InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FCRA class action dispute stayed for Supreme Court appeal
On April 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a joint motion to stay a mandate pending a credit reporting agency’s (CRA) filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. If a petition is filed, the stay will continue until final disposition by the Court. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February the 9th Circuit reduced punitive damages in a class action against the CRA for allegedly violating the FCRA by erroneously linking class members to criminals and terrorists with similar names in a database maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The appellate court found that all class members had standing due to, among other things, the CRA’s alleged “reckless handling of information from OFAC,” which subjected class members to “a real risk of harm,” and rejected the CRA’s request for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the basis that the class had failed to provide sufficient evidence of injuries or to support the damages award. The appellate court concluded, however, that the $52 million punitive damages award was “unconstitutionally excessive,” explaining that, although the CRA’s “conduct was reprehensible, it was not so egregious as to justify a punitive award of more than six times an already substantial compensatory award.”
The CRA subsequently filed a petition for rehearing (which the appellate court denied), challenging, among other things, the 9th Circuit’s conclusion that the CRA’s decision to make the credit reports available to numerous potential creditors and employers was “sufficient to show a material risk of harm to the concrete interest of all class members.” The CRA argued that this was “exactly the sort of hypothetical risk of injury the Supreme Court has made clear does not cut it” to establish concrete injury, and that the decision was inconsistent with the 9th Circuit’s own precedent, in which the appellate court determined that “the risk of injury becomes material only when the document gets into third-party hands.” The CRA also argued that the 4 to 1 benchmark ratio between punitive damages and statutory damages was still too high, because it “conflicts not just with the Supreme Court’s commands, but with decisions from other circuits finding much lower compensatory-damages awards sufficiently ‘substantial’ to demand a 1:1 ceiling.”
FTC provides guidance on managing consumer protection risks when using AI and algorithms
On April 8, the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection wrote a blog post discussing ways for companies to manage the consumer protection risks of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and algorithms. According to the FTC, over the years the Commission has dealt with the challenges presented by the use of AI and algorithms to make decisions about consumers, and has taken many enforcement actions against companies for allegedly violating laws such as the FTC Act, FCRA, and ECOA when using AI and machine learning technology. Financial services companies have also been applying these laws to machine-based credit underwriting models, the FTC stated. To assist companies, the FTC has provided the following guidance:
- Be transparent. Companies should not mislead consumers about how automated tools will be used and should be transparent when collecting sensitive data to feed an algorithm. Companies that make automated eligibility decisions about “credit, employment, insurance, housing, or similar benefits and transactions” based on information provided by a third-party vendor are required to provide consumers with “adverse action” notices under the FCRA.
- Explain decisions to consumers. Companies should be specific when disclosing to consumers the reasons why a decision was made if AI or automated tools were used in the decision-making process.
- Ensure fairness. Companies should avoid discrimination based on protected classes and should consider both inputs and outcomes to manage consumer protection risks inherent in using AI and algorithmic tools. Companies should also provide consumers access and opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information used to make a decision that may be adverse to the consumer’s interest.
- Ensure data and models are robust and sound. According to the FTC, companies that compile and sell consumer information for use in automated decision-making to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit or other transactions (even if they are not a consumer reporting agency), may be subject to the FCRA and should “implement reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports and provide consumers with access to their own information, along with the ability to correct any errors.” The AI models should also be validated to ensure they work correctly and do not illegally discriminate.
- Accountability. Companies should consider several factors before using AI or other automated tools, including the accuracy of the data set, predictions based on big data, and whether the data models account for biases or raise ethical or fairness concerns. Companies should also protect these tools from unauthorized use and consider what accountability mechanisms are being employed to ensure compliance.
FDIC updates Covid-19 FAQs for financial institutions
On April 15, the FDIC released updates to its list of Covid-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) for financial institutions. The FAQs were originally released on March 19, covering bank operational issues and urging banks to work with borrowers who are experiencing payment difficulties due to Covid-19, as reported by InfoBytes here. New FAQs discuss credit reporting of payment accommodations, reminding lenders to report borrower accounts as current, provided the borrowers continue to observe the terms of the accommodations. The guidance also points financial institutions to a recent CFPB statement (covered here) for guidance on the FCRA under the CARES Act. The FDIC also updated the Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) guidance, emphasizing that financial institutions do not need to classify Covid-19 borrower payment accommodations as TDRs if certain criteria are met, and that examiners “will not criticize prudent efforts to modify the terms on existing loans to affected customers.” Other updates to the FAQs include, among other things: (i) obligations to obtain updated real estate valuation information for Covid-19 related loan modifications; (ii) the use of alternative signatures for Part 363 annual reports and other notices; (iii) real estate loans in excess of loan-to-value percentages for loans refinanced by borrowers impacted by Covid-19; (iv) risk-based capital rules regarding multi-family loan modifications; (v) eligible Community Reinvestment Act activities during the Covid-19 pandemic; and (vi) Bank Secrecy Act issues regarding filing requirements, raising compliance challenges with FinCEN, and whether loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program are considered new accounts for customer due diligence purposes.
