InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB supports Connecticut’s bill to ban medical debt on credit reports
On April 15, the CFPB released a letter written by Brian Shearer, the Assistant Director within the Office of Policy Planning and Strategy, throwing the Bureau’s support behind Connecticut’s new bill to bar medical debt on credit reports. The proposed bill, SB 395, has passed its committee in the first chamber. This legislation would align Connecticut with similar legislation in Colorado and New York, and the CFPB noted that the “preemption of state law is narrow under both the [FDCPA] and the [FCRA], and states may… limit the inclusion of information about a person’s allegedly unpaid medical bills on consumer reports.” The CFPB announced in September 2023 its NPRM to prohibit creditors from using medical bills in underwriting decisions (as covered by InfoBytes here). According to the letter, “[m]edical debt is categorically different from most types of consumer tradelines that typically appear on consumer reports. Consumers frequently incur medical bills in unique circumstances that differ from other forms of credit extension, and CFPB research has found that medical debt is less predictive of future consumer credit performance than other tradelines.”
CFPB’s Frotman speaks on medical debt collections and rental financial products
On April 11, the General Counsel of the CFPB, Seth Frotman, delivered a speech at the National Consumer Law Center/National Association of Consumer Advocates Spring Training, highlighting how the FDCPA and the FCRA cover often-overlooked sectors of consumer finance, including medical collections and landlord-tenant debts. As to medical billing, collections, and credit reporting, Frotman noted that the CFPB has received more than 15,000 complaints in the past two years, as explained previously in the CFPB’s most recent FDCPA annual report (covered by InfoBytes here). These complaints led to the CFPB initiating a rulemaking process to “remove medical bills from credit reports.” Frotman highlighted that many states have taken similar initiatives: Colorado and New York both enacted laws prohibiting the reporting of medical debt, and the CFPB encouraged more states to follow their lead; Connecticut recently introduced legislation banning medical debt in SB 395. Of interest, Frotman noted that when the CFPB contacted debt collectors about suspected bills, they often closed the account – suggesting that these collectors “do not have confidence that this money [was] actually owed,” indicating that collectors could be seeking to collect an invalid medical debt from consumers.
On rental collections and credit reporting, Frotman noted an increase in the “financialization” of the landlord and tenant relationship, such as products to finance security deposits or rent and offering rent-specific credit cards. Frotman also noted that corporate landlords, who have increased their share of the rental housing market, have increased the demand for “tenant screening” products that score prospective tenants. Frotman expressed concern that the algorithms relied on by these tenant screening products have been opaque and even discriminatory. The speech highlighted the CFPB’s focus on tenant screening as part of the Bureau’s increased attention toward debt collection and credit reporting companies generally in the rental industry. For instance, the CFPB noted that law firms that operate as “eviction mills” (i.e., firms that “rubber stamp” eviction actions without performing a meaningful review) could be held liable under the FDCPA.
Democratic senators pen letter to trade org. that brought suit against CFPB’s credit card late fee rule
On April 14, two Democratic senators, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), wrote a letter to the head of a commercial trade organization that brought a lawsuit against the CFPB, challenging the CFPB’s rule capping credit card late fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the trade organization and other business groups sued the CFPB, challenging its recent final rule limiting most credit card late fees to $8. The senators wrote that the trade organization’s decision to sue was “outrageous and unwarranted” as the senators sought an explanation for the opposition.
The senators stated that the lawsuit was “frivolous,” and argued that the trade organization neglected “Main Street businesses” and instead was “doing the dirty work of its big bank members” who charged these high fees. Bolstering their position that the rule would cover large credit card issuers only, the senators noted that the rule would be expected to apply to less than one percent of the 4,000 financial institutions offering credit cards. Further, the senators argued that this lawsuit was a pattern of the trade organization representing the interests of large corporations, citing a report that found that only 23 of the 28 million small businesses in the U.S. benefited from the trade organization’s litigation. In seeking an explanation, the senators requested answers to a series of questions, including “How did [the trade organization] reach the decision to sue the CFPB to stop the agency from putting this rule in place?” and “Has the [trade organization] conducted an economic analysis of how the CFPB proposal would impact its members?”
CFPB finalizes rule to change its supervision designation procedures for nonbanks
On April 16, the CFPB issued a procedural rule to change how the Bureau will designate nonbanks for supervision. Under the CFPA, the CFPB was authorized to supervise a nonbank covered person if the Bureau had reasonable cause to determine if the nonbank covered person was engaged in financial services-related conduct that posed a risk to consumers. In 2013, the CFPB issued a rule providing procedures to govern supervisory designation proceedings under this authority; in 2022, the CFPB published a final rule amending the procedural rule to allow it to publicize its resolution of any contested designation proceeding (covered by InfoBytes here). In late February 2024, the CFPB transitioned to a new organizational structure for its supervision and enforcement work, and this rule will reflect the technical changes of the new structure in the context of supervisory designation proceedings.
