InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York announces $1.9 million data breach settlement with global retailer
On October 12, the New York attorney general announced a $1.9 million settlement with an international e-commerce retailer for failing to properly handle a 2018 data breach. According to the settlement, the e-commerce owns and operates two brands (collectively, “respondents”), which experienced a data breach that caused 39 million accounts to be stolen, including accounts for more than 800,000 New York residents. The AG found, among other things, that the respondents failed to properly safeguard consumers’ information, failed to adhere to requirements for protecting stored credit card data, and misrepresented the extent of the cyberattack to consumers. As a result of the settlement, the respondents are required to pay New York $1.9 million in penalties and costs, and must maintain a comprehensive information security program that includes robust hashing of customer passwords, among other things.
District Court partially dismisses FDCPA suit concerning disputed debt
On October 5, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona partially granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss in an FDCPA suit, which alleged that the defendant furnished information to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs) that did not belong to the plaintiff. According to the order, the plaintiff noticed that the defendant was reporting a collection account to the CRAs for a debt he did not recognize. He called the defendant who was unable to locate the plaintiff through his personal identifiers. The defendant told the plaintiff that the debt reporting on the plaintiff’s credit report was a medical debt and was owed by a third party with a different name and a different social security number. After the defendant confirmed that the debt did not belong to him, the plaintiff submitted a dispute to the CRA challenging the defendant’s reporting of the debt and requested that the defendant and the CRA remove the debt from his report. The CRA notified the defendant of the plaintiff’s dispute within five days of receiving the dispute. The defendant allegedly continued to report the debt as belonging to the plaintiff to the CRA, and did not request that the CRA note on the plaintiff’s credit report that the debt was disputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the FDCPA, contending that his “credit score has decreased as a result of [the defendant’s] erroneous credit reporting, which has frustrated [the plaintiff’s] ability to obtain credit.” The plaintiff also alleged that he suffered emotional distress and anxiety.
The defendant argued that it did not violate the FDCPA because it was the CRA that connected the underlying debt to the plaintiff’s credit report. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff did not provide the defendant with an appropriate period of time to mark the debt as disputed before filing the suit in question. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, explaining, among other things, that the defendant “does not point to any authority that, to state a claim under § 1692e(8), reporting of a debt must be to a credit report as opposed to any third party.” However, the court dismissed the § 1692f claim on the ground that the underlying conduct was already covered in the 1692e(8) claim.
NYDFS announces fair lending settlement with indirect auto lender
On October 6, NYDFS announced a settlement with a New York State-licensed bank to resolve allegations that the bank violated New York Executive Law § 296-a while engaged in indirect automobile lending. NYDFS alleged that the bank’s practices resulted in minority borrowers paying higher interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers regardless of their creditworthiness. According to the announcement, the bank allegedly “failed to effectively monitor automobile dealers from which [the bank] agreed to purchase loans, thereby allowing the dealers to charge members of protected classes more in discretionary dealer markups than borrowers identified as non-Hispanic White.” Under the terms of the consent order, the bank agreed to pay a $950,000 civil money penalty to the state, as well as restitution to eligible borrowers impacted during the period of January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2022. The bank also agreed to undertake fair lending compliance remediation efforts to increase its monitoring of dealers participating in its indirect auto lending program to precent discriminatory markups in the future.
District Court rules in favor of debt collectors in FDCPA, FCRA dispute
On October 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA, FCRA action. According to the opinion, the plaintiff took out a $20,000 loan but never made any payments on the loan. The charged off loan was assigned to the defendant debt purchaser, and a written notice was sent to the plaintiff who requested validation of the debt. The defendant loan servicer provided the account information to the plaintiff and later began furnishing the information to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The plaintiff sued alleging the defendants violated sections 1681s-2(a) and 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, as well as multiple sections of the FDCPA. Under section 1681s-2(b), a furnisher who has been notified by a CRA of a consumer dispute is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and follow certain procedures. The court noted, however, that these obligations are only triggered if the furnisher received such notice. In this instance, there is no record showing that any CRA reported the plaintiff’s dispute to the defendants, the court said, adding that, moreover, section 1681s-2(a) does not include a private right of action. With respect to the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, the court determined that, among other things, (i) the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting the majority of his claims; (ii) section 1692g does not require the defendants to verify the plaintiff’s account by providing documentation bearing his signature or providing the contractual agreement governing the debt (in this instance, the defendant loan servicer met the minimal requirements by providing an account summary report); and (iii) that nothing in section 1692g requires a debt collector to respond to a dispute within 30 days—this timeframe only applies to when a debtor must dispute a debt, not to the debt collector’s period to provide verification, the court wrote.
CFPB blogs about challenging inaccurate appraisals
On October 6, the CFPB released a blog post regarding mortgage borrowers’ ability to challenge inaccurate appraisals through the reconsideration of value process (ROV). Among other things, the CFPB explained that “[a] lender’s reconsideration of value process must ensure that all borrowers have an opportunity to explain why they believe that a valuation is inaccurate and the benefit of a reconsideration to determine whether an adjustment is appropriate.” As required under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Valuations Rule, the Bureau explained that some lenders include information regarding how to request a ROV in appraisals and other home valuations. The Bureau further noted that when lenders provide clear, plain-language notice of ROV opportunities to borrowers, lenders help ensure that their ROV process is nondiscriminatory. Lenders that do not have a clear and consistent method to ensure that borrowers can seek a ROV may risk violating federal law. The Bureau added that it has taken steps to implement legal requirements to limit bias in algorithmic appraisals, and that regulators are also providing more oversight over the activities of the Appraisal Foundation.