States ask Treasury to exempt stimulus payments from garnishment and urge CFPB to “vigorously enforce” FCRA
On April 13, a coalition of state attorneys general and the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection (states) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, calling for immediate action to ensure that stimulus checks issued under the CARES Act to consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic are not subject to garnishment by creditors and debt collectors. While the CARES Act does not “explicitly designate these emergency stimulus payments as exempt from garnishment,” the states claim that a “built-in mechanism” contained within a provision of the CARES Act can rectify the legislative oversight. Specifically, the states point to Section 2201(h), which “authoriz[es] Treasury to issue ‘regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section,’” and ask Treasury to immediately designate the stimulus checks as “‘benefit payments’ exempt from garnishment.”
The same day, another coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger urging the Bureau to rescind an April 1 policy statement directed at consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers (covered by InfoBytes here) that stated the Bureau will take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [(FCRA)] and Regulation V.” According to the states, the policy statement suggests that the Bureau does not plan on enforcing the CARES Act amendment to the FCRA, which requires lenders to report as current any loans subject to Covid-19 forbearance or other accommodation. The Bureau’s decision, the states contend, may discourage consumers from taking advantage of offered forbearances and other accommodations. The states also argue that allowing CRAs to take longer than the FCRA-prescribed 30 days to investigate consumer disputes puts consumers at risk. The states stress that the recent increase in Covid-19 scams has heightened the need for the Bureau to vigorously enforce the FCRA, and that, moreover, the thousands of complaints received by the states, FBI, FTC, and DOJ concerning phishing and other scams designed to gather consumers’ financial information have highlighted identity theft risks. The states emphasize “that even if the CFPB refuses to act. . .we will not hesitate to enforce the FCRA’s deadlines against companies that fail to comply with the law.”
Fannie Mae updates Covid-19 servicing guidance
On April 8, Fannie Mae updated its guidance to single-family servicers regarding the impact of Covid-19 on servicing. In particular, the guidance revises prior guidance on offering forbearance plans to comply with the recent enactment of the federal CARES Act. Among the updates to the servicer guidance are: (i) clarifying responsibilities relating to achieving “quality right party contact” for borrowers in a forbearance plan; (ii) providing a specific delinquency code for use in reporting to Fannie Mae; (iii) granting flexibility for inspections; (iv) extending deadlines for submission of financial statements and Form 582 to April 30; (v) clarifying forbearance plan terms; (vi) eliminating the requirement that the servicer determine occupancy status prior to evaluating a borrower for a workout option; (vii) requiring that the servicer comply with FCRA and report borrowers affected by Covid-19; and (viii) requiring servicers to suspend all foreclosure related activities to comply with the CARES Act and suspend filing motions for relief in bankruptcy cases.
HUD issues mortgage relief for FHA single-family homeowners
On April 1, HUD issued guidance detailing mortgage relief options for single-family homeowners with FHA mortgages impacted by Covid-19. HUD explains that the CARES Act requires mortgage servicers to provide mortgage relief to borrowers with options for payment deferral or payment forbearance “for up to six months, and must provide an additional six months of forbearance if requested by the borrower.” In addition, Mortgagee Letter 2020-06 states that borrowers with forbearance plans will have all late charges, fees, and penalties waived as long as the plans are in effect. Although servicers are required to comply with the FCRA, the Mortgagee Letter instructs servicers not to report a borrower as delinquent if the borrower is in a Covid-19 forbearance plan and “performing as agreed,” and further suggests that servicers should “consider the impacts” of Covid-19 “on Borrowers’ financial situations and any flexibilities a Servicer may have under the FCRA.” The Mortgagee Letter also provides a mortgage relief option for “seniors with Home Equity Conversion Mortgages” who can request an extension of up to six months initially, which may be extended up to an additional six months. This mortgage relief option also requires that all late fees, charges, and penalties be waived during the extension period. Borrowers with owner-occupied properties who are granted forbearance plans must also be evaluated for a “C[ovid]-19 National Emergency Standalone Partial Claim” prior to the end of the plan. This option will allow borrowers to reinstate their loans after the plan ends.
