InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB UDAAP Action Targets Payday Lender's Collection Activities
This afternoon, the CFPB announced that a nonbank consumer lender will pay $10 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in certain unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in the collection of payday loans. This action comes exactly one year after the CFPB issued guidance that it would hold supervised creditors accountable for engaging in acts or practices the CFPB considers to be unfair, deceptive, and/or abusive when collecting their own debts, in much the same way third-party debt collectors are held accountable for violations of the FDCPA.
Based on its findings during an examination of the lender, which was coordinated with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit, the CFPB alleged that the lender and its third-party vendors used false claims and threats to coerce delinquent payday loan borrowers into taking out an additional payday loan to cover their debt. The CFPB claimed that the lender trained its staff to “create a sense of urgency” for consumers in default, and that in-house and third-party vendor staff did so by (i) making an excessive number of calls to borrowers; (ii) disclosing the existence of the debt to non-liable third parties; and (iii) continuing to call borrowers at their workplaces after being told such calls were prohibited, or calling borrowers directly after they had obtained counsel.
The CFPB further alleged that some in-house staff also misrepresented the actions that third-party collectors would take after a loan was transferred for additional collection efforts, even though those actions were prohibited or limited by the lender’s own corporate policies and contracts with outside collectors. The in-house staff also allegedly falsely advised borrowers that they could not prevent the transfer of the delinquent debt to a third-party collector. In-house and third-party staff also allegedly falsely threatened delinquent borrowers with litigation or criminal prosecution, when the lender did not, as a matter of policy, pursue litigation or criminal prosecution for non-payment or permit its third-party collectors to do so.
The CFPB characterized certain of the acts as either unfair or deceptive, and stated that the lender’s efforts to create and leverage an artificial sense of urgency to induce delinquent borrowers with demonstrated inability to repay their existing loans to take out new loans with accompanying fees “took unreasonable advantage of the inability of consumers to protect their own interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service” and thereby qualify as abusive acts or practices.
The lender, in its own press release, pointed out that the CFPB’s allegations related only to collection practices prior to March 2012, and that a third-party review revealed that more than 96 percent of the lender’s calls during the review period met relevant collections standards. The lender added that it has policies that prevent delinquent borrowers from taking out new loans, and that an analysis of those policies revealed that 99.5 percent of customers with a loan in collections for more than 90 days did not take out a new loan with the lender within two days of paying off their existing loan, and 99.1 percent of customers did not take out a new loan within 14 days of paying off their existing loan. This data suggests that the CFPB’s exception tolerance for in-house collection operations is exceedingly thin.
The order requires the lender to pay $5 million in redress to eligible borrowers and a $5 million civil money penalty. The lender stressed that it cooperated fully with the CFPB, implementing recommended compliance changes and enhancements and responding to requests for documents and information. It committed to completing those corrective actions and agreed to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The action is at least the second public action taken by the CFPB against a payday lender. In November 2013 the CFPB entered a consent order to resolve so-called “robosigning” allegations against another lender. That action, which was resolved with a $5 million penalty and $14 million in restitution, also included allegations that the lender violated the Military Lending Act and engaged in certain unlawful examination conduct.
Attorney General Vows To Continue Operation Choke Point
On June 23, the DOJ released a transcript of a message delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder in which he pledged to continue investigations of financial institutions “that knowingly facilitate consumer scams, or that willfully look the other way in processing such fraudulent transactions.” These investigations are part of the DOJ’s “Operation Choke Point,” which has faced criticism from financial institutions and their advocates on Capitol Hill, and which payday lenders recently filed suit to halt. Opponents of the operation assert that the DOJ investigations, combined with guidance from prudential regulators, are targeting lawful businesses and cutting off their access to the financial system. In his remarks, the AG promised that the DOJ will not target “businesses operating within the bounds of the law,” but vowed to continue to pursue “a range of investigations into banks that illegally enable businesses to siphon billions of dollars from consumers’ bank accounts in exchange for significant fees.” Mr. Holder stated that he expects the DOJ to resolve some of these investigations in the coming months.
New York DFS Launches New Database Of Online Payday Lenders
On June 16, the New York DFS launched a new database of online lenders that have been subject to actions by DFS based on evidence of illegal payday lending, and announced that one national bank had agreed to start using the tool. The DFS believes the database will help financial institutions meet “know your customer” obligations with regard to online lenders and will help ensure that electronic payment and debit networks are not used to transmit or collect on allegedly illegal, online payday loans made to New York residents. According to the DFS, the national bank plans to use the information about companies that may be engaged in illegal lending to (i) help confirm that its merchant customers are not using their accounts to make or collect on illegal payday loans to New York consumers; and (ii) identify payday lenders that engage in potentially illegal payday loan transactions with its New York consumer account holders, and, when appropriate, contact the lenders’ banks to notify them that the transactions may be illegal. The bank also agreed to provide DFS with information about payday lending activities by lenders listed in the database, including identifying lenders that continue to engage in potentially illegal lending activities despite the DFS’s previous actions. The database announcement is just the latest step taken by the DFS with regarding to online payday lending. Over the past year, the DFS has opened numerous investigations of online lenders and has scrutinized or sought to pressure debt collectors, payment system operators, and lead generators in an attempt to halt lending practices that the DFS claims violate state licensing requirements and usury restrictions.
