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.

  • CFPB releases report on credit card late fees

    Federal Issues

    On March 29, the CFPB released a report analyzing credit card late fees. Using three data sources to study the consumer impact of and industry reliance on late fees, the report found that credit card issuers charged approximately $12 billion in 2020. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires that late fees be “reasonable and proportional,” and its implementing regulation (Regulation Z) sets a “safe harbor” for certain fee amounts, which are adjusted by the CFPB annually for inflation. The report described that these limits have increased to $30 for the first late payment and $41 for a subsequent late payment within 6 billing cycles. The Bureau noted that Congress transferred provisional authority to the CFPB, who “expects many major card issuers to hike fees further, based on inflation, given the existing reliance on the immunity provisions in the marketplace.” Other significant findings of the report include, among other things, that: (i) the average deep subprime account was charged $138 in late fees in 2019, compared with $11 for the average superprime account; (ii) credit card accounts held by consumers living in the United States’ poorest neighborhoods paid approximately twice as much on average in total late fees than those living in the richest areas in 2019; (iii) late fee volume decreased when stimulus checks arrived in 2020 and 2021, particularly in households with lower credit scores; and (iv) “[l]ate fees account for a greater share of charges for issuers who service a higher percentage of subprime accounts at almost 20 percent of total interest and fees.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Consumer Finance Credit Cards CARD Act Fees

  • OCC launches Dallas REACh

    On March 28, the OCC announced the launch of Dallas REACh, which expands the OCC’s Project REACh (Roundtable for Economic Access and Change) efforts to Dallas, Texas, representing the agency’s fourth regional effort. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020, the OCC launched this initiative to promote greater financial inclusion of underserved populations. According to the OCC, Project REACh brings together leaders from the banking industry, national civil rights organizations, and various businesses and technology organizations who will identify and reduce barriers to accessing capital and credit. The OCC further noted that Dallas REACh “will organize and initiate formal efforts to reduce financial barriers that include low rates of affordable homeownership, poor access to capital for minority-owned and small businesses, and underinvestment into trusted community institutions, such as minority depository institutions.” According to remarks by acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu at the launch of Dallas REACh, the agency is “excited to expand our efforts into the Dallas community, supporting local leaders, banks, and businesses as they discuss needs and work to address impediments to financial inclusion.”

    Bank Regulatory Federal Issues OCC Underserved Texas Consumer Finance

  • OCC’s Hsu warns banks not to be the last to update overdraft programs

    On March 28, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu warned banks that they “don’t want to be the last bank with a traditional overdraft program.” Hsu’s op-ed pointed to recent overdraft reforms taken by several OCC-regulated banks that may end up saving consumers more than $2 billion annually. Recognizing that these reforms are “just the start,” Hsu stressed that “[b]anks that hesitate to adopt pro-consumer overdraft programs will soon be negative outliers.” Hsu outlined several points banks should consider when implementing overdraft changes, including taking a “customer-oriented approach” and implementing meaningful changes with lasting benefits to both customers and the bank, rather than “taking a profit-oriented approach and reverse engineering costs to meet predetermined revenue targets.” Banks should also “use data to identify the reforms that help customers the most,” Hsu stated, including “grace periods that give customers time to cover overdrafts and avoid fees, grace amounts that allow customers to overdraft by certain amounts without a fee, and changes in posting order, i.e., the sequence in which payments are made, to limit repeat fees.” Additionally, banks should build on the “pro-customer” overdraft reform momentum when developing small dollar lending capabilities and considering other products, such as buy now/pay later and earned-wage access products. “The cumulative effect of these pro-consumer initiatives holds the promise of materially and sustainably improving the financial health of underserved populations and, by doing so, fortifying banks’ reputation for treating all customers, including the most financially vulnerable, fairly and thus earning their long-term trust,” Hsu said.

