InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Supplement marketer again settles with FTC over negative option marketing
On September 22, the FTC announced a $1.04 million settlement with a supplement marketer and its two officers (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants engaged in deceptive sales and billing practices, in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and a previous court order. Previously, in 2016, the marketer entered into a settlement with the FTC covering allegations that the company engaged in negative option marketing by enrolling consumers in a membership program that billed up to $79.99 monthly unless the consumers canceled within an 18-day trial period. The 2016 settlement barred the company from, among other things, (i) obtaining consumers’ billing information without first disclosing they would be charged, that the charge would increase after a certain period, or that the charge would be reoccurring; (ii) obtaining payment from consumers without express written authorization; and (iii) failing to provide a simple way for consumers to cancel.
According to the FTC’s new complaint, from 2016 to 2019, the defendants violated the previous consent order, ROSCA, and TSR by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose that in order to cancel, consumers must contact the company “at least one day before the end of the advertised Free Trial Period to avoid being charged for the monthly membership program.” The agreed-upon proposed contempt order requires the defendants to pay nearly $1.04 million to be used for equitable relief, including consumer redress.
FTC settles first consumer protection case against a VoIP service provider
On September 22, the FTC and the Ohio attorney general announced several proposed stipulated final orders against a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service provider, along with an affiliated company, the VoIP service provider’s former CEO and president, and a number of other subsidiaries and individuals, to settle allegations concerning their facilitation of a credit card interest rate reduction scheme. This marks the FTC’s first consumer protection case against a VoIP service provider. According to the FTC and the AG, the VoIP service provider provided one of the defendants with the ability to place illegal robocalls in order to market “phony credit card interest rate reduction services.” Both of these defendants were controlled by the VoIP service provider’s former CEO who was also named in the lawsuit. In addition, the defendant that placed the illegal calls, along with four additional defendants, are accused of managing the overseas call centers and other components used in the credit card interest rate reduction scheme.
One of the settlements will prohibit the former CEO, along with two corporations under his control, from (i) participating in any telemarketing in the U.S.; (ii) marketing any debt relief products or services; and (iii) making misrepresentations when selling or marketing any products or services. These defendants will collectively be subject to a $7.5 million judgment, which is mostly suspended due to their inability to pay.
The settlement with the VoIP service provider and the affiliated company will require a payment of $1.95 million. The VoIP service provider and its U.S.-based subsidiaries will also be prohibited from hiring the former CEO or any of his immediate family members, as well as from hiring two of the other defendants. These defendants will also be required to follow client screening and monitoring provisions, and are prohibited from providing VoIP and related services to clients who pay with stored value cards or cryptocurrency, or to clients who do not maintain public-facing websites or a social media presence. Additionally, the defendants will be required to block calls that may appear to come from certain suspicious phone numbers, block calls that use spoofing technology, and terminate certain high-risk relationships.
The settlements (see here, here, and here) reached with the defendant that placed the illegal calls and four additional defendants include prohibitions similar to those issued against the former CEO, and will require the payment of a total combined judgment of $10.3 million, which will be largely suspended due to their inability to pay.
All settlements are subject to court approval.
CFPB settles with auto lender on unfair LDW practices
On September 21, the CFPB announced a settlement with a California-based auto-loan servicer to resolve allegations that the company engaged in unfair practices with respect to its Loss Damage Waiver (LDW) product, in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB alleged that the company engaged in unfair practices by charging certain borrowers for LDW coverage, but then failed to provide the coverage. Specifically, the LDW agreement allowed the company to suspend coverage if borrowers became 10-days delinquent on their auto loans. The company, however, continued to charge borrowers LDW premiums even though coverage was no longer being provided. The Bureau also alleged that the company assessed LDW claim-related fees that were not disclosed in the LDW contract, which the borrowers were not contractually obligated to pay.
Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to pay more than $1.3 million in consumer redress to approximately 4,000 impacted consumers, as well as a $100,000 civil money penalty. The order also prohibits the company from “failing to provide consumers with LDW coverage, collateral protection insurance, or similar products or services for which [the company] has charged consumers” or from “charging consumers fees that are not authorized by its LDW contracts.”
LIBOR-based loans will not be eligible for Ginnie Mae pooling
On September 21, Ginnie Mae issued All Participant Memorandum 20-12, which states that Ginnie Mae will stop accepting the delivery of single-family forward adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans, dated on or after January 1, 2021, with any interest term based on LIBOR, for securitization in any pool. Additionally, any adjustable rate reverse mortgages (HECMs) will be ineligible for securitization into any HMBS pool that relies on LIBOR if not securitized as of January 1, 2021, “without regard to their date of origination or the date in which the corresponding FHA case number was assigned.” Participations associated with HECM loans backing HMBS will continue to be eligible without restriction, so long as the issuance date is on or before December 1.
