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.

  • DOJ resolves SCRA violations with credit union

    Federal Issues

    On March 11, the DOJ announced a settlement with a credit union resolving allegations that the credit union violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by charging excessive interest on servicemembers’ loans and repossessing servicemembers’ cars without first obtaining a court order. According to the DOJ’s complaint, which was filed concurrently with the proposed settlement, the credit union allegedly charged interest exceeding 6 percent to 21 servicemembers who qualified for SCRA interest rate benefits. Under the SCRA, creditors are required to reduce the interest rate on retail installment sales contracts to 6 percent in certain circumstances. However, the DOJ asserted that in at least one instance, a servicemember was told that “reducing the interest rate would increase her monthly payment.” The DOJ also alleged that the credit union repossessed three servicemembers’ vehicles without court orders, including one instance where the vehicle was repossessed from a military base.

    The consent order, which is pending court approval, requires the credit union to pay nearly $70,000 to the affected servicemembers, along with a $40,000 civil penalty. The credit union is also, among other things, prohibited from (i) charging interest rate exceeding 6 percent during a period of military service; (ii) reamortizing any retail installment sales contracts connected to a request for SCRA interest rate benefits; (iii) “failing or refusing to credit early alert periods of military service when applying such benefits”; and (iv) repossessing SCRA-protected servicemembers’ vehicles without first obtaining a court order or valid SCRA waiver. The settlement also requires the credit union to review and update its SCRA policies and procedures to prevent future violations and to provide SCRA compliance training to its employees.

    Federal Issues DOJ SCRA Servicemembers Enforcement Auto Finance Settlement Consumer Finance

  • FTC fines payment processor $2.3 million for helping online discount clubs bilk consumers

    Federal Issues

    On March 10, the FTC reached a settlement with a payment processing company and two senior officers (collectively, “defendants”) whereby the company would pay $2.3 million in restitution as part of their role in allegedly helping the operators of a group of marketing entities enroll consumers into online discount clubs and debit more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership without their authorization. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC’s 2017 complaint claimed that the online discount clubs claimed to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans, but instead enrolled consumers in a coupon service that charged initial fees ranging from $49.89 to $99.49, as well as monthly recurring fees of up to $19.95. However, the FTC’s complaint stated that “99.5 percent of the consumers being illegally charged for the ‘discount clubs’ never accessed any coupons, and that tens of thousands called the defendants to try and cancel the charges, while thousands more disputed the charges directly with their banks.” The FTC accused the defendants of providing “substantial assistance or support” in the way of payment processing services while “knowing or consciously avoiding knowing” that the actions being supported were in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The FTC further detailed how defendants ignored several indications of fraudulent activity, including the consistently high return rates generated by the discount club transactions and that a primary client of their services had already been the subject of previous FTC enforcement actions for engaging in similar conduct.

    Under the terms of the settlement, which is pending court approval, the defendants are banned from, among other things, (i) processing remotely created payment orders; (ii) processing payments on behalf of clients whose business involves outbound telemarketing, discount clubs, or offers to help consumers with payday loans; (iii) processing payments on behalf of any client that the defendants know or should know is engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices or violating the TSR; and (iv) processing payments for any existing or prospective clients without first conducting a reasonable screening to ensure clients are not violating federal law.

    Federal Issues FTC Enforcement Payment Processors TSR FTC Act Consumer Finance Settlement

