InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases EFTA FAQs
On December 13, the CFPB released updated Electronic Fund Transfers FAQs, which pertain to compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Subpart A to Regulation E. The updated topics include transaction coverage, financial institution coverage, error resolution, and unauthorized EFT error resolution. Highlights from the updated FAQs include:
- Person-to-person (P2P) payments can be unauthorized electronic transfers under Regulation E.
- “[A] ‘pass-through’ payment transfers funds from the consumer’s account held by an external financial institution to another person’s account held by an external financial institution,” which is “initiated through a financial institution that does not hold a consumer’s account, for example, a non-bank P2P provider.”
- “Regulation E section 1005.2(i) defines financial institution under EFTA and Regulation E to include banks, savings associations, credit unions, and: any other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or any other person that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer to provide electronic fund transfer (EFT) services.”
- “Any P2P payment provider that meets the definition of a financial institution, as discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Coverage: Financial Institutions Question 1, is a financial institution under Regulation E.” Therefore, “if a P2P payment provider directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, they are considered a financial institution under Regulation E.”
- The transfer is considered to be an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E if a consumer’s account is obtained from a third party through fraudulent means (hacking), and a hacker utilizes that information to make an unauthorized electronic transfer from the consumer’s account.
- “Although private network rules and other commercial agreements may provide for interbank finality and irrevocability, they do not reduce consumer protections against liability for unauthorized EFTs afforded by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act…. Accordingly, any financial institution in this transaction must comply with the error resolution requirements discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution Question 2, as well as the liability protections for unauthorized transfers.”
California sentences student loan debt relief scammers
On December 6, the California attorney general announced the sentencing of four individuals involved in a student loan assistance scam and related computer crimes. According to the AG, the individuals’ now-defunct company presented “itself as a legitimate source of help and feigned association with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in order to gain the trust of distressed student loan borrowers and access their personal information.” Company employees “were directed to access and disrupt student loan borrower account data, as well as create new student borrower accounts while posing as the borrowers,” which violated the state’s computer crime laws the AG stated. Borrowers were convinced to pay fees of up to $1,300 in monthly payments in order to participate in the company’s loan payment reduction programs, which offered loan deferment and income-driven repayment. However, many of the borrowers were unaware that these payment reduction programs were already offered free of charge by the Department of Education. Moreover, borrowers did not know that their monthly payments were not a subscription service or applied towards their federal student loans, but were rather payments on a high interest loan. The AG contended that borrowers were purportedly required to continue making these payments even if they attempted to cancel the company’s services, and that “to facilitate the scam, the defendants used the Federal Student Aid website to illegally access student borrower records housed in computer systems belonging to ED.” In additional to their sentences of up to 180 days in prison, community service and probation, the individuals were ordered to pay restitution to harmed borrowers.
District Court: Debt collectors may rely on information supplied by credit card issuer
On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action over an alleged disputed debt, ruling that defendants are allowed to rely on information supplied by a credit card issuer that a “debt owned has been verified and is owed.” The plaintiff opened a credit card in 2015 and stopped making payments on the card in June 2018. After she stopped making payments, the plaintiff sent notices of dispute to the credit card issuer contesting, among other things, whether the issuer owned the account, and received correspondence back from the issuer with information about where disputes about the debt should be directed. The issuer also explained that based on an investigation into her account, the issuer believed the account to be valid. Several months later, the defendants sent a demand letter on behalf of the issuer to the plaintiff using the address associated with the account, and later filed a collection lawsuit in state court seeking judgment to recover the unpaid balance.
The plaintiff sued, accusing the defendants of violating Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA when they initiated the collections action. Among other claims, the plaintiff argued that she never received the demand letter. She also contended that the defendants should have known about the disputes. The court, however, agreed with the magistrate judge’s final orders and judgment, which ruled that it is not a requirement of the FDCPA for the defendants to confirm that a notice was received as a condition of filing the state court action. According to the court, the plaintiff identified no evidence that mail sent to the address used by the defendants was returned as undeliverable. The court also agreed that the plaintiff’s notices of dispute “did not challenge that she opened the account or was responsible for the charges,” and that the defendants submitted bank statements showing that the plaintiff made payments on the account.
