InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Democrats want PLUS loans in relief plan
On September 12, eight Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to extend student-loan debt relief to roughly 3.6 million borrowers under the Parent Loan for Undergraduate Student (PLUS) loan program. Biden’s debt relief plan instructed the Department of Education (DOE) to, among other things: (i) provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the DOE; (ii) provide up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year or less than $250,000 for married couples; and (iii) propose a new income-driven repayment (IDR) plan and cap monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5 percent of a borrower’s discretionary income. Additionally, for IDR plans, Biden’s August announcement instructed the DOE to propose a rule to, among other things, reduce the amount that borrowers have to pay each month for undergraduate loans from 10 percent to 5 percent. The Senators expressed their concern that Biden’s recent actions do not appropriately cover Parent PLUS borrowers and urged his administration and the DOE to “to incorporate Parent PLUS borrowers in any administrative improvements to federal student loan programs, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Income-Driven Repayment programs, extensions or creation of waivers, and in the implementation of executive actions to provide student debt relief.”
Republicans take issue with CFPB agenda
On September 12, several Republican senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing concerns that the Bureau is again pursuing “a radical and highly-politicized agenda unbounded by statutory limits.” In particular, the letter took issue with recent Bureau reports on the use of overdraft fees (covered by InfoBytes here and here), calling the agency’s actions a “relentless smear campaign” against banks. “Charging fees that customers chose to pay should not be disturbing or illegal, and yet, the CFPB appears to have developed a particular disdain for banks charging their customers for services, pejoratively calling overdraft protection ‘junk fees,’” the letter stated. Additionally, the letter claimed that the Bureau is changing its rules in order to publish previously confidential information about financial institutions to make it easier to threaten them with reputational harm (covered by InfoBytes here), without affording the financial institution the similar ability to, for example, disclose the existence of a CFPB examination. Among other things, the new procedural rule establishes a disclosure mechanism intended to increase transparency of the Bureau’s risk-determination process that will exempt final decisions and orders by the CFPB director from being considered confidential supervisory information, allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on their website. According to the senators, the rule requires nonbanks to keep confidential information relating to a decision issued by the Bureau, including facts that could question the decision or raise procedural concerns. “The one-sided nature of the CFPB’s rule change gives the agency the ability to publicly tarnish an institution’s name without affording the firm the power to defend itself,” the letter said. The letter also decries a recent change to the agency’s rules of adjudication to make it more difficult for companies to defend themselves against novel enforcement theories by bypassing an administrative law judge and permitting the director to rule directly on the validity of the legal basis for the enforcement action.
11th Circuit says wasted time, distress can confer FDCPA standing
On September 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the dismissal of an FDCPA action after determining that wasted time and emotional distress can be sufficiently concrete as to confer Article III standing. After the plaintiff fell behind on his monthly condo association payments, the association referred the matter to a law firm (collectively, “defendants”). The defendant law firm eventually filed a claim of lien against the plaintiff’s condo and threatened foreclosure if the plaintiff did not pay more than $10,000 in past-due fees, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiff sued for violations of the FDCPA and state law, claiming, among other things, that the debt collection letters and claim of lien overstated the amount due by including interest, late fees, and other charges not permitted under Florida law. He also alleged that the law firm violated the FDCPA by filing the claim of lien in the public record, thereby communicating with a third party about his debt without permission. These actions, the plaintiff contended, caused him emotional distress and cost him time, money, and effort when “trying to ‘determine, verify, and dispute the amounts being sought against him.’” The plaintiff eventually voluntarily dismissed the claims against the association, and the law firm moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court determined that the plaintiff lacked standing because the law firm’s actions did not cause him any concrete injury and dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit disagreed after finding that the time the plaintiff spent trying to determine the correct amount of debt and the emotion distress he suffered during the process were adequate to satisfy constitutional standing requirements. “[Plaintiff] presented evidence that he suffered injuries—including an inaccurate claim of lien against his property; time spent trying to determine the correct amount of his debt, resolve the lien, and avoid the threatened foreclosure; and emotional distress manifesting in a loss of sleep—which are sufficiently tangible to confer Article III standing,” the appellate court wrote. The 11th Circuit explained that while the time and money spent on the FDCPA lawsuit itself could not give rise to a concrete injury for standing purposes, the time and money spent by the plaintiff defending against a legal action taken by a debt collector was “separable” from the costs of bringing the FDCPA suit. Moreover, the appellate court determined that the defendants refusing to release the lien against the plaintiff’s home unless he paid more than what was actually owed “was a tangible harm sufficient to give [plaintiff] standing for his claims that the defendants’ conduct in filing the lien and threatening to foreclose on it violated the FDCPA.”
