InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Issues Disclosure Guide for Preparing Prepaid Accounts
On March 7, the CFPB issued a disclosure guide with instructions on how to prepare short form disclosures for prepaid accounts. The guidance provides steps for completing the disclosure but does not address other requirements under Regulation E, as amended by the Prepaid Rule, and is not applicable to government benefit accounts or payroll card accounts. The guide also covers information pertaining to insertion of fee amounts, static fees, additional fee types, statements explaining variable fees, informational statements, and size requirements.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Bureau released its final rule (the “Prepaid Rule”) on prepaid financial products in October of last year in order to provide consumers with additional federal protections under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and to also offer consumers standard, easy-to-understand information about prepaid accounts. However, on March 8, the CFPB announced that it may delay this effective date by six months. If approved, the proposed rule would push back the current October 1 effective date to April 1, 2018. According to the proposed rule filed by the Bureau, the extension comes in response to comments received from “some industry participants” who “believe they will have difficulty complying with certain provisions.” Extending the deadline for compliance “would, among other things, help industry participants address certain packaging related logistical issues for prepaid accounts that are sold at retail locations.” Comments on the Bureau's proposal are due next month.
Trump Administration Given March 17 Filing Date for Amicus Brief in PHH v CFPB; Requests to Intervene by Outside Organizations Denied by D.C. Circuit
On March 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the United States’ unopposed motion, filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (“SG”), which requested an extension to file its amicus brief in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Notably, amicus briefs supporting PHH must be filed by March 10 and those supporting the CFPB must be filed by March 31. The fact that the United States’ motion requested an extension until March 17—before the deadline for briefs supporting the CFPB—signals that the SG may present arguments supporting PHH that differ both from the CFPB and from the positions previously presented by the Obama Administration in briefing submitted on behalf of the United States back in December.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, late last year the D.C. Circuit invited briefing by the SG’s office on behalf of the United States (note that the SG does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The then Obama-led SG’s office took the position that the case should be reheard by the en banc court because, among other reasons, (i) the majority’s reasoning misapplied Supreme Court precedent on separation of powers issues and/or (ii) the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue. Now under the Trump Administration, the DOJ hinted that it may revise its positions with respect to both the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure, and, if it chooses, the merits of PHH’s argument that the Bureau’s RESPA interpretation was incorrect. Indeed, the short motion asserted, among other things, that “the views of the United States on matters involving the President’s removal power are not always entirely congruent with the views of independent agencies.”
Also on March 7, the D.C. Circuit issued a separate order denying three pending “motions and alternative requests” seeking to intervene, or in the alternative, hold in abeyance requests to intervene submitted by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, 16 State Attorneys General, a coalition of consumer interest groups, and two conservative advocacy groups working with State National Bank of Big Spring.
Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray at the LendIt USA Conference
On March 6, CFPB Director Richard Cordray spoke at the LendIt USA Conference to outline three “areas of special interest” to the Bureau relating to innovations in consumer financial services. In his prepared remarks, Cordray highlighted the three areas as (i) the Project Catalyst initiative; (ii) issues regarding consumer control over personal financial data; and (iii) research concerning the benefits and risks of using unconventional data sources to underwrite loans as a means to open credit access for more consumers.
Project Catalyst, Cordray explained, is the Bureau’s major initiative which “operates on the principle that markets work best when they are wide open to competition from new ideas.” He further explained that the Bureau is trying to “learn about what does and does not work for consumers [as well as] potential challenges facing entrepreneurs and investors.” Project Catalyst hosts an “Office Hours” program to engage with startups, nonprofits, banks, and other financial companies, and conducts research pilot programs with companies of all sizes. It also works to devise new policies to foster innovations such as the “Trial Disclosure Waiver Policy,” which encourages the development of new technologies and approaches for designing and testing alternative consumer disclosures.
Cordray also spoke about the Bureau’s interest in understanding the ways consumers are exercising control over their personal financial data. Last November, the Bureau issued a Request for Information seeking input on the challenges consumers face when accessing, using, and securely sharing their financial records. Furthermore, Cordray emphasized at the conference that two pressing issues are (i) “how to satisfy the demands of the consumers without exposing the providers that maintain [the] data to undue costs and risks, and (ii) how to prevent consumers from subjecting themselves to undue risk, including [the misuse of their data].”
Finally, Cordray commented on the Bureau’s February Request for Information issued to better understand the potential consumer benefits and risks associated with using, applying, and analyzing “alternative data” to predict people’s creditworthiness. The request asked consumers for feedback about the difficulties they have encountered when accessing, using, and securely sharing their financial records.
CFPB Releases Supervisory Highlights Focused on Credit Reporting
On March 2, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights for winter 2017 that outlines supervisory and oversight actions the Bureau has taken to address issues in the credit reporting market. According to the CFPB’s February Monthly Complaint Report, the Bureau has handled approximately 185,700 credit reporting complaints since the Bureau’s inception. Examples of these complaints include that no action happens when consumers dispute items on their reports, that paid debts often show up as “unpaid,” and that consumers’ files are not updated to reflect changes or deletions which negatively affect their credit scores.