CFPB seeks comments on mortgage refinance and forbearance standards
On September 27, the CFPB issued a notice in the Federal Register requesting input from the public regarding (i) the availability of refinance loans for borrowers with smaller mortgage loan balances, and (ii) options for mortgage forbearance. Specifically, the Bureau sought ways to: (i) “facilitate mortgage refinances for consumers who would benefit from refinancing, especially consumers with smaller loan balances”; and (ii) “reduce risks for consumers who experience disruptions in their financial situation that could interfere with their ability to remain current on their mortgage payments.” The Bureau also noted that some stakeholders have suggested that changes to the Bureau’s ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage rule (ATR–QM rule) may play a role in facilitating beneficial refinances through targeted and streamlined programs, noting that the current rule references “frictions” in the refinance process tied to QM standards. Comments are due by November 28.
District Court grants summary judgment in FCRA and FDCPA suit
On September 30, the District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an FCRA and FDCPA suit. According to the order, the plaintiff allegedly discovered that the defendant communicated incorrect information regarding a debt to credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and subsequently began disputing the debt. The defendant confirmed that the tradeline was accurate and that the account had been paid in full. The plaintiff then sent letters to the different CRAs, the original creditor, and the defendant, claiming that the information being communicated was inaccurate. The plaintiff continued to receive responses indicating that the information being reported was accurate and that the account had been paid in full. The plaintiff then received a letter from a bank rejecting his application for a credit card on the basis that they had received negative information about the plaintiff’s credit from a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, failing to review information provided by the CRAs, and failing to modify or delete information it could not verify as accurate. The court disagreed, finding that the defendant’s investigations were “reasonable under the circumstances,” given that the plaintiff’s disputes contained “various misleading descriptions that indicated” the debt was not the plaintiff’s, when he had admitted in other circumstances it was. Regarding the FDCPA claim, the court noted that “even if this information was false or inaccurate, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was communicated in connection with the collection of a debt.”
FHA seeks to increase small balance mortgages
On October 4, FHA announced a request for information (RFI) seeking input on ways to facilitate greater origination of small balance mortgages for FHA insurance. FHA will use feedback received in response to the RFI to help identify barriers to the origination of small mortgages in its program. The agency will also consider the development of policies and programs to better support and expand affordable homeownership opportunities in underserved markets with lower housing prices and to close the racial homeownership gap. According to the announcement, the RFI seeks input on topics related to “the current availability of small mortgage financing, barriers and disincentives to small mortgage lending transactions, changes to policies or processes that would encourage origination of more FHA-insured small balance mortgages, and considerations regarding liquidity provided through securitization.” Comments on the RFI are due December 5.
In conjunction with the RFI, HUD released a report assessing factors that limit the supply of small mortgage loans and highlighting challenges facing borrowers who need loans to purchase lower-priced homes. The report, titled Financing Lower-Priced Homes: Small Mortgage Loans, found that mortgage loans having an original principal obligation of $70,000 or less represent less than 3.5 percent of originations in 2020. Many of these loans secure properties valued at more than $70,000—an indication that the purchases included substantial down payments, HUD said. Among other things, the report also found that FHA disproportionately insures loans for lower-priced homes compared to the rest of the mortgage market and has loan insurance programs for financing property improvements and manufactured homes that are particularly targeted to lower loan amounts. Additionally, the report flagged the fixed costs of loan origination and servicing as a significant barrier to small mortgage lending, noting that this makes small mortgage loans less profitable and may necessitate additional incentives for lenders, such as reducing costs or providing additional lender or loan originator compensation.
California amends protections for servicemembers and veterans
On September 27, the California governor signed SB 1311 to enact the Military and Veteran Consumer Protection Act of 2022. The Act updates several provisions related to servicemembers and veterans, including amending existing law to provide that a person will be liable for an additional civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each violation if the person engages in “unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising,” against one or more servicemembers or veterans. Additionally, the Act amends certain provisions related to enforcement of the federal Military Lending Act (MLA). Specifically, the bill makes “any security interest in personal property other than a motor vehicle, off-highway vehicle, trailer, or aircraft void if it would cause a loan procured by specified service members in the course of purchasing the personal property to be exempt from the [MLA].” The Act also makes “any security interest in a motor vehicle void if it would cause a loan procured by specified service members in the course of purchasing the motor vehicle to be exempt from the [MLA] and the loan also funds the purchase of a credit insurance product or credit-related ancillary product.” The Act takes effect January 1, 2023.
CFPB updates education loan servicing examination procedures
On September 28, the CFPB updated the education loan examination procedures in its Supervision and Examination Manual. According to the Bureau, the update to the education loan servicing examination procedures clarifies that when determining its authority to supervise a private student lender, the Bureau “look[s] only to the definition of private education loan in the Truth in Lending Act and not also to Regulation Z.” The Bureau noted that depending on the scope of an examination, “and in conjunction with the compliance management system and consumer complaint response review procedures,” an examination will cover at least one of the following modules: (i) advertising, marketing, and lead generation; (ii) customer application, qualification, loan origination, and disbursement; (iii) student loan servicing; (vi) borrower inquiries and complaints; (v) collections, accounts in default, and credit reporting; (vi) information sharing and privacy; and (vii) examination conclusion and wrap-up.