InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC releases January enforcement actions
On January 17, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included is a notice of charges seeking cease and desist orders against three subsidiary banks of the same bank holding company (see here, here, and here), which alleged that each bank engaged in unsafe or unsound practices relating to an investment strategy concentrated in long-term securities. The unsafe practices, the OCC explained, exposed each bank to excessive interest rate risk without adequate sources of contingency funding and contingency capital. The OCC further alleged that each bank failed to mitigate such risk in a timely manner.
CFPB issues two opinions that stress FCRA compliance for consumer reporting companies
On January 11, the CFPB issued two advisory opinions to consumer reporting companies, reminding them of FCRA obligations. The first advisory opinion addresses background screening companies and inaccuracies that appear on consumer reports. The CFPB highlights how some consumer reporting companies will use a disposition date to start the seven-year reporting period for records of arrests and other non-conviction record information, instead of “date of entry,” resulting in consumer reports including older information than FCRA permits.
Consumer reporting companies must begin the seven-year time limit for criminal charges from the time of the original charge if a person is found not guilty. The CFPB added that inaccurate consumer reports can impact consumer access to employment and housing, and they require consumers to engage in a lengthy process to correct inaccuracies. This advisory opinion underscores that consumer reporting agencies must employ reasonable procedures to ensure accurate reporting, in line with FCRA obligations. Additionally, when reporting public record information, companies should avoid duplicative or legally restricted data and include disposition information for arrests, charges, or court filings.
The second advisory opinion addresses file disclosure obligations under the FCRA and clarifies that consumers can trigger a consumer reporting agency’s file disclosure requirement without using specific language like “complete file.” The opinion further confirms that consumer reporting companies must disclose both the original source and all intermediary or vendor sources that have furnished information to the CRA. To meet FCRA standards, a file disclosure must be understandable to the average consumer, helping them identify inaccuracies, dispute incomplete or incorrect information, and understand the impact of adverse information. The FCRA requires consumer reporting companies to provide a disclosure reflecting the information given or potentially given to a user, including presenting criminal history information in the format seen by users, enabling consumers to check for inaccuracies and dispute any errors.
The CFPB interprets the requirement to disclose “all information in the consumer’s file,” to include information that formed the basis of any summarized information that a CRA provided to a user. The CFPB also warns that the FCRA stipulates that “‘any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to’ actual or statutory damages” up to $1,000 per violation, punitive damages as determined by the court, and associated costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
26 State Attorneys General opine on FCC’s Notice of Inquiry regarding AI telemarketing
On January 17, the State Attorneys General from 26 states submitted reply comments to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry (the Notice) on how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are impacting consumers. The information gleaned in response to the Notice is intended to help the FCC better protect consumers from AI-generated telemarketing in violation of the TCPA. The State AGs urged that any AI-generated voice should be considered an “artificial voice” under the TCPA to avoid “opening the door to potential, future rulemaking proceedings” that allow telemarketing agencies to use AI-assisted technologies in outbound calls without the prior written consent of a consumer.
Bank to pay $1.9 million to resolve redlining suit
On January 17, the DOJ announced a $1.9 million settlement with a national bank resolving allegations that the bank engaged in unlawful redlining in Memphis, Tennessee by intentionally not providing home loans and mortgage services to majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, thereby violating the Fair Housing Act, ECOA, and Regulation B. In the complaint, the DOJ alleged that from 2015 through at least 2020, the bank (i) concentrated marketing and maintained nearly all its branches in majority-white neighborhoods; (ii) was aware of its redlining risk and failed to address said risk; (iii) generated disproportionately low numbers of loan applications and home loans during the relevant period from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis, compared to similarly-situated lenders; (iv) maintained practices that denied equal access to home loans for those in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and otherwise “discouraged” those individuals from applying; and others.
Under the consent order, which is subject to court approval, the bank will, among other things, invest $1.3 million in a loan subsidy fund to enhance home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinancing access in the specified neighborhoods. The bank will also allocate $375,000 in advertising, outreach, and financial counseling to specified neighborhoods, and allocate $225,000 to community partnerships for services boosting residential mortgage credit access in the specified areas. Additionally, the bank will assign at least two mortgage loan officers to serve majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the bank’s service area and appoint a Director of Community Lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color.
The Corporate Transparency Act: FinCEN Finalizes Beneficial Ownership Information Access Rule as Reporting Rule Takes Effect
The U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule (the Access Rule) regarding access to and use of beneficial ownership information (BOI) maintained by FinCEN.
The Access Rule details the circumstances under which FinCEN can disclose BOI to authorized recipients. It also spells out how FinCEN will protect that information and outlines data protection protocols and oversight mechanisms for those who receive beneficial ownership information. The rule takes effect February 20, 2024. It is the second of three FinCEN rulemakings to implement the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).
The first rule, the Beneficial Ownership Reporting Rule, took effect January 1, 2024. As covered previously, it requires certain domestic and foreign companies created, or registered to conduct business, in the United States to report information to FinCEN regarding their beneficial owners – individuals who directly or indirectly own or control 25 percent or more of the ownership interests of a reporting company or who exercise substantial control over such an entity.
Fed Governor Bowman highlights her 2024 “New Year’s resolutions” for banking policymakers
On January 8, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Michelle W. Bowman delivered a speech at a community bankers conference on the banking regulatory highlights of 2023, as well as three “New Year’s resolutions” that she would like to see policy makers implement in 2024. The speech first covered highlights of this past year’s banking regulatory environment, including the changes in the federal funds rate, the risk of inflation among food and energy markets, the Basel III Endgame requirements, and new guidance on third-party risk management practices.