The new Supervisory Highlights outlines the actions the Bureau has taken to address concerns, including the following:
- Fixing data accuracy at consumer reporting companies, including instituting quality control programs and tests to identify mix-ups as well as improving corrective actions and preventative measures.
- Directing consumer reporting companies to improve dispute investigation systems.
- Directing furnishers supplying data to consumer reporting companies to ensure the integrity of the information, an effort that “includes better investigations and handling of disputes, notifying consumers of results, and taking corrective action when inaccurate information has been supplied.”
As further explained, the CFPB uses the same supervision approach for credit reporting activities that it uses for other activities of supervised entities, which “includes a review of compliance systems and procedures, on-site examinations, discussions with relevant personnel, and requirements to produce relevant reports . . . [and, if violations are discovered], enforcement actions.” In addition, on the same day, the Bureau posted to its blog a guide to help consumers learn ways to monitor their credit history, including a list of several companies that claim to offer existing customers free access to credit scores.
District Court Denies Injunction Against “Operation Choke Point” Activities
On February 23, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion denying a request for injunctive relief sought by a group of payday lenders to stop “Operation Choke Point” – a DOJ initiative targeting fraud by investigating US banks and the business they do with companies believed to be a higher risk for fraud and money laundering including, but not limited to, payday lenders. Payday lenders have called the initiative a coordinated effort by federal regulators to stop banks from doing business with them, thereby threatening their survival. See Advance America v. FDIC, [Memorandum Opinion No. 134] No. 14-CV-00953-GK (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2017). According to the lenders, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC have adopted DOJ guidance on bank reputation risk and then used that guidance to exert “backroom regulatory pressure seeking to coerce banks to terminate longstanding, mutually beneficial relationships with all payday lenders.” The government has rejected this characterization, asserting that banks can do business with payday lenders as long as the risks are managed properly.
Evaluating the request under the due process “stigma-plus rule,” the Court focused on whether the payday lenders could show they were likely to succeed on the merits of their case and whether or not they were likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
Ultimately, the payday lenders were unable to convince the Court that they were likely to suffer the harm central to a “stigma-plus” claim. The Court reasoned that (i) the closure of some bank accounts would not be enough to constitute the loss of banking services, and that the lenders needed (and failed) to show that the loss of banking services had effectively prevented them from offering payday loans; and (ii) nearly all of the lenders were still in operation; and (iii) because the lenders were still able to find banks to work with, evidence of the possibility of future loss of banking services was too speculative to support an injunction.
The Court was also not persuaded that the lenders would be able to prove that regulatory actions caused banks to deny services to petitioners. Specifically, the Court determined that the lenders were “unlikely” to be able to set forth evidence of the “campaign of backroom strong-arming” underlying petitioners’ request for injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court noted that the lenders relied on “scattered statements,” some of which the Court characterized as “anonymous double hearsay,” to support their claims. The only direct evidence, according to the Court, was actually just “evidence of a targeted enforcement action against a single scofflaw.”
Though the Court explained that the two other factors—the balance of equities and the public interest—were of less significance in this situation, it noted in closing that “enjoining an agency’s statutorily delegated enforcement authority is likely to harm the public interest, particularly where plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”
NAFCU Recommends FSOC Use Authority to Rein in CFPB
On February 28, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urging him to use his position as chairman of the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel to alleviate the CFPB's “burdensome” regulatory impact on credit unions. The letter, among other things, urges the Secretary and FSOC to use the Counsel’s authority to set aside CFPB regulations as leverage to “spur renewed dialogue between the Bureau and the federal banking agencies regarding rules that may actually pose systemic risk to the financial sector.” The NAFCU attached an appendix to the letter listing 10 CFPB rules that the group finds “ripe for further review.” The letter was sent a day before FSOC’s March 2 executive session—its first under Secretary Mnuchin. Separately, the CUNA is holding its annual governmental affairs conference in Washington this week, bringing in 5,000 credit union advocates from around the country.
Industry Groups Submit Letters in Response to CFPB’s Request for Input on Comment Letter
As previously covered in InfoBytes, on November 17 the CFPB launched an inquiry into the benefits and risks associated with consumers authorizing third-parties to access their financial and account information held by financial service providers. In response to the Bureau’s Request for Information (Dkt No. CFPB-2016-0048), consumer and industry groups have offered their thoughts and positions concerning the issue. A summary of several comment letters is included below:
American Bankers Association (ABA). The ABA submitted a comment letter in which it noted that “technology is fundamentally changing the way financial services are being delivered,” but urged the CFPB, subject to certain enumerated regulatory limitations, to “fairly address[] both the opportunities and risks” in order to “give consumers innovative services that they can trust.” Among other things, the ABA discussed the need for the Bureau to clarify data aggregator responsibility for maintaining the privacy and security of consumer financial data. Specifically, the ABA recommended that the CFPB: (i) impose breach notification obligations; (ii) confirm liability assignments under Regulation E; (iii) subject larger data aggregators to supervisory oversight; and (iv) educate consumers about the choices, responsibilities, and risks presented.