Louisiana Amends Consumer Lending Provisions
On June 12, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed HB 766, which requires all creditors seeking to conduct any consumer credit transaction or deferred presentment transaction to obtain a license in the state, regardless of whether they maintain an office in the state. Under current law only creditors with an office in the state are required to register. Any credit or deferred presentment transaction conducted by an unlicesened creditor will be deemed null and void. The bill retains an existing requirement that a creditor be licensed in the state before taking assignments of and undertaking direct collection of payments from or enforcing rights against consumers arising from consumer loans, but removes the requirement that such creditors maintain an office in the state. The bill makes corresponding changes to licensee recordkeeping requirements to allow licensed creditors to maintain records outside of the state. In addition, the bill (i) authorizes certain finance charges and fees in conjunction with a deferred presentment transaction or small loan; (ii) removes existing authority that allows a licensee to charge a one-time delinquency charge; (iii) allows a borrower who is unable to repay either a deferred presentment transaction or small loan when due to elect once in any 12-month period to repay the licensee the amount due by means of installments, referred to as an extended payment plan; and (iv) provides procedures, terms, and requirements for such extended payment plans. The changes take effect January 1, 2015.
Ohio Supreme Court Holds Registered Mortgage Loan Act Lenders May Make Single-Installment Loans
On June 11, the Ohio Supreme Court held that single-installment, interest bearing loans are permitted under the Mortgage Loan Act (MLA), and that the Short-Term Lender Act (STLA) does not prohibit registered MLA lenders from making such loans. Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Scott, 2013-0103, 2014 WL 2609830 (Ohio Jun. 11, 2014). In this case, an MLA-registered lender sued a borrower seeking to recover the unpaid principal balance on a single-installment loan, as well as interest and fees. The appellate court held that the MLA does not authorize payday-like single-installment loans and that, by enacting the STLA, the General Assembly intended to prohibit all loans of short duration outside the confines of the STLA. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MLA’s definition of “interest-bearing loan” does not require that such loans be multiple installment loans, and that here the loan agreement expressed the debt as the principal amount, and the interest was computed based upon the principal balance outstanding daily, in compliance with the MLA. The court also held that, although the STLA would not permit the loan at issue here because its terms would violate the STLA’s restrictions on the loan term, interest, and fees, the lender was not registered under the STLA, and nothing in the STLA limits the authority of MLA registrants to make loans permitted by the MLA.
Payday Lenders Sue Government Over Operation Choke Point
On June 5, the Community Financial Services Association and one of its short-term, small dollar lender members filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming the FDIC, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve Board have participated in Operation Choke Point “to drive [the lenders] out of business by exerting back-room pressure on banks and other regulated financial institutions to terminate their relationships with payday lenders.” The complaint asserts that the operation has resulted in over 80 banking institutions terminating their business relationships with CFSA members and other law-abiding payday lenders. The lenders claim that the regulators are using broad statutory safety and soundness authority to establish through agency guidance and other means broad requirements for financial institutions, while avoiding the public and judicial accountability the regulators would otherwise be subject to if they pursued the same policies under the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The lenders assert that in doing so, the regulators have violated the APA by (i) failing to observe its rulemaking requirements; (ii) exceeding their statutory authority; (iii) engaging in arbitrary and capricious conduct; and (iv) violating lenders’ due process rights. The lenders ask the court to declare unlawful certain agency guidance regarding third-party risk and payment processors and enjoin the agencies from taking any action pursuant to that guidance or from applying informal pressure on banks to encourage them to terminate business relationships with payday lenders.
CFPB Director Announces Prepaid Card Rule Delay, Discusses Other Initiatives
On June 10, CFPB Director Richard Cordray testified before the Senate Banking Committee in connection with the CFPB’s recently released Semiannual Report to Congress. The hearing covered a broad range of topics, including, among several others, prepaid cards, student loans, small dollar loans, and arbitration clauses.
Prepaid Cards
Director Cordray advised in response to an inquiry from Senator Menendez (D-NJ) that the CFPB’s prepaid card proposed rule, which the CFPB recently indicated could be released this month, likely will not come until the end of the summer. He reassured the Senator that the delay does not indicate any particular problem about the rulemaking, only that certain of the issues raised have been “hard to work through.”
Student Loans
Senator Menendez raised concerns about “automatic defaults” in the student loan context, an issue raised in the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman’s mid-year report on student loans. In that report, the CFPB stated, based on an unidentified number of consumer complaints, that “industry participants are automatically placing loans in default – even when a borrower is paying as agreed” – in circumstances such as when a co-signer dies or goes into bankruptcy. The Ombudsman acknowledged that financial institutions may have legitimate business purposes for exercising contractual acceleration options which demand the full balance of a loan when a borrower’s co-signer has died or filed for bankruptcy. Senator Mendendez described legislation to address the issue. Senator Brown (D-OH) also focused on student loan issues, picking up on the CFPB’s common refrain that problems in the student loans servicing market are similar to those seen in mortgage servicing. He called for the CFPB to establish student loan servicing standards. Director Cordray acknowledged that the two markets are different, but pointed to “poor customer service, problems with transfers, lack of information, and harm to consumers” as “eerie” examples of problems seen in both markets.