According to the Bureau, there were small differences between two separate provisions under the 2013 rule that allowed nonbanks to consent to the CFPB’s exercise of supervisory authority. The new procedural rule will combine these provisions and clarify a few points of distinction from the two original provisions, including (i) a consent agreement does not constitute an admission; and (ii) supervision durations following consent agreements can be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, instead of applying a default duration of two years.
Regarding the Supervision Director’s notice of reasonable cause, the rule will expand the possible methods of delivery to include other methods that are “reasonably calculated to give notice.” Additionally, the rule states that the initiating official may withdraw a notice, and that they may file a written reply to the notice recipient’s response, neither of which was not contemplated under the previous rule. The Bureau said these changes could allow for more transparency in the decision-making process.
Concerning a supplemental oral response, the Bureau noted under the previous rule, a respondent nonbank entity presented supplemental oral responses to the Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Lending. In light of the elimination of the Associate Director position pursuant to a recent reorganization that split the Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending into a Division of Enforcement and a Division of Supervision, the rule provided that the Director of the Bureau will assume the Associate Director’s adjudicative roles and supervision-related functions. Therefore, the Director will be responsible for issuing a decision and order subjecting an entity to the Bureau’s supervision or terminating a proceeding.
The rule further stipulated that (i) an additional time limit for mail and delivery services are no longer warranted, since email would be “generally instantaneous”; (ii) there will be a 13,000-word limit for the proceeding filings; (iii) any changes to time or word limits can be decided between the initiating official and the respondent with a notice to the Director and will be subject to change by the Director.
Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the rule maintained a process for the CFPB to decide whether to publicly release final decisions and orders, including orders entered as a result of respondent failing to file a response and therefore defaulting. The Bureau did note, however, consent agreements entered into between the initiating official and the respondent will not be subject to public release under the rule.
The rule also established an issue exhaustion requirement, requiring respondents to raise arguments they have in their written response to the Bureau to avoid waiving the argument in future proceedings. The Bureau will invite public comments which must be submitted 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, although the rule will be exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The rule will be effective upon publication to the Federal Register, and it will apply to proceedings pending on the effective date, unless the Director determined that it will be “not practicable.”
Massachusetts’ attorney general issues AI guidance related to state UDAP law
On April 16, the Attorney General for Massachusetts (AG) released an advisory notice on how developers, suppliers and users of artificial intelligence (AI) should avoid “unfair and deceptive” practices to comply with consumer protection laws. The AG noted how AI systems could pose consumer harms, including through bias, lack of transparency, and data privacy issues – since consumers often lack the ability to avoid or test the “appropriateness” of AI systems forced upon them. Chapter 93A of Massachusetts law, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, protected consumers against “unfair and deceptive” practices, the definition of which has changed over time. In addition to the consumer protection law, the AG highlighted several other state and federal consumer protections, including the ECOA, to bolster her advisory.
The AG’s advisory construed Chapter 93A to apply to AI, clarifying that the following practices may qualify as “unfair or deceptive”: (i) a company falsely advertising the quality of its AI systems; (ii) a company suppling a defective or impractical AI system; (iii) a company misrepresenting the reliability or safety of its AI system; (iv) a company putting an AI system up for sale in breach of warranty, meaning that the system was unfit for the purpose for which it was sold; (v) a company using multimedia content to impersonate or deceive (such as using a deep fake, voice cloning, or chatbots within fraud); (vi) or a company failing to comply with other Massachusetts’ statutes.
CFPB approves of Illinois’ new regulations on appraisal discrimination
On April 9, the CFPB released a comment letter supporting the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation’s decision to propose three rules prohibiting discrimination related to appraisals. The CFPB interpreted and issued rules under ECOA and would enforce its requirements. Illinois’ three proposed rules (38 IAC 345.280(c)(1)(A); 38 IAC 185.280(c)(1)(A); and 38 IAC 1055.240(c)(1)) would all update the Illinois code to prohibit discrimination under ECOA or the FHA, including a provision to deny loan applications where they should have been granted due to discrimination. “Discrimination against applications on a prohibited basis in violation, for example of the [ECOA] or [FHA], including… relying on giving force or effect to discriminatory appraisals to deny loan applications where the covered financial institution knew or should have known of the discrimination[.]” The CFPB commented in their letter that these provisions accurately described ECOA. The CFPB also noted that TILA’s Appraisal Independence Rule, which it has rulemaking authority under, does not conflict with a lender’s obligations to comply with civil rights laws including ECOA.
5th Circuit reverses District Court’s decision to transfer credit card late fee case
On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to transfer a case challenging a CFPB rulemaking to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 5th Circuit’s decision did not examine whether the transfer order was proper, but rather whether the court had jurisdiction to enter it. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the CFPB a change of venue on March 28 because only one of the six plaintiffs resided in Fort Worth. The 5th Circuit found that the lower court erred by granting the CFPB’s motion to change venues instead of ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus and argued the lower court “abused its discretion” by transferring the case while the plaintiffs’ appeal was outstanding, and that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to order the transfer. The 5th Circuit agreed and ruled that once a party appeals a district court’s decision, the district court “has zero jurisdiction to do anything” to change the case. The 5th Circuit granted the plaintiffs’ petition of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order, and ordered the district court to reopen the case.
