InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal District Court Compels Arbitration of Debt Collection Robosigning Suit
On July 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that members of a putative class must arbitrate their claims against creditors for allegedly unlawful debt collection practices individually. Shetiwy v. Midland Credit Management, No. 12-7068, 2013 WL 3530524 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2013). A group of creditors facing allegations that they violated the RICO Act and the FDCPA by conspiring with third party debt collectors to collect debts through fraudulently obtained default judgments, including judgments obtained through practices associated with robosigning, moved to compel arbitration based on the terms of their cardmember agreements, which require mandatory arbitration on an individual basis of any claims arising from a cardmember’s account. The court held that even if the plaintiffs could show that costs associated with individual arbitration would preclude vindicating their statutory rights under RICO and the FDCPA, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, “made clear that a generalized congressional intent to vindicate statutory rights cannot override the FAA’s mandate that courts enforce arbitration clauses” like the one at issue here. The court explained that “[n]othing in the text of RICO or the FDCPA indicate [sic] a more explicit ‘contrary congressional command’ than that contained in the federal antitrust laws at issue in Italian Colors” and that “[i]n fact, the FDCPA explicitly limits recovery obtained by unnamed class members in a class action, without regard to how that will affect total recover for each individual.” The court enforced the arbitration agreements and stayed the case as to the creditors pending arbitration.
Virginia Federal District Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Action Related to Credit Card Issuer's Settlements with OCC, CFPB
On June 21, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a shareholder derivative action against a national bank’s officers and directors that was based on the bank’s settlements with the CFPB and OCC over allegedly deceptive marketing of ancillary products. In re Capital One Derivative S’holder Litig., No. 1:12-cv-1100 (E.D. Va. June 21, 2013). The shareholders, relying on Delaware law, alleged that the officers and directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty, committed corporate waste, and were unjustly enriched by failing to prevent the allegedly deceptive sales practices at the bank’s third-party call centers which led to the consent orders. The court held that the shareholders did not adequately allege corporate waste because the bank’s settlement payments were not “transfers of assets with no corporate purpose” but instead achieved final resolution of the investigations. The unjust enrichment claim failed because the shareholders did not allege any facts indicating a relationship between the officers and directors’ compensation and the settlements with the agencies. With respect to the duty of loyalty claim, the shareholders alleged two theories: (i) that the officers and directors failed to implement controls that would have prevented the alleged misconduct, and (ii) that defendants ignored numerous “red flags” that should have alerted them to the alleged misconduct. First, the controls theory failed because the shareholders could not satisfy the demanding Caremark standard, which requires an utter failure to implement any controls. Second, most of the alleged red flags were either not actually red flags at all or there were no allegations that the individual officers and directors were aware of them. However, as to a small number of the alleged red flags, the court found the claims sufficiently plausible to allow the shareholders an opportunity to amend their complaint to add additional facts.
CFPB Plans Credit Card Arbitration Survey
On June 6, the CFPB released a notice and request for comment on its plan to conduct a new survey related to its ongoing study of arbitration agreements. A supporting document submitted with the notice includes the initial survey questions proposed by the CFPB. The CFPB plans to contact 1,000 credit card holders to evaluate their awareness of card agreement dispute resolution provisions, and their “assessments of such provisions.” The CFPB stated that the survey will seek information regarding card holders’ perceptions and valuations of arbitration and litigation, but will not gather data regarding respondents’ post-fact satisfaction with arbitration or litigation proceedings. Comments on the proposed survey are due by August 6, 2013.
New York AG Obtains Health Care Credit Card Settlement
On June 3, AG Schneiderman announced an agreement with a credit card issuer to resolve an investigation into alleged consumer protection concerns arising from the offering of credit cards through medical care providers. The AG cited a Health Care Bureau investigation that found the health care provider application process is often rushed and occurs when treatment is set to begin, resulting in consumers feeling pressured into applying for the card and being charged the full amount for treatment in advance of receiving services. The AG claimed that, in many instances, providers failed to inform consumers of the terms of the card and represented that the account had “no interest,” when it carried retroactive interest of 26.99% if not paid in full during a promotional period. Other consumers allegedly thought that they were signing up for an in-house, no-interest payment plan directly with their provider, or a line of credit with 0% interest. Under the agreement, the issuer will establish an appeals fund for certain card holders who disputed a claim and were denied, which could result in refunds or credits of up to $2 million to approximately 1,000 card holders. The issuer also must implement consumer protection and compliance measures, including, among others: (i) offering a three-day “cooling off” period, such that no transaction over $1,000 can be charged within three days of an initial application, (ii) adding a set of “Transparency Principles” to provider contracts to ensure that providers accurately describe card terms, and implementing other health care provider training and oversight measures, (iii) revising promotional interest rate and other disclosures, and (iv) standardizing complaint management procedures.