OCC reports on mortgage performance
On December 10, the OCC reported that 95.6 percent of first-lien mortgages were current and performing at the end of the third quarter of 2021—an increase from 92.5 percent at the end of the third quarter of 2020. According to the report, seriously delinquent mortgages declined from 3.8 percent in the prior quarter (5.8 percent a year ago) to 3.1 percent. In the third quarter of 2021, servicers initiated 925 new foreclosures, which is a 56.3 percent increase from the previous quarter and an increase of 150.7 percent compared to a year ago. The OCC noted that events related to the pandemic, such as foreclosure moratoriums, “significantly affected these metrics.” Additionally, mortgage modifications decreased 14.8 percent from the prior quarter. Of the reported 33,721 mortgage modifications, 59.6 percent reduced borrowers’ pre-modification monthly payments, while 98.3 percent were “combination modifications” that “included multiple actions affecting affordability and sustainability of the loan, such as an interest rate reduction and a term extension.”
Hsu discusses bank overdraft reform
On December 8, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the Consumer Federation of America’s 34th Annual Financial Services Conference. His remarks centered on reforming bank overdraft programs to “empower and promote financial health” of consumers. Quoting a recent Brookings Institution publication, Hsu noted, “The existing system is regressive (reverse Robin Hood), creating structural barriers and elevating costs to those on the lower end of the income spectrum, while simultaneously showering benefits to those on the upper end.” To eliminate this “regressive system,” Hsu noted that banking deposit account services need to be structured “so that they improve customers’ financial capabilities and are priced to be low to no cost.” According to Hsu, Bank On’s approach, which sets a “baseline standard for safe, affordable, and appropriate accounts that meet the needs of low-income consumers, particularly those outside of the financial mainstream,” appears to be a natural solution for decreasing the population of unbanked individuals and eliminating overdraft fees. However, Hsu also acknowledged that “limiting overdrafts may limit the financial capacity for those who need it most.”
Hsu identified several product features “that could be modified or recalibrated to support financial health” and laid out specific recommendations on the heels of the OCC’s staff review of bank overdraft programs, which he noted already align with the overdraft efforts by many banks, including (i) requiring consumers to opt in to overdrafts; (ii) providing an overdraft “grace period” prior to assessing a fee; (iii) allowing negative balances without triggering an overdraft fee; (iv) offering access to real-time account balance information and alerts; and (v) linking checking accounts to another account for overdraft protection, among others.
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
Chopra concerned about PE investment in nursing homes
On December 7, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra spoke before the Elder Justice Coordinating Council Meeting and raised concerns regarding worsening fraud, neglect, and financial exploitation in nursing homes and other for-profit facilities. Chopra discussed that financial straits due to the pandemic would continue leading to increased nursing home closures or takeovers of nursing homes by private equity investors. He noted that typically, private equity investors purchase assets, often using significant amounts of debt financing, to increase profits prior to selling the asset in a short amount of time, and warned that, due to the short investment and need to escalate profitability, “this investment approach invites aggressive strategies that warrant regulatory scrutiny.”
Citing to a recent NYU study that found private equity investments in U.S. healthcare to be on the rise, Chopra inquired whether for-profit incentives are misaligned with serving seniors well. He specifically warned that for-profit nursing homes “disproportionately lag behind their nonprofit counterparts across a broad array of measures for quality” and that “private equity owners may also have the incentive to drain financial assets from residents or increase risks of other financial exploitation.”
In conclusion, Chopra noted that he had asked the Bureau’s Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans to “identify cross-cutting consumer protection issues, including when it comes to housing, as many older Americans with substantial financial assets are a target for bad actors,” and will be working “to find systemic fixes to emerging risks, such as the encroachment of private equity into facilities serving and housing America’s older adults.”
