InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB investigates employer-driven debt and the sale of workers’ personal data
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.”
District Court partially grants bank’s motion in TCPA case
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.
FTC settles with online stock trading site
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.
District Court partially grants defendant’s motion in FCRA case
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.
Biden announces National Consumer Protection Week
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.”
New York college to cancel $20 million in unpaid loans
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.
Biden to streamline medical debt forgiveness for veterans
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.)
VA updates loan repayment relief for Covid-19 borrowers
On February 28, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued changes updating Circular 26-21-07 to address loan repayment relief for borrowers affected by Covid-19. The circular is “Change 2” of the original circular issued in June 2021, which, among other things, provided servicers with information regarding home retention options and foreclosure alternatives for impacted borrowers. The guidance stems from the extended duration of the pandemic and developments in the VA’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here). The circular is now effective until July 2023.
District Court rules apps’ terms of service hyperlinks were clear and conspicuous
On February 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that parties must arbitrate class claims concerning alleged fraudulent transactions on app users’ accounts. Plaintiffs—users of the defendants’ mobile payment platform who claimed that third parties fraudulently withdrew funds from their app accounts—alleged that the defendants’ inadequate dispute resolution process “improperly places the burden on the user to prove that a disputed transaction was unauthorized” in violation of the EFTA and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. Defendants, however, countered that the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate any disputes related to their app accounts, and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The court analyzed the applicable sign-up flows and ruled that in signing up for the apps, users agreed to unambiguous terms of service, which included an arbitration agreement presented in a clickable hyperlinked URL. The court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that a reasonably prudent smartphone user would not think to click on the terms of service hyperlink, stating that the hyperlink for both apps provided reasonably clear and conspicuous interfaces. The court further found that the claims were subject to arbitration because plaintiffs’ specifically assented to the arbitration provisions and that the parties’ agreed to present any question of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
New Mexico caps interest rates on small-dollar loans at 36%
On March 1, the New Mexico governor signed HB 132, which amends certain provisions related to the state’s small dollar lending requirements. Among other things, the bill makes several amendments to the New Mexico Bank Installment Loan Act of 1959 (BILA) and the New Mexico Small Loan Act of 1955 (SLA) by raising the maximum installment loan amount to $10,000 and providing the following: (i) “no lender shall make a loan pursuant to the [BILA] to a borrower who is also indebted to that lender pursuant to the [SLA] unless the loan made pursuant to the [SLA] is paid and released at the time the loan is made”; (ii) only federally insured depository institutions may make a loan under the BILA with an initial stated maturity of less than one hundred twenty days; (iii) a lender that is not a federally insured depository institution may not make a loan under the BILA “unless the loan is repayable in a minimum of four substantially equal installment payments of principal and interest”; and (iv) lenders, aside from federally insured depository institutions, may not make a loan with an annual percentage rate (APR) greater than 36 percent (a specified APR increase is permitted if the prime rate of interest exceeds 10 percent for three consecutive months). When calculating the APR, a lender must include finance charges as defined in Regulation Z “for any ancillary product or service sold or any fee charged in connection or concurrent with the extension of credit, any credit insurance premium or fee and any charge for single premium credit insurance or any fee related to insurance.” Excluded from the calculation are fees paid to public officials in connection with the extension of credit, including fees to record liens, and fees on a loan of $500 or less, provided the fee does not exceed five percent of the loan’s total principal and is not imposed on a borrower more than once in a twelve-month period.
The act also expands the SLA’s scope on existing anti-evasion provisions to specify that a person may not make small dollar loans in amounts of $10,000 or less without first having obtained a license from the director. The amendments also expand the scope of the anti-evasion provisions to include (i) the “making, offering, assisting or arranging a debtor to obtain a loan with a greater rate of interest . . . through any method, including mail, telephone, internet or any electronic means, regardless of whether the person has a physical location in the state”; and (ii) “a person purporting to act as an agent, service provider or in another capacity for another entity that is exempt from the [SLA]” provided the person meets certain specified criteria, such as “the person holds, acquires or maintains, directly or indirectly, the predominate economic interest in the loan” or “the totality of the circumstances indicate that the person and the transaction is structured to evade the requirements of the [SLA].” Under the act, a violation of a provision of the SLA that constitutes either an unfair or deceptive trade practice or an unconscionable trade practice is actionable under the Unfair Practices Act.
The act also makes various amendments to a licensees’ books and records requirements to facilitate the examinations and investigations conducted by the Director of the Financial Institutions Division of the Regulation and Licensing Department. Failure to comply may result in the suspension of a license. Additionally, the act provides numerous amended licensing reporting requirements concerning the loan products offered by a licensee, average repayment times, and “the number of borrowers who extended, renewed, refinanced or rolled over their loans prior to or at the same time as paying their loan balance in full, or took out a new loan within thirty days of repaying that loan,” among other things. The act also outlines credit reporting requirements, advertising restrictions, and requirements for the making and paying of small dollar loans, including specific limitations on charges after judgment and interest.
The act takes effect January 1, 2023.