DFPI proposal would consider ISAs as student loans
On September 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt new regulations and amend current regulations implementing the Student Loan Servicing Act (Act), which provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by DFPI (formerly the Department of Business Oversight) (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed rulemaking also outlines new clarifications to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law, which was enacted in 2020 (effective January 1, 2021) to provide new requirements for student loan servicers (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
In its initial statement of reasons for the new regulations, DFPI noted that since the Act took effect five years ago, additional private student loan financing products have emerged, such as income share agreements and installment contracts, which use terminology and documentation distinct from traditional loans. DFPI commented that while lenders and servicers of these products have asserted that their products do not fall within the definition of a student loan and are not subject to the statute’s requirements, these education financing products serve the same purpose as traditional loans—“help pay the cost of a student’s higher education"—and are therefore student loans subject to the Act, and servicers of these products must be licensed and comply with all applicable laws. The proposed rulemaking, among other things, (i) defines the term “education financing products,” which now fall under the purview of the Act, along with other related terms; (ii) amends various license application requirements, including amended financial requirements for startup applicants; (iii) outlines provisions related to non-licensee (e.g., servicers that do not require a license but that are subject to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law) filing requirements; and (iv) specifies that servicers of all education financing products must submit annual aggregate student loan servicing reports to DFPI. The proposed rulemaking also removes certain unnecessary requirements based on DFPI’s experience in administering the Act to reduce the regulatory burden.
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking are due October 28.
FDIC, FinCEN release results of digital identity tech sprint
On September 9, the FDIC and FinCEN announced key takeaways and solution summaries from a recent “Tech Sprint” to develop solutions for banks and regulators to help measure the effectiveness of digital identity proofing. As previously covered in InfoBytes, in January, the FDIC’s technology lab, FDiTech, and FinCEN announced the launch of a Tech Sprint challenging participants “to develop solutions for financial institutions and regulators to help measure the effectiveness of digital identity proofing—the process used to collect, validate, and verify information about a person.” The FDIC and FinCEN sought solutions that included, among other things: (i) increasing efficiency and account security; (ii) reducing fraud and other forms of identity-related crime; (iii) reducing the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing; and (iv) fostering customer confidence in the digital banking environment.
The Tech Sprint resulted in proposed solutions that followed one of three distinct approaches: (i) tools that would measure the effectiveness of identity proofing systems; (ii) development of a scoring methodology for remote identity proofing; and (iii) envisioning an identity provider consortium or platform. The release also noted that multiple participating teams referenced the use of source verification, interoperability, and emerging technologies such as zero knowledge proofs and multi-party computation for secure, privacy-protecting data sharing.
Senate Democrats urge CFPB for guidance on P2P apps
On September 1, five Senate Democrats sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra urging the Bureau to issue guidance to provide better tools to protect older Americans and their families from the increased prevalence of P2P fraud. The letter discussed that, according to the FTC, P2P apps are used by scammers because “the ease with which consumers may make payments to individuals they have never met on P2P platforms facilitates quick purchasing decisions.” The FTC also found that older adults are increasingly using payment apps or services, noting that P2P-related complaints received by the FTC tripled from 2019 to 2020, and older adults reported $10 million in losses associated with complaints related to payment apps and services in 2020 alone. The letter concluded that the CFPB should “move forward with the guidance under consideration, keeping in mind the disproportionate effect that frauds and scams have on communities of color and people with Limited English Proficiency.”
CFPB reports on nursing home debt collection
On September 8, the CFPB released an Issue Spotlight on nursing home debt collection, which focuses on the risk of financial harm that nursing homes and their debt collectors cause by attempting to collect invalid debts. The report, conducted by the Bureau’s Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans, analyzes consumer complaints, nursing home admission contracts, and debt collection lawsuits to assess risks to nursing home residents and their caregivers. In particular, the report found that many facilities include clauses in admission contracts that require caregivers to be a “responsible party” for the resident’s costs of care, or that otherwise subject the caregiver to financial liability should the admitted resident incur a debt. The report also found that nursing home residents stay for significant amounts of time, the average nursing home stay among residents being 1 year and 4 months, and that most older adults are not insured against the costs of long-term care. According to a statement by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, he expects the "Office for Older Americans will emerge as a key pillar within the policymaking and law enforcement community on financial issues faced by older adults and their caregivers."
The same day, the CFPB released Circular 2022-05, which asks the question: “Can debt collection and consumer reporting practices relating to nursing home debts that are invalid under the Nursing Home Reform Act [(NHRA)] violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)?” The Circular explained, though the Bureau does not enforce the NHRA, that the NHRA prohibits a nursing facility from conditioning a resident’s admission or continued stay on receiving a guarantee of payment from a third party, such as a relative or friend. The Circular also highlighted certain practices related to the collection of nursing home debts that are invalid under the NHRA and its implementing regulation that also violate the FDCPA and FCRA. The Bureau also issued a joint letter with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to nursing facilities and debt collectors reminding them of their responsibilities under the NHRA, FDCPA, and FCRA.