Chopra, Hsu encourage use of special purpose credit programs
On December 6, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra released a statement regarding HUD’s guidance, also issued that day, clarifying that special purpose credit programs that conform with ECOA and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, generally do not violate the Federal Housing Act. According to HUD’s memorandum, the two statutes are complementary and “intended to harmoniously coexist.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion addressing Regulation B as it applies to certain aspects of special purpose credit programs. In his statement, Chopra encouraged creditors “to explore the opportunities available through special purpose credit programs,” which “provide targeted means by which creditors can better serve communities who have been historically shut out or otherwise disadvantaged.”
Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu also issued a statement encouraging banks and federal savings associations to “explore the opportunities available through special purpose credit programs.” Taking advantage of the special purpose credit program provisions of ECOA and Regulation B “can be a significant step in addressing the racial and ethnic homeownership and wealth gaps that persist in the United States,” Hsu stated.
CFPB finalizes LIBOR transition rule
On December 7, the CFPB issued a final rule facilitating the transition from LIBOR for consumer financial products. (Corrected rule published February 16, 2022.) The final rule amends Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to generally address LIBOR’s eventual cessation for most U.S. dollar settings in June 2023, and establishes requirements for how creditors must select replacement indices for existing LIBOR-linked consumer loans.
- Closed-end provision amendments provide examples of indices that meet certain Regulation Z standards, which may be used to replace LIBOR indices. To assist creditors in determining a comparable index for closed-end loans, the final rule identifies certain Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR)-based spread-adjusted indices recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) for consumer products. The final rule also provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for creditors to use when determining whether a replacement index meets the Regulation Z “comparable” standard.
- Updated post-consummation disclosure sample forms for certain adjustable-rate mortgage loan products replace LIBOR references with a SOFR index.
- Amendments related to open-end loans add LIBOR-specific provisions, which allow creditors for home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) and credit card issuers to transition existing accounts using a LIBOR index to a replacement index on or after April 1, 2022, provided certain conditions are met. Creditors and card issuers are provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider when determining whether a replacement index meets Regulation Z’s “historical fluctuations are substantially similar” standard. In addition to identifying certain ARRC recommended SOFR-based spread-adjusted indices for consumer products, the final rule also lists the Prime rate as an example of an index that also meets this standard.
- The final rule also addresses change-in-terms notice provisions for HELOCs and credit card accounts related to the disclosure of margin reductions once LIBOR ends. Additionally, the final rule discusses how the requirement for reevaluating rate increases on credit card accounts applies to the transition from using LIBOR indices to a replacement index.
The final rule takes effect April 1, 2022, with the exception of certain provisions related to an amendment to appendix H which is effective October 1, 2023. Additionally, while the mandatory compliance date for change-in-terms notice requirement revisions is October 1, 2022, the mandatory compliance date for all other final rule provisions is April 1, 2022. Furthermore, the Bureau “is reserving judgment about whether to include references to a 1-year USD LIBOR index and its replacement index in various comments; the Bureau will consider whether to finalize comments proposed on that issue in a supplemental final rule once it obtains additional information.”
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra warned that “[n]o new financial contracts may reference LIBOR as the relevant index after the end of 2021,” and that beginning June 2023, “LIBOR can no longer be used for existing financial contracts.” Chopra further emphasized that creditors and servicers must continue to prepare for LIBOR’s cessation and should take clear and orderly steps to reduce risk and mitigate compliance, legal, financial, and operational risks.
Nebraska creates Consumer Affairs Response Team
On December 2, the Nebraska attorney general launched the Consumer Affairs Response Team (CART) to help state residents address complaints and identify scams related to a wide range of consumer-related issues, such as fraud, identity theft, scams, and unfair and deceptive business practices. CART will accept complaints after a consumer has first made a “good-faith-effort” to resolve any issues directly with a business. If CART determines that the consumer’s complaint falls within its authority, it will engage in the dispute resolution process by facilitating communications between the consumer and the business. CART was created after the AG’s office discovered a 65 percent increase in identity theft reports as well as a 27 percent increase in fraud and other types of consumer scams.