    Bank Regulatory Federal Issues OCC Overdraft Consumer Finance

  • District Court denies defendant’s MSJ in TCPA claim regarding plaintiff’s consent

    Courts

    On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding alleged TCPA violations and dismissed a plaintiff’s FDCPA claim against a debt collector. According to the memorandum, after the plaintiff was hospitalized, she was billed for the balance of her debt once insurance payments were credited to her account. The hospital called the plaintiff to collect the balance and later placed the account with the defendant, who then called the plaintiff eight times, leaving a pre-recorded message, and sent one text message. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to send a validation notice and violated the TCPA because she revoked consent to be contacted when the hospital originally called her. As a “unique posture,” according to the district court, the plaintiff claimed to not have standing to pursue the FDCPA claim while the defendant insisted that she did. The plaintiff contended that while she felt “anxiety” when “having to relive the car accident,” “[t]hese are not damages that create injuries-in-fact for purposes of standing under the FDCPA.” The district court agreed and dismissed the FDCPA claim. As for the TCPA claim, the defendant argued both that the plaintiff could not revoke consent to be contacted because she signed a consent form at the hospital and that there was no evidence consent was revoked when she was contacted by the hospital. The plaintiff testified that she spoke with an agent of the hospital, disclosed to the agent that she was not responsible for the balance, and requested to be placed on the do-not-call list. Determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff’s consent, the district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the TCPA claim

    Courts Debt Collection Consumer Finance TCPA FDCPA

  • Idaho places restrictions on automatic subscription renewals

    State Issues

    On March 23, the Idaho governor signed SB 1298, adding new provisions to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive trade practices with respect to automatic subscription renewals entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2023. Specifically, a seller may not make an automatic subscription renewal offer to an Idaho resident unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses the terms of the renewal and provides specific cancellation methods. The bill provides that notice must be given to the consumer at least thirty days and no more than sixty days in advance of the date of the delivery or provision of goods or services. Additionally, sellers must provide the same method for cancellation (including free online cancellation) as used by the consumers to subscribe. A violation of the bill’s provisions constitutes a violation of the Idaho consumer protection act.

    State Issues State Legislation Idaho Consumer Finance UDAP

  • DFPI releases report one year after enactment of CCFPL

    State Issues

    On March 24, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a statutory report regarding measures the Department has taken since expanding its authority under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1864, enacting the CCFPL, which, among other things: (i) established UDAAP authority for DFPI; (ii) authorized DFPI to impose penalties of $2,500 for “each act or omission” in violation of the law without a showing that the violation was willful, arguably representing an enhancement of the Department of Business Oversight’s enforcement powers in contrast to Dodd-Frank and existing California law; and (iii) provided that administration of the law will be funded through the fees generated by the new registration process as well as fines, penalties, settlements, or judgments. According to the report, over the past year DFPI has collected nearly $1 million in restitution for consumers, fielded hundreds of additional complaints related to the law, and launched more than 100 investigations. DFPI also created new divisions which expanded oversight and outreach, including the Consumer Financial Protection Division, Office of Financial Technology Innovation, Office of the Ombuds, and a Targeted Outreach Team responsible for working with historically underserved communities that include veterans, senior citizens, students, and immigrants. Other key takeaways from the report include, among other things, that DFPI (i) issued four invitations for comments to solicit stakeholder feedback on various aspects of implementation of the CCFPL and received 76 comment letters; (ii) opened 106 investigations that resulted in 49 public actions under the CCFPL; and (iii) established a research team to help identify emerging financial activities; scout for unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices; and make policy recommendations based on consumer impact.

    State Issues DFPI California Consumer Finance CCFPL UDAAP

  • District Court approves $50 million class action settlement over recorded calls

    Courts

    On Auguts 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved a class action settlement, resolving allegations that a call center hired by a national bank and its merchant processing servicer (collectively, “defendants”) violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by recording calls without receiving customers’ permission. According to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, a lawsuit was filed in 2016 on behalf of a proposed class of small businesses in California who received calls from call center companies attempting to sell credit and debit card payment processing services, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were in a principal-agent relationship with the companies that violated the CIPA by recording telemarketing calls without any warning that the recording was occurring. As previously covered by InfoBytes, class members, comprising California businesses who did not sign a contract for merchant processing services with the servicer, filed suit against another national bank in 2016 claiming the call center placed sales appointment calls to the businesses without disclosing that the calls were being recorded. The preliminarily approved settlement in that case required the defendants to pay $28 million, of which up to $5,000 was paid for each eligible call that a class member received during the class period, which was estimated to be 192,836 individuals. The recent preliminarily approved settlement will require the defendants to pay $50 million, of which up to $5,000 will be paid for each eligible call that a class member received during the class period.

