InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court preliminarily approves lending discrimination settlement
On December 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a $480,000 class action settlement concerning whether an online lender allegedly denied consumers’ applications based on their immigration status. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants, alleging the lender denied their loan applications based on one of the plaintiff’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and the other plaintiff’s status as a conditional permanent resident (CPR). Plaintiffs claimed that these practices constituted unlawful discrimination and “alienage discrimination” in violation of federal law and California state law. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants violated the FCRA by accessing their credit reports without a permissible purpose. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the defendants would be required to pay $155,000 into a settlement fund, as well as up to $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and $25,000 in administrative costs. The defendants have also agreed to change their lending policies to ensure DACA and CPR applicants are evaluated for loan eligibility based on the same terms as U.S. citizens.
The district court noted, however, that the proposed settlement includes a “clear sailing arrangement,” which provides that the defendants will not oppose plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs provided the requested amount does not exceed $300,000. Referring to an opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the appellate court warned that clear sailing arrangements are “important warning signs of collusion” because they show an increased “likelihood that class counsel will have bargained away something of value to the class,” the district court explained that it intends to “carefully scrutinize the circumstances and determine what attorneys’ fee awards is appropriate in this case.”
CFPB sets 2023 FCRA asset threshold
On November 22, the CFPB announced the annual adjustment to the maximum amount that consumer reporting agencies are permitted to charge consumers for making a file disclosure to a consumer under the FCRA. According to the rule, the ceiling on allowable charges under Section 612(f) of the FCRA will increase to $14.50, which is a $1.00 increase from the ceiling on allowable charges for 2022. The rule is effective January 1, 2023.
CFPB issues fall supervisory highlights
On November 15, the CFPB released its fall 2022 Supervisory Highlights, which summarizes its supervisory and enforcement actions between January and June 2022 in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, and payday lending. Highlights of the findings include:
- Auto Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances of servicers engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices connected to add-on product charges, loan modifications, double billing, use of devices that interfered with driving, collection tactics, and payment allocation. For instance, examiners identified occurrences where consumers paid off their loans early, but servicers failed to ensure consumers received refunds for unearned fees related to add-on products.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in credit reporting companies’ (CRCs) compliance with FCRA dispute investigation requirements and furnishers’ compliance with FCRA and Regulation V accuracy and dispute investigation requirements. Examples include: (i) NCRCs that failed to report the outcome of complaint reviews to the Bureau; (ii) furnishers that failed to send updated information to CRCs following a determination that the information reported was not complete or accurate; and (iii) furnishers’ policies and procedures that contained deficiencies related to the accuracy and integrity of furnished information.
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices due to human errors and system weaknesses; and (iii) provide explanations to consumers after determining that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted. Examiners also identified Regulation Z violations where credit card issuers improperly mixed original factors and acquisition factors when reevaluating accounts subject to a rate increase, and identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors engaged in conduct that harassed, oppressed, or abused the person with whom they were communicating. The report findings also discussed instances where debt collectors communicated with a person other than the consumer about the consumer’s debt when the person had a name similar or identical to the consumer, in violation of the FDCPA.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed how it conducted prioritized assessments to evaluate how financial institutions handled pandemic relief benefits deposited into consumer accounts. Examiners identified unfairness risks at multiple institutions due to policies and procedures that may have resulted in, among other things, (i) garnishing protected economic impact payments funds in violation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021; or (ii) failing to apply the appropriate state exemptions to certain consumers’ deposit accounts after receiving garnishment notice.
- Mortgage Origination. Bureau examiners identified Regulation Z violations and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. An example of this is when the settlement service had been performed and the loan originator knew the actual costs of those service, but entered a cost that was completely unrelated to the actual charges that the loan originator knew had been incurred, resulting in information being entered that was not consistent with the best information reasonably available. The Bureau also found that the waiver language in some loan security agreements was misleading, and that a reasonable consumer could understand the provision to waive their right to bring a class action on any claim in federal court.
- Mortgage Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances where servicers engaged in abusive acts or practices by charging sizable fees for phone payments when consumers were unaware of those fees. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices and Regulation X policy and procedure violations regarding failure to provide consumers with CARES Act forbearances.
- Payday Lending. Examiners found lenders failed to maintain records of call recordings necessary to demonstrate full compliance with conduct provisions in consent orders generally prohibiting certain misrepresentations.
3rd Circuit says defendants conducted reasonable investigations into FCRA claims
On November 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of defendants in an FCRA reasonable investigation suit. According to the opinion, the plaintiff obtained a credit card from one of the defendants, exceeded her credit limit, and was past due on payments. Another of the defendants (furnishing defendant) acquired her account and reported the outstanding debt to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). Plaintiff disputed the tradeline as inaccurate with two of the CRAs claiming several alleged inaccuracies, including that the date the account was opened and the original balance were inaccurate, and the payment history was incomplete, among other things. The CRAs notified the furnishing defendant of the disputes, and the furnishing defendant conducted an investigation in accordance with its FCRA dispute policies and procedures, which revealed that the account status, payment history, current balance, amount past due, and account number were accurate. Discrepancies in the spelling of the plaintiff’s name and street address were corrected however. It was not until after the plaintiff sued the defendants for violations of the FCRA that she asserted the furnishing defendant should have been aware she was enrolled in a credit protection program and that it was therefore liable for the original creditor’s failure to apply the program’s benefits to her credit card account. The opinion noted that the plaintiff also filed a “similarly vague dispute” against a student loan servicer for allegedly misreporting information about her account with the CRAs.