8th Circuit affirms decision in FDCPA case
On September 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order to grant a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an FDCPA suit. According to the opinion, the defendant sent the plaintiff a debt collection letter identifying the plaintiff as the attorney for a consumer named in the letter. The consumer was not the plaintiff’s client, the consumer had never identified the plaintiff as her attorney to anyone, and the plaintiff had never identified himself as the consumer’s attorney. When the plaintiff was unable to recognize the consumer’s name, he engaged in an extensive search of his files and records to determine if he had ever represented the consumer, and “found nothing to indicate that she was a past or present client.” The plaintiff filed suit, asserting that the defendant violated § 1692c(b) of the FDCPA when it contacted him regarding the debt of a consumer whom he did not represent and without the consumer’s consent. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered injury as a result of the violation, because his search for the consumer’s records cost him “valuable time and resources that he could have spent working on matters for actual clients.” The district court ruled that the defendant’s letter violated § 1692c(b) but said that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue under the statute and entered judgment on the pleadings against the plaintiff.
On appeal, the 8th Circuit agreed with the district court that the defendant violated the FDCPA when it sent the letter to the attorney, but also agreed with other circuit courts that non-consumers cannot bring § 1692c(b) claims. The appellate court noted that “[b]ecause the purpose of § 1692c(b) is to protect consumers alone, we conclude that [the plaintiff] falls outside § 1692c(b)’s ‘zone of interests’ and thus cannot invoke the protection afforded by it.” The 8th Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the proper course of action was to remand the case back to state court, where it was originally filed, and affirmed that the decision “was a ruling on the merits of [the plaintiff’s] claim, not on the district court’s jurisdiction.”
3rd Circuit: Arbitration valid despite questions about loan assignment
On September 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that a district court erred in finding that it had the authority to adjudicate the question of arbitrability based on questions concerning the underlying legality of an assignment of a consumer’s loan. The plaintiff took out a personal loan, which included an arbitration clause in the underlying agreement that delegated questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The plaintiff’s charged-off debt was assigned to the defendant who filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid balance but later dismissed the suit rather than litigating. The plaintiff later contended that the defendant reported his loan delinquency to credit agencies in “an unlawful attempt to collect the [l]oan,” and sued, claiming that because the defendant was not licensed in Pennsylvania during the time period at issue it was not lawfully permitted to purchase the debt. The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration under the purchase agreement with the loan originator. Focusing on the validity of the assignment, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit concluded that the district court’s only responsibility was to determine whether the parties to the underlying loan “clearly and unmistakably” expressed an agreement to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability, and, if so, the district court was required to send questions about arbitrability to the arbitrator. The appellate court reasoned that even if the underlying assignment is invalidated later, it would not affect whether the initial agreement to arbitrate was valid. The appellate court vacated the district court’s order denying arbitration and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to stay and refer the matter to arbitration. A dissenting judge countered that the plaintiff never signed an arbitration agreement with the defendant, and that because the underlying assignment was invalid, the plaintiff never consented to arbitration with the assignee of the contract.
WA Superior Court: Insurance commissioner overstepped in banning credit scoring in underwriting
On August 29, the Washington State Superior Court entered a final order declaring that the Washington Insurance Commissioner exceeded his authority when he issued an emergency rule earlier this year banning the use of credit-based insurance scores in the rating and underwriting of insurance for a three-year period. As previously covered by InfoBytes, several industry groups led by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) sued to stop the rule from taking effect. The rule was intended to prevent discriminatory pricing in private auto, renters, and homeowners insurance in anticipation of the end of the CARES Act, and specifically prohibited insurers from “us[ing] credit history to place insurance coverage with a particular affiliated insurer or insurer within an overall group of affiliated insurance companies.” The rule applied to all new policies effective, and existing policies processed for renewal, on or after June 20, 2021. Industry groups countered that the rule would harm insured consumers in the state who pay less for auto, homeowners, and renters insurance because of the use of credit-based insurance scores to predict risk and set rates.
According to a press release issued by APCIA, earlier this year the superior court issued a bench decision granting the trade group’s petition for a declaratory judgment and invalidating the rule. The superior court “held that the Commissioner could not rely on the more general rating standard statute that prohibited “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory” rates to “eliminate all meaning from the more specific credit history statutes by which the legislature had authorized its use.” Calling the final order “an important victory for Washington consumers, particularly lower risk senior policyholders who were forced to pay more to subsidize higher risk policyholders because the rule eliminated the use of credit,” the trade groups said they were pleased that the court agreed with their position that the Commissioner “exceeded his authority when he acted contrary to the longstanding statute that authorized the use of credit in the property and casualty insurance space.”