CFPB Amends Credit Card Ability-to-Pay Rule
On April 29, the CFPB amended Regulation Z to make it easier for spouses or partners who do not work outside of the home to qualify for credit cards. Regulation Z generally requires that credit card issuers consider an applicant’s independent ability to pay regardless of age. A Federal Reserve Board rule adopted to implement the Credit CARD Act, which took effect on October 1, 2011, required card issuers to consider only an individual card applicant’s independent income or assets. The rule received criticism from members of Congress and other stakeholders who argued the rule limited access to credit for stay-at-home spouses and partners. The CFPB’s revised rule allows credit card issuers to consider third-party income for a consumer who is 21 or older, if the applicant has a reasonable expectation of access to such income. The CFPB rule does not change the independent ability to pay requirement for individuals under 21 years old. The rule is effective as of May 3, 2013 and compliance with the rule is required by November 4, 2013. Card issuers may, at their option, comply with the rule prior to that date.
California Federal Court Holds Online Purchase Transactions for Shipped Merchandise Not Covered by Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
On April 30, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that Section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, which prohibits retailers from requiring personal information as a condition to completing credit card transactions, does not apply to online purchase transactions in which the merchandise is shipped or delivered to the customer. Ambers v. Buy.com, No. 13-196, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013). The ruling extends a recent holding by the California Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Sup. Ct. Los Angeles, which held that the Song-Beverly provisions do not apply when the item purchased is downloaded via the Internet. In this case, the customer claimed on behalf of a putative class whose claims could total $500 million that Apple created a standard that applies the Song-Beverly protections whenever the retailer has “some mechanism” to verify the customer’s identity. The plaintiff argued that the retailer’s request as part of the purchase transaction for a phone number in addition to the shipping address violated the statutory privacy protection. The court reasoned that as explained in Apple, the state legislature intended to allow retailers to verify that a person making a card purchase is authorized to do so, and stated that the shipping address alone would not work as an anti-fraud mechanism because a person who buys merchandise online may direct shipments to addresses not related to the credit card billing address. As such, the court held that Song-Beverly privacy protection does not apply to online purchases where the merchandise is being shipped or delivered, and granted the retailer’s motion to dismiss.
California Federal Court Dismisses Credit Card Interest Rate Class Action
On April 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action in which the named plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim and other common law and statutory claims after the issuer stopped providing the cardholder an interest free grace period on new charges because the cardholder transferred a balance from another card account as part of an interest free balance transfer offer and did not immediately pay off that transferred balance. Barton v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 12-5412, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2013). Applying Virginia law, the court held that while some cardholders may have accepted the offer and transferred balances “without realizing that, because it would cause them to begin carrying a post-due balance each month, it would deprive them of the grace period they had previously enjoyed,” the agreement was clear that “carrying a post-due balance -- whatever its source -- terminated cardmembers’ rights to the 25-day grace period.” For the same reason, the court held the cardholder’s claim that the issuer violated the CARD Act’s requirement that a “creditor shall not change the terms governing the repayment of any outstanding balance” similarly failed. The court also held that the cardholder failed to allege any contractual discretion to support her claim of breach of good faith and dismissed her claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
CFPB Announces Major Update to Consumer Complaint Database
On March 28, the CFPB released tens of thousands of consumer complaints related to mortgages, student loans, bank accounts and services, other consumer loans, and credit cards. Credit reporting complaints, will be released in the near future. The expanded database is a live database that is updated daily. It includes one million data points, covering approximately 450 companies, and allows users to track, sort, search, and download information. The CFPB has made the data available in formats that allow developers to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research, and the database includes functionality to let users build their own visualizations, charts and graphs, and embed the data on other websites or share it through social media. The CFPB is encouraging consumers, analysts, developers, data scientists, civic hackers, and companies that serve consumers, to analyze, augment, and build on the public database to develop ways for consumers to access the complaint data or “mash it up” with other public data sets. The CFPB also released a fact sheet about the database, which provides some summary analysis of the data, as well as a “snapshot” report that provides information about the CFPB’s complaint handling process and additional summary presentation of the data. The CFPB also held a field hearing to review the complaint database and solicit public feedback. Consumer groups participating in the event repeatedly stressed the need for more specific data, including the full narrative description of complaints submitted by consumers, while industry representatives continued to caution the regulator about risks associated with unverified data.
CFPB Narrows Application of Credit Card Fee Limit
On March 28, the CFPB published a final rule to remove from Regulation Z a limitation on fees charged prior to credit card account opening. Effective immediately, the rule amends a restriction adopted by the Federal Reserve Board in April 2011, which expanded the 2009 Credit CARD Act fee limitation on certain fees charged during the first year after the account is opened to include fees charged prior to account opening. The CFPB rule eliminates the limitations on fees charged prior to account opening, and covers only those fees charged during the first year after account opening. The rule responds to a legal challenge to restricting the amount of fees charged prior to account opening, which resulted in a court issuing a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the Federal Reserve Board’s broader application of the fee limit.
PCI Security Standards Council Offers Guidance for Protecting Payment Card Data
On February 14, the PCI Security Standards Council, the open global forum responsible for setting payment security standards, issued guidelines for merchants on the factors and risks they must address to protect card data when using mobile devices. The guidance addresses the three main risks associated with mobile payment transactions: account data entering the device, account data residing in the device, and account data leaving the device. The guidance also (i) provides recommended measures for merchants regarding the physical and logical security of mobile devices used for payment acceptance, and (ii) recommendations regarding the different components of the payment acceptance solution, including the hardware, software, the use of the payment acceptance solution, and the relationship with the customer. The PCI Security Standards Council also recently released guidance for securing payment card data in cloud environments, and guidance regarding security for payment transactions conducted over the Internet.