Small Dollar Loans
On small dollar loans, Senator Brown expressed concern that an eventual CFPB rule on traditional payday loans could lead to arbitrage and leave gaps in consumer protection related to other small dollar loans, including, for example, online loans, auto title loans, and installment loans. Director Corday described this issue as one of “extreme importance” as the CFPB addresses the small dollar loan market. He stated that implementation of the Military Lending Act has given rise to similar problems, which the CFPB is working with the Department of Defense to address. He explained that the CFPB’s process on a payday loan rule is taking longer as the Bureau attempts to deal with these issues, but believes “it's well worth a little additional time in order to make sure that what we do won't be made a mockery of by people circumventing it through just transforming their product slightly.”
Arbitration
Senator Warren (D-MA) turned her attention, which recently has focused on student loans, to the issue of arbitration. She stated that “arbitration stacks the deck against customers in favor of large corporations,” and that it is “no surprise that many big banks, and other big corporations, force customers to agree to arbitration clauses to get credit cards, or open checking accounts, knowing that this means that the customer will have no real remedy if things go wrong.” Director Cordray responded that in hearing from corporations and consumers on the issue of arbitration clauses, there is almost no relation between the two, which is contrary to CFPB’s experience on other issues. He explained that while the Dodd-Frank Act barred arbitration in mortgage contracts, he only directed the CFPB to study and consider interventions related to arbitration in other consumer finance contracts. He said the CFPB has pursued a very thorough process to conduct the required study, which the Director believes will be completed this year. Senator Warren pressed him to commit to new rules if the study presents evidence such rules are required. Director Cordray declined to describe any possible policy judgments or actions that could follow the study, but promised the CFPB will fulfill its obligation to engage in policymaking that appropriately reflects the conclusions of the study.
House Oversight Committee Choke Point Inquiry Shifts To FDIC
On June 9, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Jim Jordan (R-OH), an Oversight subcommittee chairman, sent a letter to FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg that seeks information regarding the FDIC’s role in Operation Choke Point and calls into question prior FDIC staff statements about the agency’s role. The letter asserts that documents obtained from the DOJ and recently released by the committee demonstrate that, contrary to testimony provided by a senior FDIC staff member, the FDIC “has been intimately involved in Operation Choke Point since its inception.” The letter also criticizes FDIC guidance that institutions monitor and address risks associated with certain “high-risk merchants,” which, according to the FDIC, includes firearms and ammunition merchants, coin dealers, and payday lenders, among numerous others. The letter seeks information to help the committee better understand the FDIC’s role in Operation Choke Point and its justification for labeling certain businesses as “high-risk.” For example, the letter seeks (i) all documents and communications between the FDIC and the DOJ since January 1, 2011; (ii) all FDIC documents since that time that refer to the FDIC’s 2012 guidance regarding payment processor relationships; and (iii) all documents referring to risks created by financial institutions’ relationships with firearms or ammunition businesses, short-term lenders, and money services businesses.
House Oversight Committee Report Challenges DOJ's Operation Choke Point
On May 29, the House Oversight Committee released a staff report on Operation Choke Point, DOJ’s investigation of banks and payment processors purportedly designed to address perceived consumer fraud by blocking fraudsters’ access to the payment systems. The report provides the following “key findings”: (i) the operation was created by DOJ to “choke out” companies it considers to be “high risk” or otherwise objectionable, despite the fact that those companies are legal businesses; (ii) the operation has forced banks to terminate relationships with a wide variety of lawful and legitimate merchants; (iii) DOJ is aware of these impacts and has dismissed them; (iv) DOJ lacks adequate legal authority for the initiative; and (v) contrary to DOJ’s public statements, Operation Choke Point is primarily focused on the payday lending industry, particularly online lenders. The findings are based on documents provided to the committee by DOJ, including internal memoranda and other documents that, among other things, “acknowledge the program’s impact on legitimate merchants” and show that DOJ “has radically and unjustifiably expanded its [FIRREA] Section 951 authority.” The committee released the nearly 1,000 pages of supporting documents, which are available in two parts, here and here.
California Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Tribe-Affiliated Payday Lending Case
On May 21, the California Supreme Court granted the state’s appeal of an appellate court decision that short-term, small-dollar credit businesses owned by certain federally recognized Indian tribes are sufficiently related to their respective tribes to be protected under the doctrine of tribal immunity from state regulation. California v. Miami Nation Enterprises, S216878 (Cal. May 21, 2014). Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, affirmed dismissal of a civil action filed by the Commissioner of the California Department of Corporations seeking to enforce a cease and desist order against five tribe-affiliated online lenders, holding that a business functions as an arm of the tribe if it: (i) has been formed by tribal resolution and according to tribal law, for the purpose of tribal economic development and with the clearly expressed intent by the sovereign tribe to convey its immunity to that entity; and (ii) has a governing structure both appointed by and ultimately overseen by the tribe.