In agreeing with the district court, the 3rd Circuit concluded that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was properly granted as the plaintiff “failed to introduce any direct or circumstantial evidence” showing either of the defendants failed to “conduct reasonable investigations with respect to the disputed information.” Additionally, the plaintiff’s disputes were vague and failed to provide specifics as to the alleged errors or explain why the information was inaccurate or incomplete. “To the extent that [plaintiff] claims that the investigations were unreasonable because a reasonable investigation would have revealed the inaccuracies alleged, her conclusory assertion is insufficient to defeat summary judgment,” the appellate court wrote.
6th Circuit affirms FCRA summary judgment
On November 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a credit reporting agency (defendant) accused of violating the FCRA. According to the opinion, a father and son (plaintiff) filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions just over a year apart with the same attorney. Both petitions had their similar names, identical address, and, mistakenly, the plaintiff’s social security number. Although the attorney corrected the social security number on the father’s bankruptcy petition the day after it was filed, the defendant allegedly failed to catch the amendment and erroneously reported the father’s bankruptcy on the plaintiff’s credit report for nine years. When the plaintiff noticed the error, he sent the defendant a letter and demanded a sum in settlement. The defendant removed the father’s bankruptcy filing from the plaintiff’s credit report. The plaintiff sued two credit reporting agencies, alleging they violated the FCRA by failing to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of his reported information. One of the agencies settled with the plaintiff. A district court granted the other defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
On the appeal, the 6th Circuit noted that the plaintiff “has standing to bring this action, but also agree that he cannot establish that [defendant’s] procedures were unreasonable as a matter of law.” The appellate court found that, because the defendant gathered information from reliable sources and because someone “with at least some legal training” would have had to manually review the bankruptcy docket to notice that the Social Security number had been updated, the defendant did not violate the FCRA. The appellate court wrote that the defendant’s “processes strike the right balance between ensuring accuracy and avoiding ‘an enormous burden’ on consumer credit reporting agencies.” Furthermore, the 6th Circuit stated that, “[g]iven the sheer amount of data maintained by these companies, we know that consumers are ‘in a better position . . . to detect errors’ in their credit reports and inquire about a fix.”
4th Circuit says website does not qualify for Section 230 immunity
On November 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s summary judgment ruling that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities (collectively, “defendants”) could use Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to shield themselves from credit reporting violations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that because the defendants’ website collects, sorts, summarizes, and assembles public record information into reports that are available for third parties to purchase, it qualifies as a consumer reporting agency (CRA) under the FCRA, and as such, must follow process-oriented requirements that the FCRA imposes on CRAs. However, the district court determined that the immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communication and Decency Act applied to the FCRA and that the defendants qualified for such immunity and could not be held liable for allegedly disseminating inaccurate information and failing to comply with the law’s disclosure requirements.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit reviewed whether a consumer lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA’s procedural and disclosure requirements and seeking to hold the defendants liable as the publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party is thereby preempted by Section 230. The appellate court agreed with an amicus brief filed in 2021 by the FTC, CFPB, and the North Carolina Department of Justice, which urged the appellate court to overturn the district court ruling on the basis that the court misconstrued Section 230—which they assert is unrelated to the FCRA—by extending immunity to “claims that do not seek to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of any third-party information.” According to the amicus brief, liability turns on the defendants’ alleged failure to comply with FCRA obligations to use reasonable procedures when preparing reports, to provide consumers with a copy of their files, and to obtain certifications and notify consumers when reports are furnished for employment purposes.
The 4th Circuit held that Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA “extends only to bar certain claims, in specific circumstances, against particular types of parties,” and that the four claims raised in this case were not subject to those protections. “Section 230(c)(1) provides protection to interactive computer services,” the appellate court wrote, “[b]ut it does not insulate a company from liability for all conduct that happens to be transmitted through the internet.” Specifically, the appellate court said two of the counts—which allege that the defendants failed to give consumers a copy of their own report when requested and did not follow FCRA requirements when providing reports for employment purposes—do not seek to hold the defendants liable as a speaker or publisher, and therefore fall outside Section 230 protections. As for the remaining two counts related to claims that the defendant failed to ensure records for employment purposes were complete and up-to-date, or adopt procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy when preparing reports, the 4th Circuit concluded that the defendants “made substantive changes to the records’ content that materially contributed to the records’ unlawfulness. That makes [defendants] an information content provider, under the allegations, for the information relevant to Counts Two and Four, meaning that it is not entitled to § 230(c)(1) protection for those claims.”
