when a merchant presented the same transaction more than once.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court that the agreement did not prohibit the credit union from “charging multiple NSF fees for a transaction that is presented and rejected several times.” While recognizing that the credit union “could have drafted the [a]greement more clearly than it did,” the appellate court determined that the credit union never promised “not to use the available-balance method to assess NSF fees or not to charge multiple fees when a transaction is presented to it multiple times,” and upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim.
CFPB seeks additional public input on big tech payment platforms
On October 31, the CFPB announced it will reopen the public comment period for 30 days on a 2021 notice and request for comment related to the Bureau’s inquiry into big tech payment platforms. In October 2021, the Bureau issued orders to six large U.S. technology companies seeking information and data on their payment system business practices to inform the agency as to how these companies use personal payments data and manage data access to users (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau is inviting additional comments to broaden its understanding of the risks consumers face and potential policy solutions on topics related to, among other things, “companies’ acceptable use policies and their use of fines, liquidated damages provisions, and other penalties.” A notice will be published in the Federal Register with additional details on the public comment period in the coming days.
DOE announces final rules for targeted debt relief programs
On October 31, the Department of Education (DOE) announced final rules to streamline and improve targeted debt relief programs. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The final rules implement several changes to protect student borrowers, including:
- Borrower defense to repayment and arbitration. The final rules establish a strong framework for borrowers to raise a defense to repayment if their post-secondary institution misleads or manipulates them. Claims pending on or received on or after July 1, 2023, can be decided individually or as a group, and may be based on one of the following categories of actionable circumstances: substantial misrepresentation, substantial omission of fact, breach of contract, aggressive and deceptive recruitment, or judgments or final secretarial actions. The final rules will only provide full relief (partial discharges will not be considered), with approved claims requiring “that the institution committed an act or omission which caused the borrower detriment of such a nature and degree that warrant full relief” based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the final rules establish certain recoupment processes for DOE to pursue institutions for the cost of approved claims, and will allow borrowers to litigate their case “by preventing institutions that participate in the Direct Loan program from requiring borrowers to engage in pre-dispute arbitration or sign class action waivers.”
- Closed school discharges. The final rules provide an automatic discharge of a borrower’s loan “one year after a college’s closure date for borrowers who were enrolled at the time of closure or left 180 days before closure and who do not accept an approved teach-out agreement or a continuation of the program at another location of the school.” Borrowers who accept but do not complete a teach-out agreement or program continuation will receive a discharge one year after the last date of attendance.
- Total and permanent disability discharge. The final rules include new options for borrowers who have had a total and permanent disability to receive a discharge, including borrowers (i) who receive additional types of disability review codes from the Social Security Administration (SSA); (ii) who later aged into retirement benefits and are no longer classified by one of SSA’s codes; (iii) who have an established disability onset date determined by SSA to be at least 5 years in the past; and (iv) whose first continuing disability review is scheduled at three years. The final rules also eliminate a three-year income monitoring requirement.
- Interest capitalization. Under the final rules, “interest will no longer be added to a borrower’s principal balance the first time a borrower enters repayment, upon exiting a forbearance, and leaving any income-driven repayment plan besides Income-Based Repayment.” Specifically, the final rules eliminate all instances where interest capitalization—which occurs when a borrower has outstanding unpaid interest added to the principal balance—is not required by law.
- Public Service Loan Forgiveness. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the final rules will provide benefits for borrowers seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness, including providing credit toward the program for borrowers who have qualifying employment.
- False certification. The final rules will provide borrowers with an easier path to discharge when a college falsely certifies a borrower’s eligibility for a student loan. This includes expanding allowable documentation, clarifying applicable discharge dates, and allowing for the consideration of group discharges.
The final rules are effective July 1, 2023.
DOE expands support for veterans/servicemembers and incarcerated individuals
On October 27, the Department of Education (DOE) announced final rules cracking down on deceptive practices affecting veterans and servicemembers and expanding college access to incarcerated students. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The final rules, among other things, (i) implement a change to the “90/10 rule” made by the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which closed a loophole in the Higher Education Act that previously incentivized some for-profit colleges to aggressively recruit veterans and servicemembers in order to receive more DOE funding (going forward, these institutions may no longer count money from veteran and service member benefits toward a 10 percent revenue requirement); (ii) expand access to DOE’s Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative to allow incarcerated individuals in nearly all states to participate; (iii) provide incarcerated individuals with access to the FSA’s Fresh Start initiative, which will help borrowers with defaulted loans access income-driven low monthly payments as well as with access to Pell Grants; and (iv) clarify requirements and processes for post-secondary institutions when changing ownership, which may require institutions to provide additional financial protection or impose other conditions to protect against risks arising from the transaction.