IRS: Lenders should not report PPP debt forgiveness
On September 22, the IRS released Announcement 2020-12 notifying lenders that they should not report the amount of qualifying loan forgiveness for covered loans to qualifying small businesses made under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).The IRS code generally requires lenders to file a Form 1099-C for any discharge of indebtedness of at least $600. However, the IRS’ announcement specifies that when a portion or all of the principal is forgiven under the requirements of Section 1106 of the CARES Act, lenders, for federal income tax purposes only, should not “file a Form 1099-C information return with the IRS or provide a payee statement to the eligible recipient under section 6050P of the Code as a result of the qualifying forgiveness.”
FDIC, HUD announce Oregon wildfires regulatory and disaster relief
On September 18, the FDIC issued FIL-91-2020 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Oregon affected by wildfires that began on September 7. In the guidance, the FDIC writes that, in supervising institutions affected by the wildfires, it will consider the unusual circumstances those institutions face. The guidance suggests that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are “done in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The FDIC will also consider relief from certain reporting and publishing requirements.
Separately, on September 17, HUD announced disaster assistance available to certain counties impacted by the Oregon wildfires, providing foreclosure relief and other assistance to affected homeowners. Specifically, HUD is providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties and is making FHA insurance available to those victims whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals who have lost homes to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house and the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program will also allow homeowners with damaged property to finance the rehabilitation of existing single-family homes.
District court dismisses six PPP agent fee class actions
On September 21, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed six class actions alleging that the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its implementing regulations entitle accountants who assist borrowers in securing PPP loans to a portion of the fees banks receive from the Small Business Administration (SBA).The six class actions were brought by a collection of accountants and accounting firms alleging that the banks did not pay agent fees reportedly due under the PPP, even though they had not entered into agreements with the banks to receive the fees. The district court, following a similar decision by a Florida federal district court (covered by InfoBytes here), dismissed the class actions, concluding that absent an agreement to do so, banks are not required to pay agent fees under the CARES Act—which created the PPP—and its implementing regulations. Specifically, the court noted that although the law and implementing regulations impose limits on agents fees, those limits “do not entitle agents to fees but simply regulate how such fees would be paid when they are to be paid.” The court also rejected a variety of state law and common law claims, which were “largely premised on the same theory,” and dismissed all six class actions in their entirety.
Fed: Lenders must consider pre-pandemic condition when underwriting Main Street Lending Program loans
On September 18, the Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the FDIC and the OCC, revised the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP) FAQs (for-profit here, nonprofit here) to clarify underwriting expectations, supervisory expectations, and details regarding co-borrower loans. Specifically, the FAQs note that a lender is expected to “conduct an assessment of each potential borrower’s pre-pandemic financial condition and post-pandemic prospects” when reviewing an application to determine approval. Additionally, the FAQs state that Fed supervisors will “not criticize” lenders for originating loans in accordance with MSLP requirements, even when “such loans are considered non-pass at the time of origination,” provided the weaknesses are due to the Covid-19 pandemic and expected to be temporary. Finally, the FAQs include new details covering co-borrower loans, as the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston anticipates the MSLP will accept loans made to multiple co-borrowers starting next week.
E-SIGN modernization bill passes Senate committee
On September 16, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation voted 14-12 to approve S. 4159 (the “E-SIGN Modernization Act”), sponsored by Senator Thune, the majority whip. As previously covered by Infobytes, the E-SIGN Modernization Act would amend E-SIGN to remove the requirement that consumers reasonably demonstrate they can access documents electronically before they can receive an electronic version. Instead, consumers would be allowed to obtain documents electronically once they are provided with disclosure information and consent to receiving documents through such means. The E-SIGN Modernization Act was opposed by several consumer advocacy groups, including the National Consumer Law Center, which argued in a letter to the committee that the bill “would increase fraud and effectively prevent access to legally required information and records about the transactions to which consumers are bound.”
Committee Ranking Member Senator Cantwell had offered, but later withdrew, an amendment that would have rejected all the changes introduced under the E-SIGN Modernization Act and, among other things, required the Secretary of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission to evaluate and report to Congress, within a year after S. 4159’s enactment, the benefits and burdens of E-SIGN’s requirement for consumers to reasonably demonstrate that they can access documents electronically before receiving electronic versions.
The legislation is currently pending approval by the full Senate.
Special Alert: HUD finalizes new disparate impact regulation
The Department of Housing and Urban Development earlier this month issued a final disparate impact regulation under the Fair Housing Act (Final Rule). HUD’s new Final Rule is intended to align its disparate impact regulation, adopted in 2013 (2013 Rule), with the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (Inclusive Communities). While the new Final Rule is a notable development, the relatively recent Supreme Court decision makes it unclear to what extent courts and federal agencies will look to the rule for guidance.