CFPB fines short-term lender $1.3 million for unfair and deceptive acts and practices
On April 1, the CFPB announced a $1.3 million settlement with a Texas-based short-term lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FCRA, and TILA. The Bureau alleged that while “marketing, servicing, and collecting on high-interest payday, auto-title, and unsecured consumer-installment loans,” the lender made deceptive representations through advertisements and telemarketing calls when promoting purported loan discounts. The Bureau also alleged that the lender engaged in unfair collection call practices by allegedly calling consumers who failed to make payments numerous times—some more than 15 or 20 times a day—even after being asked to stop. In addition, the lender allegedly repeatedly called consumers’ workplaces and references as a tactic to obtain payments and disclosed, or risked disclosing, to third parties the existence of the delinquent debts. According to the Bureau, the lender also violated FCRA by failing to maintain adequate consumer reporting policies and procedures to ensure the “accuracy and integrity” of the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and violated TILA by failing to provide telemarketers guidance on how to lawfully disclose a loan’s annual percentage rate as required by federal law when responding to consumers’ questions about interest and other loan costs.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is required to pay a $1.1 million civil money penalty, $286,675 in consumer redress, and is, among other things, (i) permanently restrained from certain collection practices; (ii) required to ensure employees do not misrepresent discount offers when marketing or selling consumer financial products or services; and (iii) tasked with ensuring employees correctly disclose the APR of loan products.
CFPB plans credit reporting supervisory flexibility during Covid-19 pandemic, contingent on accurate reporting
On April 1, the CFPB issued a policy statement directed at consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers. Taking into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic, the statement explains that the Bureau will take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [(FCRA)] and Regulation V.” The Bureau states that it will be flexible with CRAs and furnishers by refraining from taking enforcement actions and citing during exams in certain situations. Two examples of when the Bureau will be flexible include: (i) furnishers that continue to furnish accurate data to CRAs, including regarding payment relief arrangements (the Bureau notes that the CARES Act obliges furnishers to report consumer accounts as current when furnishers grant payment accommodations requested by consumers impacted by Covid-19); and (ii) CRAs and furnishers that make good faith efforts to investigate consumer disputes but take longer than the FCRA-prescribed 30 days. The statement notes that “the continued operation of the consumer reporting system…will enable consumers, as well as lenders, insurers, employers and other consumer report users, to maintain confidence in the consumer reporting system.”
9th Circuit holds extraneous information violates FCRA standalone disclosure requirement
On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) action, concluding that a company’s disclosures contained “extraneous information” in violation of the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement. The plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against his former employer (defendant) after his employment—which was contingent on passing a background check—was ultimately terminated based on the results of his credit report. According to the plaintiff, the defendant violated two sections of the FCRA: (i) that the disclosure form was not clear and conspicuous and was encumbered by extraneous information; and (ii) that the defendant failed to notify him in the pre-adverse action notice that he could discuss the consumer report directly with the defendant prior to his termination. The district court dismissed the allegations, concluding that the disclosure met the FCRA’s disclosure requirements because it was not overshadowed by extraneous information, and “that the FCRA does not require that pre-adverse action notices inform an employee how to contact and discuss a consumer report directly with the employer.”
On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on whether the signed disclosure form contained extraneous information, concluding that because the disclosure form also included information about plaintiff’s rights to obtain and inspect information gathered by the consumer reporting agency about the plaintiff, it went beyond the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement. Noting that the FRCA requires a standalone disclosure but does not define the term “disclosure,” the 9th Circuit stated that a company may “briefly describe what a ‘consumer report’ entails, how it will be ‘obtained,’ and for which type of ‘employment purposes’ it may be used.” Finding that the clear and conspicuous standard was established in a case decided after the district court had dismissed plaintiff’s case, the court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the defendant’s disclosure form satisfied the clear and conspicuous standard. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s other claim, agreeing with the district court that the FCRA only requires employers to provide “a description of the consumer’s right to dispute with a consumer reporting agency the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in the consumer’s file at the consumer reporting agency.”
11th Circuit reverses dismissal of “shotgun” FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA pleadings
On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit against several defendants for alleged violations of the FDCPA, the FCRA, and the TCPA, holding that the plaintiff’s third amended complaint was not filled with “shotgun pleadings.” The matter revolves around several statutory and common-law claims arising from the defendants’ allegedly-unlawful debt collection attempts, which were dismissed multiple times by the district court as “shotgun pleadings.” In her third amended complaint—which alleged 10 causes of action—the plaintiff contended, among other things, that the defendants failed to respond to letters she sent to dispute the alleged debt and failed to notify credit reporting agencies (CRA) of the dispute. The plaintiff also alleged that certain defendants called her cell phone multiple times using an automatic telephone dialing system. The district court entered final judgment in favor of all the defendants, minus the CRA defendant, stating, among other things, that the plaintiff continued to “‘lump the defendants together. . .and provide generic and general factual allegations as if they applied to all defendants.’”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit concluded that the district court erred in dismissing six of the 10 counts as shotgun pleadings. “While not at all times a model of clarity, [the third amended complaint] is reasonably concise, alleges concrete actions and omissions undertaken by specific defendants, and clarifies which defendants are responsible for those alleged acts or omissions,” the appellate court wrote. However, the appellate court agreed that the district court correctly dismissed two counts for failing to state a claim related to claims concerning one of the defendant’s alleged attempts to collect delinquent tax payments owed to the IRS. According to the appellate court, since “tax obligations do not arise from business dealings or other consumer transactions they are not ‘debts’ under the FDCPA.’”