    Courts Settlement Class Action State Issues California Consumer Finance

  • CFPB reports cover mortgage challenges, emergency savings

    Federal Issues

    On March 23, the CFPB released two reports, New Data on the Characteristics of Mortgage Borrowers During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Savings and Financial Security: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB first released Characteristics of Mortgage Borrowers During the COVID-19 Pandemic in May 2021, which analyzed mortgage borrowers’ challenges due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The recently released report explores the characteristics of borrowers who are delinquent or in forbearance based a sample of more than 2 million loans for owner-occupied properties. The report shows, among other things, that Black and Hispanic borrowers are more at risk of poor outcomes than others, as they comprised 31.2 percent of borrowers in forbearance while only constituting 18.2 percent of the overall sample of mortgage borrowers. The report also found that single borrower loans were approximately 1.6 times more likely to be in forbearance through January 2022, compared to loans with a co-borrower, which is an increase relative to March 2021, where single borrowers were only 1.4 times more likely to be in forbearance compared to co-borrowers.

    The Emergency Savings and Financial Security Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel report examines how consumers’ financial profiles vary by levels of emergency savings. Using the Making Ends Meet survey and pairing it with credit bureau data from our Consumer Credit Panel, the report found that, among other things: (i) approximately 24 percent of consumers do not have savings set aside for emergencies, “while 39 percent have less than a month of income saved for emergencies and 37 percent have at least a month of income saved for emergencies,” and (ii) “41 percent of consumers with no more than a high school or vocational degree have no emergency savings, [while] the share is 6 percent for those with a college degree.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Covid-19 Consumer Finance Mortgages

  • District Court denies motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

    Courts

    On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a suit alleging that they misrepresented the cost of immigration bond services and deceived migrants to keep them paying monthly fees, including by making false threats of deportation for failure to pay. The defendants argued that “the CFPB lacks authority to exercise any power to enforce the CFPA with respect to [the defendants] because these corporations are regulated by state insurance regulators (12 U.S.C. § 5517(f)) and are merchants, retailors, or sellers of nonfinancial goods or services.” However, the district court noted that “limitations on the CFPB’s regulatory authority do not equate to limitations on this court’s jurisdiction.” The defendants also argued “that the exclusions to CFPB jurisdiction enumerated in the CFPA are jurisdictional limits on the court.” The district court found the defendants were “mistaken” and that “Congress did not expressly state that any threshold limitation on the CFPA’s scope shall count as jurisdictional limitations on the court. For these reasons, the court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.”

    As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the defendants’ request to enforce a modified Civil Investigative Demand (CID) and prevent the CFPB from obtaining personal information about the defendants’ clients via CIDs to third parties. In August 2017, the CFPB issued a CID to the defendants requesting various documents and information. The CFPB filed the present lawsuit in February 2021.

    Courts CFPB Enforcement CFPA Consumer Finance CIDs

  • District Court enters $2.8 million judgment in CFPB student debt relief action

    Courts

    On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. Amended complaints (see here and here) also added new defendants and included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, among other things. A stipulated final judgment and order was entered against the named defendant in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states. The court also previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants and a settlement with two non-parties (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, here, and here).

    The final judgment issued against the settling defendant, who neither admitted nor denied the allegations except as specifically stated, permanently bans the defendant from participating in telemarking services or offering or selling debt-relief services, and prohibits it from misrepresenting benefits consumers may receive from a product or service. The defendant is also permanently restrained from violating applicable state laws, and may not disclose, use, or benefit from customer information obtained in connection with the offering or providing of the debt relief services. The settlement orders the defendant to pay more than $2.8 million in consumer redress, as well as a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau and $5,000 to each of the three states.

    Courts CFPB Enforcement State Attorney General State Issues CFPA UDAAP Telemarketing Sales Rule FDCPA Student Lending Debt Relief Consumer Finance Settlement

Pages

Upcoming Events