  • CFPB launches initiative to address financial issues facing rural communities

    Federal Issues

    On March 10, the CFPB launched an initiative focusing on financial issues facing rural communities in the U.S. Citing economic trends that have disproportionately affected rural communities over the past several decades, the Bureau stated its initial focus will center around banking deserts, discriminatory and predatory agricultural credit, and manufactured housing. Last month, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra hosted an event where individuals from organizations representing rural communities shared consumer financial concerns and discussed issues affecting the financial resilience of rural families. Among other things, attendees highlighted the issue of banking deserts caused by “stark declines in the number of banks in rural areas,” which has “led to non-bank alternatives that charge higher fees and interest rates.” Bank consolidation has also caused the loss of institutional knowledge, which in turn, has resulted in the disappearance of banking relationships, credit, small businesses, and jobs. Attendees stressed the need for Community Reinvestment Act requirements that would serve rural banking deserts, particularly in persistent poverty counties, most of which are overwhelmingly rural. Additionally, attendees raised issues related to discriminatory and predatory agricultural credit, with stakeholders pointing out that a long history of credit discrimination against Black farmers has contributed to the decline of Black farmers and Black land loss. Other stakeholders raised concerns that farmers’ obligations to banks can make them more vulnerable to exploitative arrangements with dominant agriculture firms. Manufactured housing concerns were also raised by attendees, who spoke about the lack of affordable housing in rural communities, explaining that “manufactured home parks are increasingly being bought up by private equity firms that have, in some cases, dramatically increased rents and tacked on fees in short periods of time.” The Bureau emphasized that it is “concerned about these threats to rural household financial resiliency” and has launched this initiative “to ensure that rural communities, and the people who live in them, have opportunities to build wealth and thrive.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Consumer Finance CRA Rural Communities Manufactured Housing

  • CFPB investigates employer-driven debt and the sale of workers’ personal data

    Federal Issues

    On March 9, the CFPB published findings from a recent roundtable event where worker organizations and labor unions shared their members’ financial hardships and challenges. According to the Bureau’s blog post, more workers are reporting that they are responsible for paying for employer-mandated training and equipment, causing workers to owe significant debt to their employers or third-party debt collectors and making it difficult for them to change jobs. The Bureau stated it will continue to analyze information about employer-driven debt and employer/third-party collection efforts to best determine how to address consumer harm and any potential violations of federal consumer financial law, and will participate in the Truck Leasing Task Force with the Departments of Transportation and Labor to investigate predatory financial arrangements.

    Organizations also reported concerns related to surveillance technology and the sale of personal data, including how information is being “compiled and used for decision-making that may impact workers’ financial well-being far beyond their current employers.” One participant explained that workers may not be aware that tools designed to track hours worked across different platforms also have the capability to track them outside of working hours and are selling access to their data to financial institutions, insurers, and other employers. The Bureau also heard from participants about data firms that are collecting and selling workers’ data that “may not be following the appropriate protocols for privacy and transparency.” The Bureau emphasized that it will “closely monitor and better understand this emerging market along with our federal partners and assess where provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other consumer protection laws may protect workers.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Consumer Finance Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security FCRA

  • District Court partially grants bank’s motion in TCPA case

    Courts

    On March 3, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky partially granted and partially denied a defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment in a TCPA case. According to the opinion, the plaintiff allegedly did not meet his minimum monthly credit card payments, so the defendant began conducting debt collection calls. The defendant allegedly attempted 574 communications via phone call, prerecorded messages, or text messages, including 111 prerecorded messages, during a 7-month period.

    The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the TCPA by contacting him using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) before and after he allegedly revoked consent to be contacted. The district court held that the telephone system used by the defendant to contact the plaintiff did not qualify as an ATDS under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook v. Duguid (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert here), which narrowed the definition of an ATDS under the TCPA. The court was “not persuaded by [the plaintiff’s] argument that [the telephone system] is an ATDS simply because it has the ‘capacity to store telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator, and then to dial those numbers without human intervention.’”

    The plaintiff also argued that the defendant violated the TCPA by sending the 111 prerecorded messages. The court determined that while the plaintiff had initially consented to being contacted by the defendant when he provided his telephone number to create his account, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the plaintiff subsequently revoked his consent. Even though the defendant submitted seven call recordings between itself and the plaintiff in support of its argument that the plaintiff did not specifically revoke consent, the court explained that “the evidence could lead reasonable minds to differ,” including the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, his request to have information sent to him via mail, his refusal to talk to a collector and hanging up the phone on a subsequent call, and his failure to answer the phone when the defendant called.