Financial Services Roundtable (FSR). FSR and its technology policy division responded with a letter highlighting the importance of innovation and collaboration and outlining five core elements the group believes should be considered in assessing this "evolving ecosystem." These elements are: (i) security and privacy; (ii) data access and use transparency; (iii) clarity of liability; (iv) customer choice and control; and (v) technology neutrality. FSR also encouraged the CFPB to avoid unnecessary rulemaking or standard-setting that would “blunt innovation.”
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA). The ICBA urged the CFPB, subject to certain enumerated regulatory limitations, to carefully consider the privacy, regulatory burden, data security, and legal implications posed by third-party account access. Among other things, the ICBA expressed concern that “non-bank entities” do not take the same care in protecting consumer privacy and data as community banks and stated that community banks “must be able to protect customer data without having to meet new regulatory mandates which increase the risk of breach and/or consumer loss.” ICBA’s letter also stated that consumers’ rights to have access to their own information should be balanced with ensuring that consumer privacy is not needlessly threatened.
Americans for Financial Reform (AFR). AFR and a coalition of consumer groups set forth the organizations’ position that “the digital economy should ensure consumers can access and use records about themselves, and that consumers can choose to authorize third-parties to access such data on their behalf to support their financial health and facilitate competition among financial services providers.” Among other things, the letter stressed the need for “standards to enforce compliance with Section 1033 to benefit consumers who utilize online data aggregation and other applications.” Additionally, the letter urged the CFPB to confirm that consumers “retain their legal protections vis-a-vis account-holding institutions if unauthorized charges are made to their accounts when they use data aggregation services.”
Financial Innovation Now (FIN). FIN expressed the organization’s belief that regulation of permissioned access to consumer financial account data is “not necessary at this time.” Rather, FIN argued for “standards for permissioned access to consumer financial account data,” which could be “developed by industry, regularly reviewed and updated.” Ultimately, FIN pushed for consumer access to consumer financial account data “securely and easily, using whatever secure application or technology they wish, without charges or restrictions that unreasonably favor any one application or technology over another.”
CFPB Will Renew Four Advisory Councils
On February 23, the CFPB published four notices in the Federal Register to renew three advisory councils and one advisory board for an additional two year period, covering the Academic Research Council, Community Banker Advisory Council, Consumer Advisory Board, and Credit Union Advisory Council. According to each respective notice, these entities have been reestablished for the purposes of providing information and recommendations in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Each notice is effective as of its publication date and charters filed for each entity are set to expire two years after the filing date unless renewed again.
- The Academic Research Council provides the CFPB’s Office of Research with “advice and feedback on research methodologies, framing research questions, data collection, and analytic strategies.”
- The Community Banker Advisory Council provides information and recommendations concerning the Bureau’s exercise of its authority under the federal consumer financial laws “as they pertain to banks or thrifts with total assets of $10 billion or less.”
- The Consumer Advisory Board provides information and recommendations concerning the Bureau’s policy development, rulemaking, and enforcement functions, including on “emerging practices in the consumer financial products or services industry, including regional trends, concerns, and other relevant information.”
- The Credit Union Advisory Council provides information and recommendations concerning the “Bureau’s policy development, rulemaking, and engagement functions as they relate to credit unions.”
National Bank Terminates Four Senior Managers in Response to Sales Practices Scandal
On February 21, a national bank fined by the CFPB last September for opening deposit and credit card accounts without customers’ knowledge announced the termination of four current or former senior managers in its Community Banking Department. The individuals will not receive 2016 bonuses and will forfeit unvested equity rewards and vested outstanding options. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the bank’s incentive compensation program encouraged employees to “engage[] in Improper Sales Practices to satisfy goals and earn financial rewards”—practices that the CFPB alleged were unfair and abusive. The bank eliminated all product sales goals in retail banking effective January 1 of this year, and is conducting its own independent investigation, which is ongoing.
CFPB Seeks Comments on New Initiative Intended to Increase Transparency in Student Loan Servicing Market
On February 16, the CFPB announced a request for comments on an information collection plan titled “Student Loan Servicing Market Monitoring.” The proposed plan will collect student loan data from the largest student loan servicers in order to provide the Bureau “with a broader and deeper look into the student loan market, with a focus on key areas that might put consumers . . . at risk.” Key areas of examination will be: (i) the total size of the student loan market; (ii) borrowers who seek to repay their loans based on how much money they have (Income-Driven Repayment plans); (iii) borrowers who face the greatest risk of default; and (iv) borrowers with private student loans who experience financial distress. Comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2017.