Governor Bowman also highlighted her list of three New Years Resolutions, including (i) prioritizing banking safety and soundness; (ii) a renewed commitment to tailoring the prudential regulatory framework to the size of the institution; and (iii) increasing transparency in supervisory expectations. Bowman also focused on the new climate guidance, as covered by InfoBytes here, which she posits a lost focus by the federal banking agencies. Bowman closed by commenting on the lasting impact of changes to the banking system and bank regulatory framework, requesting that bankers and other interested stakeholders to share their views and concerns broadly, including to regulators, and expressing her hope that policymakers have the humility and courage to acknowledge consequences and change course as needed.
OCC issues State Small Business Credit Initiative 2.0 FAQs
On January 8, the OCC issued Bulletin 2024-1, which provides responses to frequently asked questions regarding the state small business credit initiative (SSBCI). The SSBCI, run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, facilitates access to capital for small businesses, supports credit and investment programs, and offers technical assistance for applying to SSBCI funding and other government programs. The FAQs address a variety of topics, including the types of credit and investment programs states may set up, including collateral support programs, capital access programs, and loan guarantee programs, among others; criteria to qualify as “underserved” for access to the credit; treatment of certain funds; program descriptions; and whether loans made through the program could be considered for Community Reinvestment Act purposes.
Fed’s Barr speaks at fireside chat, underscores the importance of public comment
On January 9, Fed Vice Chair of Supervision Michael S. Barr delivered remarks at an event held by Women in Housing and Finance, during which he discussed consumer credit, bank supervision, DEI issues, capital issues, bank regulation and more. Barr began by addressing current risks that the Fed is focused on mitigating, which included efforts surrounding the Community Reinvestment Act final rule and the Basel III Endgame proposal. The Fed, he said, has been receiving many comments on the proposal, which will help ensure the “balance” is right on the final capital rule. There is one more week before the comment period closes, he added.
Barr also discussed the second quantitative impact study the Fed is conducting to ensure accuracy and help shape the final version of the Basel III proposal. He noted that the Fed conducted the first study a “few years ago” to inform the first proposal. He mentioned that the Fed is collecting information and will be publishing their aggregated analysis for public comment. Barr also discussed comments considering whether the Fed should adjust for historical losses based on particular firms, or if there should be standardized accountability for all risk.
In response to questions from the moderator, Barr opined that the capital rules in the Basel III proposal would have a modest impact on the affordability and accessibility of mortgage credit and consumer credit. He conceded that the proposal’s impact would create higher costs, but that the impacts on consumers would be “very very small.” Barr also invited commenters to inform the Fed about the impacts. On international competition, Barr also noted that the higher capital standards would not detrimentally impact the U.S. banking system.
When asked about the Fed’s Bank Term Funding Program, made available by the Fed, FDIC, and Treasury last spring, Barr said banks and credit unions are still leveraging the program today. He explained that the “program was really designed in that emergency situation … to make sure that banks[,] and creditors of banks[,] and depositors [in] banks understand that banks have the liquidity they need.”
FTC acts against fintech app for misrepresentations made about cash advances
On January 2, the FTC issued a complaint and stipulated order against a personal finance mobile application that offers its users short-term cash advances through “floats.” According to the complaint, the defendant misrepresented its claims to induce users into enrolling in a subscription plan. Specifically, the defendant advertised that its users could instantly receive a cash advance larger than available, claimed cash advance limits would increase over time, and promised to make cash available “instantly” for no extra fee.
According to the complaint, employees have admitted that the defendant company “lie[s]” to users. Users allegedly received misleading advertisements that stated how cash advances or “floats” constitute “free money” when there is actually a $1.99 subscription fee listed in tiny font. Additionally, the defendant advertised that users would receive “money in minutes” for “free” with “no hidden fees” despite having to pay a hidden $4 fee to receive their money instantly. The FTC alleges from user responses that many of them would have not enrolled in this program had they known they would be advanced less than promised. Further, the FTC alleges the defendant discriminates against consumers by categorically refusing to provide cash advances to consumers who receive public assistance benefits or derive income from gig work––even after they pay subscription fees.
Under this order, the FTC found the defendant violated the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), as well as ECOA and its implementing rule, Regulation B. The stipulated order, which names the company’s cofounders in addition to the company itself, prohibits the company from further misrepresentations, requires implementation of a fair lending program, requires a simple cancellation mechanism, and provides for a monetary judgment of $3 million.
FTC alleges data broker company mishandled consumer location data
On January 9, the FTC released a proposed order and complaint against a data broker that sells consumer location data to companies. According to the complaint, which alleges seven violations of the FTC Act, the data broker company had no policies or procedures in place to remove any of the raw data from the location data sets that it sold, which could be used to identify sensitive personal information. The FTC alleges that because of this, the data broker company failed to provide “necessary technical safeguards” to ensure that consumers’ privacy choices were honored. The FTC also alleges that the data broker’s contracts with entities to purchase the data were “insufficient to protect consumers from the substantial injury caused by the collection, transfer, and use of the consumers’ location data” as they visit sensitive locations, such as churches, healthcare facilities, and schools.
The data broker company collected 10 billion location data points daily worldwide throughout its apps, but it failed to inform its consumers that it sold this data to advertisers, employers, or government contractors. The FTC further alleges that the data broker’s business practices are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers due to its lack of reasonable data security measures.
According to the proposed order, the company must comply with FTC mandates that include requiring it to prohibit misrepresentations using the data, prohibit the use, sale, or disclosure of sensitive location data, and implement a sensitive location data program. The data broker neither admits nor denies any wrongdoing and the FTC did not levy a money judgment.