CFPB argues funding constitutionality holding does not make sense
On October 25, the CFPB responded to a notice of supplemental authority filed by a credit reporting agency (CRA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which sought to use a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as justification for the dismissal of a lawsuit against the CRA. In April, the Bureau sued the CRA, two of its subsidiaries, and a former senior executive (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating a 2017 consent order in connection with alleged deceptive practices related to their marketing and sale of credit scores, credit reports, and credit-monitoring products to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Following the 5th Circuit’s decision, in which a three-judge panel unanimously held in CFSA v. CFPB that the CFPB funding structure created by Congress violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), the defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority on October 20, arguing that the suit must be dismissed and that the Bureau may not use unappropriated funds when prosecuting the suit. The defendants further contended that the 2017 consent order is invalid because the Bureau used unappropriated funds in its preparation.
The Bureau countered in its response that the 5th Circuit’s holding does not “make sense,” is “without support in law,” and does not help the defendants’ defense. According to the Bureau, “the court mustered no case from more than 230 years of constitutional history that has ever held that Congress violates the Appropriations Clause or separation of powers when it authorizes spending by statute, as it did for the Bureau.” Moreover, the Bureau argued that the appellate court’s contention that the CFPB’s funding was “impermissibly ‘double-insulated’ from congressional oversight” was incorrect because “Congress is fully capable of overseeing the Bureau’s spending, including because of several provisions in the Bureau’s statute that ensure its ability to supervise.” Adding that the court “should reject” the 5th Circuit’s analysis and “join every other court to address the issue—including the en banc D.C. Circuit—in upholding the Bureau’s statutory funding mechanism,” the agency further argued that even if the district court should disagree with this contention, it should still deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss because any alleged defect in the agency’s funding authorization “would not deprive the Bureau of the power to carry out the responsibilities given it by Congress to enforce the law.”
CFPB launches rulemaking on consumers’ rights to their data
On October 27, the CFPB released a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives under consideration related to the Bureau’s Dodd-Frank Section 1033 rulemaking efforts. The outline describes proposals under consideration that “would specify rules requiring certain covered persons that are data providers to make consumer financial information available to a consumer directly and to those third parties the consumer authorizes to access such information on the consumer’s behalf, such as a data aggregator or data recipient (authorized third parties).” Emphasizing that “[c]lear data rights for consumers have the potential to give individuals more bargaining leverage,” the Bureau claimed that companies compiling vast amounts of personal data, including information about consumers’ use of financial products and services, are able to monopolize the use of this data, thereby blocking competition and stifling the development of competitors’ products and services.
Highlights from the outline include a series of discussion questions for small businesses and a list of topics, including:
- Data providers subject to the proposals under consideration. The proposals, if finalized, would impact data providers, including “depository and non-depository financial institutions that provide consumer funds-holding accounts or that otherwise meet the Regulation E definition of financial institution, as well as depository and non-depository institutions that provide credit cards or otherwise meet the Regulation Z definition of card issuer.” Notably, “a financial institution would be a covered provider if it issues an ‘access device’ (as the term is defined in Regulation E § 1005.2(a)(1)), such as a digital credential storage wallet, and provides EFT services, even if it does not hold consumer accounts.” Additionally, “a card issuer would be a covered data provider if it issues a ‘credit card’ (as the term is defined in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(15)(i)), such as by issuing digital credential storage wallets, even if it does not hold consumer credit accounts.” The outline also defines covered accounts and states the Bureau is considering potential exemptions for certain data providers.
- Recipients of information. To be considered an authorized third party under the proposals, a third party must: (i) provide an “authorization disclosure” informing consumers of key terms of access; (ii) obtain consumers’ informed, express consent to the key terms of access contained within the authorization disclosure; and (iii) certify to consumers that it will abide by certain obligations related to the collection, use, and retention of a consumer’s information. The Bureau is considering proposals that would address “a covered data provider’s obligation to make information available upon request directly to a consumer (direct access) and to authorized third parties (third-party access).”
- Types of information covered data providers would need to make available. The outline proposes six categories of information data providers would have to make available with respect to covered accounts, including (i) periodic statement information; (ii) information on certain types of prior transactions and deposits that have not-yet-settled; (iii) information regarding prior transactions not typically shown on periodic statements or online account portals; (iv) online banking transactions that have not yet occurred; (v) account identity information; and (vi) other information, such as consumer reports, fees, bonuses, discounts, incentives, and security breaches that exposed a consumer’s identity or financial information.
- Exceptions to the requirement to make information available. The outline provides four exceptions to the requirement for making information available: (i) confidential commercial information; (ii) information obtained to prevent fraud, money laundering, or other unlawful conduct; (iii) information that is required to be kept confidential; and (iv) information a “data provider cannot retrieve in the ordinary course of business.”
- How and when information would need to be made available. The outline states the Bureau is considering ways to define the methods and the circumstances in which a data provider would need to make information available with respect to both direct access and third-party access.