7th Circuit: Plaintiff lacks standing to bring FCRA claim on credit report disputes
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FCRA action in favor of a defendant bank. According to the opinion, the plaintiff real estate investor obtained a loan secured by a mortgage from the defendant bank. The mortgage required the plaintiff to maintain a certain level of hazard insurance or the defendant bank could lender-place such insurance, with the cost of the lender-placed insurance amounts becoming additional debt secured by the mortgage. After the plaintiff underpaid on his flood insurance premiums, the defendant bank obtained lender-placed insurance. When the plaintiff did not pay the increased monthly payment associated with the lender-placed insurance amounts in full, the defendant bank informed the plaintiff that he was in default and that the entire amount of the loan would be accelerated if the default was not cured. While the plaintiff continued to submit partial payments, the defendant began reporting certain 2011 payments as 60 days or more late to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs). In 2012, the plaintiff disputed these purportedly late payments with the CRAs.
The plaintiff sued claiming, among other things, that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to responsibly investigate the 2012 disputes. On appeal, after determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to rely on unsupported statements in the plaintiff's affidavit, the 7th Circuit found that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiff to prove damages as an element of his FCRA claim. However, the appellate court held that the plaintiff ultimately lacked standing to bring a claim under the FCRA because, as the appellate court highlighted, the injury that the plaintiff alleged—a decrease in his credit score in November 2011—could not be fairly traced to the defendant’s alleged action—a failure to reasonably investigate credit reporting disputes in January 2012.
CFPB opines on junk data in credit reports
On October 20, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion, Fair Credit Reporting; Facially False Data, as part of a series of actions being taken by the Bureau to ensure consumer reporting companies comply with consumer financial protection laws. The advisory opinion emphasizes, among other things, that “a consumer reporting agency that does not implement reasonable internal controls to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logically inconsistent information, in consumer reports it prepares is not using reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under section 607(b) of the [FCRA].” According to the Bureau, consumer reporting companies are legally required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information that they collect and report. As part of that requirement, companies must implement policies and procedures to screen for and eliminate junk data, including being able to detect and remove inconsistent account information and information that cannot be accurate. Additionally, companies’ internal controls must also be able to identify and prevent reporting of illegitimate credit transactions for a minor.
For more details on the CFPB’s advisory opinion program, please see InfoBytes coverage here.
District Court rules FCRA allegation filed before expiration of 30-day investigation period is not ripe
On October 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant accused of violating the FCRA. According to the plaintiff’s amended complaint, the plaintiff opened a loan with the defendant and later entered into a modified agreement that reduced his monthly payments and the future projected balance. He later noticed that his credit report showed (i) the reported balance for his account to be higher than it should have been under the terms of the modified agreement, and (ii) three months of late payments. The plaintiff filed a dispute with the credit reporting agency (CRA) arguing, among other things, that the balance was being misstated. The plaintiff filed another dispute with the CRA regarding the late payments. Plaintiff filed the instant action before the end of the 30-day investigation period for disputes regarding the late payments. The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment be granted to defendant related to claims alleging violation of Section1681s-2b for both (i) the claim predicated on the restated balance, and (ii) the claim predicted on the late payments, but for different reasons. The “late payment” claim “was not ripe when the action was filed” because the 30-day investigation period had not yet expired when the plaintiff filed his amended complaint. For the “restated balance” claim, the magistrate judge’s report found that the parties had a genuine legal dispute over their interpretations of the modified agreement—whether the balance due should be reduced at the time of the modification agreement or at the end of the modification term, which was not a factual inaccuracy: “the Report found violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681a-2(b) must be based on factual inaccuracies, not legal disputes, and as Plaintiff bases his claim on a legal dispute, he cannot prevail on his FCRA claim.” This district court agreed noting that the plaintiff did not appear to object to the legal determination that “as a matter of a law a violation of a §1681s-2(b) could not be based on a legal dispute over the terms of a contract[.]” The report also noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to actual damages—a requirement for a negligent violation of the FCRA—nor did he show that the defendant willfully violated the FCRA in order to be entitled to statutory or punitive damages. The district court agreed with the report and recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice.
House subcommittee asks CFPB to review CRAs' handling of consumer disputes
On October 13, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis James E. Clyburn sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra addressing reports that nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) were less responsive to consumer complaints and disputes related to credit report errors during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Clyburn, investigative reports allegedly revealed that the CRAs, which are legally obligated to address errors contained in consumer credit reports, did not always investigate these disputes and purportedly used “broad and speculative criteria” to determine whether a dispute was submitted by an unauthorized third party. The letter also expressed concerns that the CRAs’ alleged “overreliance on data furnishers” raises questions about the sufficiency of the CRAs’ dispute investigations, and that, moreover, using different levels of automation to resolve disputes and complaints is creating variability in the quality and thoroughness of their investigations. Clyburn expressed concerns that by failing to investigate certain legitimate disputes, identify and correct erroneous information, or provide the Bureau with information on the outcomes of the complaint investigations, the CRAs may be failing to meet their obligations under the FCRA. He asked Chopra to review the CRAs for possible statutory violations and to “consider investigating whether the CRAs have made sufficient revisions to their procedures for identifying and taking corrective action against unreliable furnishers.”