    Courts TCPA Autodialer U.S. Supreme Court Debt Collection Consumer Finance

  • FTC settles with online stock trading site

    Federal Issues

    On March 8, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with an online stock trading site and its operators (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using earnings claims to mislead consumers into signing up for services, which led them into long-term subscription plans. The FTC filed a complaint in 2020 as part of an initiative called “Operation Income Illusion,” which encompasses more than 50 enforcement actions against alleged scams targeting consumers with false promises of income and financial independence (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated the FTC Act, among other laws, by falsely marketing investment-related services by claiming that “consumers who purchase [the defendants'] services will earn or are likely to earn substantial income.” Additionally, according to the press release, the defendants featured testimonials from purported customers claiming they made “[$]6500.00 in 20 minutes” and “$500 in 15 min[utes],” and allegedly attempted to profit off the Covid-19 pandemic, with a “guru” claiming that he could “rack up nearly $500K in profits by trading stocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the defendants, among other requirements: (i) must pay a fine of over $2.4 million to the FTC: (ii) are prohibited from making claims regarding potential earnings without having written evidence that those claims are typical for consumers; and (iii) are prohibited from making claims misrepresenting that purchasers can be successful in trading regardless of their experience, the amount of capital they have to invest, or the amount of time they spend trading.

    Federal Issues FTC Enforcement Consumer Finance FTC Act Covid-19

  • District Court partially grants defendant’s motion in FCRA case

    Courts

    On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied in part and granted in part a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an FCRA case. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs applied for a loan at a bank to refinance their home mortgage and the bank then engaged a service agency (defendant) to conduct a public records search and provide a report on the plaintiffs. To prepare the report, the defendant allegedly engaged an independent contractor to conduct a physical search of both the open judgment directory and the municipal lien directory. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s report “erroneously” listed outstanding civil judgments against them and that defendant refused to investigate the alleged inaccuracies. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing a consumer report and by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the plaintiffs’ dispute.

    The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was not subject to the FCRA as a matter of law since it was not a consumer reporting agency and that it did not supply “consumer reports” within the meaning of the FCRA. Additionally, the defendant claimed that even if it was subject to the FCRA, no reasonable juror could find that it violated either of those FCRA provisions. The district court found that the defendant is a “consumer reporting agency” under FCRA because its operations met the statutory definition. The court partially granted the defendant’s summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims that it willfully violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the plaintiffs’ dispute.

    Courts FCRA Consumer Reporting Consumer Reporting Agency Consumer Finance

  • Biden announces National Consumer Protection Week

    Federal Issues

    On March 4, President Biden proclaimed March 6 - 12, 2022, as National Consumer Protection Week. According to the press release, Biden called on government officials, industry leaders, and advocates in the U.S. to share information on consumer protection and to provide citizens with information about their rights as consumers. He noted that during the week, “we recommit ourselves to those basic rights, to protecting consumers, to raising awareness about bad actors and deceptive practices in the marketplace, and to empowering people to make informed financial decisions so that our economy works for everyone.”

    Federal Issues Biden Consumer Protection Consumer Finance

  • New York college to cancel $20 million in unpaid loans

    State Issues

    On March 2, the New York City mayor announced an agreement with a for-profit college resolving allegations that it violated various provisions of New York consumer protection laws. According to the press release, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection filed the lawsuit against the defendant in 2018, claiming that it, among other things: (i) collected debts that were not owed; (ii) concealed its identity from former students when collecting debts; and (iii) falsely misrepresented when debts were accrued on official documents. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the defendant is required to cease collecting outstanding student loans incurred prior to January 2019, which are estimated to be valued at approximately $20 million. The defendant must also pay  $350,000 in restitution, establish polices related to communicating with students about debt owed to the college, and ensure that the statutes of limitation on debt collection are observed.

    State Issues New York Student Lending Debt Collection Enforcement Consumer Finance

  • Biden to streamline medical debt forgiveness for veterans

    Federal Issues

    On March 1, President Biden announced that veterans will be able to apply for medical debt forgiveness under a new streamlined process in 90 to 120 days. According to the White House press release, the current process for veterans who are entitled to medical debt forgiveness is complicated, confusing, and time consuming, and may deter veterans from applying for relief. To streamline the medical debt forgiveness request process, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will provide an online option for veterans and set a simple income threshold for receiving relief. The announcement follows a final rule issued by the VA last month, which amended its regulations around the conditions by which VA benefits debts or medical debts are reported to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), and created a methodology for determining a minimum threshold for debts reported to the CRAs. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)

    Federal Issues Biden Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Debt Consumer Finance

Pages

Upcoming Events