- Third party obligations. The Bureau is examining proposals to limit authorized third parties’ collection, use, and retention of consumer information to that which “is reasonably necessary to provide the product or service the consumer has requested.” This includes (i) limiting duration, frequency, and retention periods; (ii) providing consumers a simple way to revoke authorization; (iii) limiting a third party’s secondary use of consumer-authorized information; (iv) requiring third parties to implement data security standards and policies and procedures to ensure data accuracy and dispute resolution; and (v) requiring third parties to comply with certain disclosure obligations, including a mechanism for consumers to request information about the extent and purposes of a third party’s access to their data.
- Record retention obligations. Proposals under consideration would establish requirements for data providers and third parties to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under the rule.
- Implementation period. The Bureau is seeking feedback on time frames to ensure consumers are able to benefit from a final rule, while also considering implementation factors for data providers and third parties.
An appendix to the highlights provides examples of ways the proposals would apply to hypothetical transactions involving consumer-authorized data access to an authorized third party.
The Bureau’s rulemaking process will include panel convenings, as mandated under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, after which the panel will prepare a report for the Bureau to consider as it develops the proposed rule. “Dominant firms shouldn’t be able to hoard our personal data and appropriate the value to themselves,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in announcing the rulemaking outline. Chopra further elaborated on the rulemaking’s purposes during an industry event earlier in the week (covered by InfoBytes here) where he said the Bureau plans to propose requiring financial institutions that offer deposit accounts, credit cards, digital wallets, prepaid cards, and other transaction accounts to set up secure methods for data sharing as a way to “facilitate new approaches to underwriting, payment services, personal financial management, income verification, account switching, and comparison shopping.”
CFPB issues guidance on “junk fees”
On October 26, President Biden discussed guidance issued by the CFPB to help banks avoid charging illegal “junk fees” on deposit accounts. The Bureau’s Circular 2022-06 noted that overdraft fees can be considered an “unfair” practice and violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) even if such fees are in compliance with other laws and regulations. Specifically, the Circular noted that “overdraft fees assessed by financial institutions on transactions that a consumer would not reasonably anticipate are likely unfair.” The guidance further stated that unanticipated overdraft fees are likely to impose substantial injury on consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid and that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The Bureau’s compliance bulletin on surprise depositor fees explained that a returned deposited item is a check that a consumer deposits into their checking account that is returned to the consumer because the check could not be processed against the check originator’s account. The bulletin stated that “blanket policies of charging returned deposited item fees to consumers for all returned transactions irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account are likely unfair under the [CFPA].” The Bureau further explained that indiscriminately charging depositor fees, regardless of circumstances, are likely illegal and noted that the bulletin is intended to put regulated entities on notice regarding how the agency plans to exercise its enforcement and supervisory authorities in the context of deposit fees. The bulletin urged financial institutions to charge depositor fees only in situations where a depositor could have avoided the fee, such as when a depositor repeatedly deposits bad checks from the same originator. The Bureau emphasized the guidance as part of its Junk Fee Initiative, noting that since it launched the initiative in January 2022, the CFPB has taken action to constrain “pay-to-pay” fees (covered by InfoBytes here), and has announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting information from credit card issuers, consumer groups, and the public regarding late payments, credit card late fees, and card issuers’ revenue and expenses (covered by InfoBytes here).
FDIC finds 96% of U.S. households are banked
On October 25, the FDIC announced that approximately 96 percent of U.S. households had a depository institution account in 2021, according to the FDIC’s 2021 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. According to the biennial survey, an estimated 4.5 percent of U.S. households (representing 5.9 million households) lacked a bank or credit union account, the lowest national unbanked rate since the FDIC survey began in 2009. The survey also found that approximately 1.2 million more households were banked since 2019. Nearly half of newly banked households that received government payments said these payments contributed to their decision to open an insured bank or credit union account. The survey also found that while unbanked rates were higher among some racial and ethnic minority groups, the gaps had shrunk since 2019, with the unbanked rate falling by 2.5 percentage points for Black households, 2.9 points for Hispanic households and 9.4 points for Native American and Alaska Native households, compared with a 0.4 point decrease for white households. According to the FDIC, other key findings include that: (i) 4.5 percent of U.S. households were “unbanked” in 2021; (ii) 2.1 percent of White households were unbanked, compared with 11.3 percent of Black households and 9.3 percent of Hispanic households; (iii) mobile banking use increased sharply among banked households between 2017 (15.1 percent) and 2021 (43.5 percent); (iv) 21.7 percent of unbanked households cited “don’t have enough money to meet minimum balance” as the main reason for not having an account; and (v) the use of some nonbank financial transaction services, such as check cashing, and nonbank credit products, including payday or pawn shop loans, continue to decrease. The FDIC noted that its #GetBanked (covered by InfoBytes here) was a way to inform consumers about how to open a bank account online and to facilitate the safe and timely distribution of Economic Impact Payments through direct deposit. The FDIC requested that community groups and government agencies “join the movement and help bring more people into the banking system.”
FDIC announces Illinois disaster relief
On October 25, the FDIC issued FIL-49-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Illinois affected by severe storms and flooding from July 25-28. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.