This case has been brought by multiple trade organizations to challenge the CFPB’s attempt to alter the structure and amount of credit card late fees through its alleged authority under the CARD Act, as covered by InfoBytes here.
CFPB reports on consumer reporting companies' compliance violations
On April 8, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights on consumer reporting companies (CRC) and furnishers from April to December 2023. With respect to CRCs, the CFPB found deficiencies related to (i) placing identity theft blocks on consumer reports, (ii) blocking adverse items identified by a consumer as the result of human trafficking, and (iii) the accuracy of information in consumer reports.
For identity theft, the CFPB noted that some CRCs automatically declined to implement identity theft blocks based on overly broad, disqualifying criteria that did not support a reasonable determination, in violation of the FCRA. CRCs also failed to properly notify these customers that they declined these identity blocks.
Regulation V required CRCs to block adverse items of information identified by a consumer from human trafficking. While CRCs must block these items within four business days of such request, the CFPB found CRCs either failed to timely block these items or that CRCs blocked some, but not all such items.
In failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports, the CFPB found that CRCs (i) inadequately monitored dispute metrics that may suggest a furnisher would not a reliable source of information about consumers, and (ii) failed to implement procedures to ensure the accuracy of information provided by unreliable furnishers and continued to include such information in reports.
With respect to furnishers, the CFPB similarly found deficiencies in accuracy, dispute investigation, and identity theft requirements. Specifically, CFPB examiners found that furnishers reported incomplete or inaccurate information for several months or even years after determining the information was incomplete or inaccurate. Additionally, furnishers that received direct disputes both continued to report such information and failed to notify CRCs of the disputed information. The report also noted that furnishers who received proper identity theft reports continued to furnish information regarding the consumer before confirming the accuracy of the information with the consumer.
CFPB focuses on in-game video game market and its consumer protection issues
On April 4, the CFPB released a report titled “Banking in video games and virtual worlds” that examined the gaming industry and the consumer financial systems that affect it. The Bureau’s report identified three key findings: (i) a network of financial products and services has entered the gaming industry to leverage and support the transfer of gaming assets and currency; (ii) the increased value of these assets has led to an increase of hacking attempts, account theft, scams, and unauthorized transactions; and (iii) the consumer data collected by gaming companies was bought, sold, and traded between companies, which can pose a risk to gaming customers. As a result, the CFPB will intend to monitor these issues in gaming and other such non-traditional markets to ensure companies comply with federal consumer financial protection laws.
The report noted that the proliferation of gaming and the evolution of the industry to offering in-game purchases and gaming assets has created the need for an infrastructure to enable fiat currency to flow into and out of games and virtual worlds. This can include transactions within the game, trading virtual items with other players, buying products on secondary markets, converting gaming assets to traditional currency, withdrawals of that currency, and/or using third parties to convert and withdraw the currency. As a result, companies have established financial products and services that increasingly resemble traditional financial products, like loans, payment processing, and money transmission.
In addition to the gaming economy creating a relatively new and unregulated financial marketplace, the Bureau identified additional risks similar to those found in the traditional market surrounding fraud, identity theft, money laundering, and privacy. For example, the report noted that these highly valuable gaming assets have made player accounts vulnerable to phishing and hacking attempts as well as unauthorized transactions. However, efforts by the FTC or CFPB to address complaints related to this activity have been met with a “buyer beware” approach by gaming companies.
Further, gaming companies collect a significant amount of data on players as a way to personalize the experience. However, the companies use this data to monetize gameplay to entice more spending as well as buy, sell and trade this data. The report noted that (i) the use of personal data can result in highly individualized pricing and (ii) the storage and transfer of consumer data poses privacy risks for gamers. In light of these various issues, the CFPB plans to work with other agencies to monitor both these non-traditional financial products and services as well as the companies that collect and sell sensitive consumer data.
Seventeen State Attorneys General comment on CFPB overdraft proposal
State attorneys general (AGs) from 17 states recently sent a letter to the CFPB endorsing its proposed rule to amend TILA. The 17 states included New York as principal, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposed amendments would treat overdraft credits as loans, which would make them subject to consumer protections.
The AGs argued that the historical basis for excluding overdraft fees from TILA protections would be obsolete due to how the fees are assessed, the high fee amount, and the large number of overdraft transactions. The AGs wrote that closing the loophole would protect consumers by providing customers with disclosures so they can better understand the cost and enable them to comparison shop. The AGs supported a benchmark fee of $3, which is the lowest fee amount proposed by the CFPB, and argued that even a $6 fee would “undercount the volume of transactions generating a fee post-enactment” of the proposed rule. Finally, the AGs urged the CFPB to extend the proposed rule to both “very large financial institutions” (those with more than $10 billion in assets) and small financial institutions.