Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • FTC brings action against payment processor for misleading small businesses

    Federal Issues

    On July 29, the FTC announced a settlement with a payment processing company and two of its sales affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) to resolve claims that they “trapp[ed] small businesses with hidden terms, surprise exit fees, and zombie charges.” The FTC alleged that the defendants made false claims about fees and cost savings, including “false and baseless claims about their processing services” to lure merchants, many of whom had limited English proficiency. According to the complaint, once merchants were enrolled, the defendants allegedly withdrew funds from their accounts without their consent and made it difficult and expensive for them to cancel the service. The complaint also alleged that the defendants violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to disclose material terms, by charging consumers without their express informed consent, and by failing to provide a simple mechanism for consumers to cancel the agreements.

    Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants are, among other things, prohibited from making misrepresentations, making unsubstantiated claims, and using unfair debiting practices. The defendants will also be prohibited from making withdrawals from any of their customers’ bank accounts without authorization. The defendants must pay $4.9 million to the FTC, which will be used to provide refunds to affected businesses.

    Federal Issues FTC FTC Act Enforcement ROSCA Payment Processors UDAP

  • Republicans allege CFPB “collusion” with states

    Federal Issues

    On July 28, House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and two other Republican members sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, expressing their concerns that the Bureau has been “colluding” with states to “intimidate companies by conspiring with state agencies to pursue duplicative enforcement actions” in the financial services industry. The letter recognizes that state AGs “may enforce the CFPA in cases where the CFPB has not,” but argues that “the statute does not allow for a state attorney general to become a party to an existing CFPB enforcement action.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an interpretive rule in May addressing states’ authority to bring enforcement actions for violations of federal consumer financial protection laws, including the CFPA. The representatives argue that although the CFPB has a duty to enforce the CFPA and protect consumers from predatory and discriminatory practices, the Bureau’s interpretive rule is “akin to deputizing state attorneys general to enforce the CFPA on behalf of the CFPB – something Congress did not authorize.” The letter concludes with a request for documents and information from the Bureau by August 12, including (i) the legal authority that allows the CFPB to “recruit state attorneys general to join existing CFPB actions"; (ii) any “safeguards” the CFPB has in place to avoid “redundant and duplicative state actions”; and (iii) “all documents and communications between offices of state attorneys general and the CFPB since October 12, 2021” and “all information regarding complaints filed in a judicial court received by the CFPB pursuant to 12 USC § 5552.”

    Federal Issues State Attorney General CFPB U.S. House CFPA House Financial Services Committee Enforcement State Issues

  • Treasury establishes data hub to assist with climate-risk assessments

    Federal Issues

    On July 28, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) announced the establishment of the Climate Data and Analytics Hub pilot, which will be used to help financial regulators assess risks to financial stability due to climate change. According to the announcement, the Climate Data and Analytics Hub permits participants to integrate data from across the federal government, including wildfire, crop condition, precipitation, and other climate-related data, with their public supervisory data for a more precise view of the relationship between climate change and financial stability risk. Additionally, it is “equipped with statistical and visualization applications that will allow deeper insight into climate-related financial risks and vulnerabilities.” Access to the pilot is initially limited to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with the goal of expanding access to all of the Financial Stability Oversight Council member agencies. The OFR also released a Fact Sheet, which provides more information on the Climate Data and Analytics Hub.

    Federal Issues Department of Treasury Data Climate-Related Financial Risks

  • CFPB reports on potential impacts of medical debt

    Federal Issues

    On July 27, the CFPB issued a report analyzing how actions announced by three national consumer reporting companies affect people who have allegedly unpaid medical debt on their credit reports. The report is a part of a CFPB series that examines consumer credit trends using a longitudinal sample of approximately five million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. According to the report, in March, the credit reporting companies announced voluntarily that they would no longer report certain medical collections. Specifically, starting July 1, 2022, the time before unpaid medical collections can appear on a consumer’s report will increase from 180 days to one year and paid medical collections will no longer appear at all.  In addition, sometime in 2023, medical collections with balances below a threshold of “at least” $500 will not appear on a consumer’s report. The Bureau’s report stated that “[t]hese changes have the potential to reduce the amount of medical debt reported on consumer credit reports and to benefit some consumers.” The report describes the characteristics of consumers with reported medical collections currently and provides a state-by-state breakout of how the credit reporting changes will impact consumers’ credit reports. Highlights of the report include: (i) consumers in Northern and Eastern states have higher concentrations of medical debt that are likely to be removed; (ii) consumers with medical debt are significantly more likely to reside in neighborhoods that majority Black or Hispanic and have lower median income, but consumers likely to have all their medical debt removed by the change are slightly more likely to live in neighborhoods that are majority white and higher income; and (iii) eliminating paid collections is less likely to have a substantial effect, as very few medical collection tradelines are ever marked paid.  The CFPB also noted that, due to the nature of the data, the report does not examine the impact of the extension of the time between referral of the medical bill for collections and the reporting of the bill from 180 days to one year.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Medical Debt Consumer Finance Credit Reporting Agency

  • FSOC releases fact sheet on climate-related progress

    Federal Issues

    On July 28, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) released a Fact Sheet detailing the progress made to-date by the FSOC’s members in implementing the climate-related financial risk report’s recommendations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2021 the FSOC released a report, Report on Climate Related Financial Risk, identifying climate change as an emerging threat to financial stability and issued over 30 related recommendations to financial regulators. According to the Fact Sheet, the FSOC has made substantial progress since the October 2021 report by: (i) enhancing public climate-related disclosure; (ii) assessing and mitigating climate-related risks that could threaten U.S. financial stability; (iii) building capacity and expanding efforts to address climate-related financial risks; and (iv) filling climate-related data and methodological gaps.

    Federal Issues Department of Treasury Climate-Related Financial Risks FSB

  • CDFI Fund seeks comment on criteria for MDIs

    Federal Issues

    On July 28, the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment to refine the criteria it should use to designate “minority lending institutions” (MDIs) as a subset of CDFIs. According to the notice, CDFI Fund “seeks to implement the designation for those CDFIs that wish to be recognized for their high levels of service and accountability to Minority populations, as well as to identify barriers such CDFIs experience in providing access to capital.” Among other things, the CDFI Fund is soliciting information on topics that include: (i) majority-minority Census tracts and the time period used to assess service in these tracts; (ii) CDFI status; (iii) financial products delivered to non-minority-owned customers that serve individuals from racial and ethnic minorities; (iv) methods MLIs may use to demonstrate accountability to minority populations; and (v) standards for accountability to minority populations, as determined by the CDFI Fund. Comments are due by November 25.

    Federal Issues CDFI MDI Federal Register

  • CFPB updates debt collection FAQs

    Federal Issues

    On July 27 the CFPB added a new section to the Debt Collection Rule Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), which address questions related to the electronic communication and unusual or inconvenient time and place provisions in the Debt Collection Rule.

    Federal Issues CFPB Debt Collection FAQs Consumer Finance

  • CFPB, DOJ take action against mortgage lender

    Federal Issues

    On July 27, the CFPB and the DOJ jointly filed a lawsuit against a Delaware-based mortgage lender for engaging in unlawful discrimination. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendant violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing Regulation B and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by, among other things, engaging in unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin against applicants and prospective applicants, including by redlining majority-minority neighborhoods, and by engaging in acts and practices directed at prospective applicants that would discourage prospective applicants from applying for credit. The DOJ also alleged a violation of the Fair Housing Act, including the “making unavailable or denial of dwellings to persons because of race, color, and national origin,” among other things. 

    The proposed consent order, if entered by the court, would be Bureau’s first nonbank mortgage redlining resolution. It would require the defendant, among other things, to: (i) deposit $18.4 million into a loan subsidy program; (ii) pay a $4 million penalty to the Bureau; and (iii) pay $2 million to fund advertising to generate applications in redlined areas. The proposed order also notes the defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in the complaint. According to a statement released by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the Bureau “will continue to seek new remedies to ensure all lenders meet and fulfill their responsibilities and obligations and the CFPB continues to be on the lookout for emerging digital redlining to ensure that discrimination cannot be disguised by an algorithm.”

    Federal Issues CFPB DOJ Redlining Enforcement Consumer Finance CFPA Regulation B ECOA Fair Housing Act

  • CFPB issues consent order against nonbank automotive finance company

    Federal Issues

    On July 26, the CFPB announced a consent order against a nonbank automotive finance company to resolve allegations that it engaged in furnishing inaccurate information to consumer reporting companies. The CFPB alleged that the company violated the FCRA and Regulation V by, among other things, failing to: (i) “promptly update and correct information it furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) that it determined was not complete or accurate, and continued to furnish this inaccurate and incomplete information;” (ii) “modify or delete information disputed by consumers that [the company] found to be inaccurate”; and (iii) “establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information provided to CRAs.” The CFPB also alleged that the company violated the CFPA because of the FCRA and Regulation V violations, which it alleged also constitute violations of the CFPA, and for using “ineffective manual processes and systems containing known logic errors to furnish information to CRAs.” Under the terms of the Bureau’s consent order, the company is required to provide $13.2 million in redress to harmed consumers, review all account files that it currently furnishes to credit reporting companies and correct all inaccuracies described in the order, then send updated information to the credit reporting companies, establish and implement written a compliance plan, and pay a $6 million civil penalty to the Bureau.

    Federal Issues CFPB Regulation V FCRA CFPA Enforcement Consumer Finance

  • FDIC updates its enforcement actions manual

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On July 25, the FDIC announced that it updated chapters its Formal and Informal Enforcement Actions Manual, entitled Overview and Administrative Matters and Cease-and-Desist Actions, respectively, regarding the agency’s minimum standards for terminating cease and desist and consent orders issued under Section 8(b) of the FDI Act. According to the FDIC, “the manual provides direction for professional staff related to the work necessary to pursue formal and informal enforcement actions,” and is “intended to support the work of the field, regional, and Washington office’s staff involved in processing and monitoring enforcement actions.” The FDIC is authorized to issue a cease-and-desist order if an insured depository institution has engaged, or is about to engage, in “an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the business of the institution, or [a] violation of a law and/or regulation, written agreement with the FDIC, or written condition imposed by the FDIC in connection with the granting of any application or other request.” The updates, among other things, clarify that cease-and-desist or consent orders may be terminated if: (i) the institution is in full compliance with all provisions of the order and has fully corrected legal violations, unsafe or unsound practices, or other conditions that led to the issuance of the order; (ii) any provisions deemed “not in compliance” have become outdated or irrelevant; or (iii) deterioration or any provisions deemed “not in compliance” leads to issuance of a new or revised formal action.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues Bank Regulatory FDIC FDI Act Enforcement

Pages

Upcoming Events