InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Maryland affirms penalties of over $3 million against auto lender
On August 11, the Maryland attorney general announced that a circuit court in Maryland affirmed that an auto-lending company’s transactions were illegal loans, not pawn transactions, and upheld the Consumer Protection Division’s imposition of $2.2 million in restitution and a $1.2 million penalty. In its press release, the AG alleged that the company “made predatory loans at outrageous interest rates, illegally repossessed cars, and preyed on Maryland consumers,” in violation of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, the Maryland Interest and Usury Law, and the Installment Loan-Licensing Provision. According to the memorandum of the court, the loans issued by the company were not considered to be title pawn transactions, but were instead illegal consumer loans which “violated the consumer protection statutes as respondents were not licensed to make loans in Maryland, failed to make the required disclosures to the consumer, engaged in unfair trade practices, exceeded the statutory interest rate caps, took unpermitted security interests for loans of less than $700.00 and engaged in illegal repossession activities.”
Georgia settles with debt collection company
On August 12, the Georgia Attorney General announced that it entered an assurance of voluntary compliance with a debt collection company resolving allegations that the company committed multiple violations of the FDCPA and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. According to the AG, the company deceived consumers by, among other things: (i) threatening consumers with jailtime if a debt was not paid; (ii) failing to disclose that they were debt collectors; and (iii) failing to provide consumers, within five days after the initial communication, a written notice containing certain information required by law. Under the settlement, the company must cease collections on all Georgia consumer accounts it owns and turn those accounts over to the AG, which represents over $19.8 million in purported consumer debt. In addition, the company must pay $41,500 in penalties and fees, and fully comply with the FDCPA and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Finally, if the company violates any provisions of the settlement during a three-year monitoring period, it must immediately pay an additional $41,500 payment to the state.
District Court allows CFPB, Massachusetts AG’s telemarketing suit to proceed
On August 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion to dismiss filed by a credit repair organization and the company’s president and owner (collectively, “defendants”) in a joint action taken by the CFPB and the Massachusetts attorney general, which alleged the defendants committed deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleges the defendants, among other things, claimed their credit-repair services could help consumers substantially improve their credit scores and promised to fix “unlimited” amounts of negative items from consumers’ credit reports, but, in “numerous instances,” the defendants failed to achieve these results. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by engaging in abusive acts and by requesting and collecting fees before achieving any results related to repairing a consumer’s credit. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that they were governed by the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), which cannot be reconciled with the TSR, the TSR definition of “telemarketing” is vague and violates the Due Process Clause, and that applying the TSR’s definition of telemarketing would place an unfair content-based restriction on speech that restricts when they can collect payments for their services. Moreover, the defendants claimed, among other things, that the FTC “exceeded its authority in promulgating rules targeting their conduct because Congress intended that only unsolicited telemarketing calls would be addressed by the FTC’s regulations.”
The court disagreed, holding first that that the CROA and the TSR do not conflict. “[C]ompliance with the TSR’s payment requirement would not cause defendants to violate the CROA,” the court stated. “The TSR simply adds a precondition to requesting payment…” Additionally, the court noted that the TSR’s “restriction is on conduct—the timing of the payment—not on speech,” adding that while “Congress directed the FTC to create rules regarding specific telemarketing activities. . ., Congress also authorized the FTC to create additional rules addressing ‘deceptive telemarketing acts or practices’ at its discretion.” As such, the court held that defendants did not show that “Congress intended the FTC to exclusively address unsolicited telemarketing calls.” Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs adequately defined the defendants’ allegedly deceptive conduct and that the alleged violations of state law are plausible.
State AGs ask for faster implementation of STIR/SHAKEN
On August 9, state attorneys general from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, through the National Association of Attorneys General, sent a letter to the FCC urging the Commission to confront illegal robocalls by moving the deadline for smaller telephone companies to implement caller ID technology, STIR/SHAKEN, by June 30, 2022 at the latest. The TRACED Act (the Act), which became law in 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here), requires phone companies to implement STIR/SHAKEN technology on their networks to ensure that telephone calls are originating from verified numbers, not spoofed sources. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework is an “industry-developed system to authenticate Caller ID and address unlawful spoofing by confirming that a call actually comes from the number indicated in the Caller ID, or at least that the call entered the US network through a particular voice service provider or gateway.” Currently under the Act, large companies are required to implement the technology by June 2021, and smaller voice service providers have until June 2023. According to the letter, the state attorney generals’ advocate that “[r]emoving — or, at least, curtailing — the Commission's blanket extension for small voice service providers that flout the commission's largess by perpetrating this high-volume traffic would truly serve the purpose of the TRACED Act: ‘to deter criminal robocall violations and improve enforcement’ of the TCPA.”
State AGs filed amicus brief in support of federal student loan borrowers
On July 29, a coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and the Department of Education in support of an appeal challenging the Department’s 2019 rule governing student loan relief for defrauded borrowers (“2019 Rule”). As summarized in the brief, Congress created a statutory entitlement to loan relief for borrowers who are defrauded by their school—a process known as “borrower defense”—to “ensure that victimized students are not unfairly saddled with federal student loans.” The amici brief argues that the 2019 Rule “reject[ed] longstanding agency practice and positions going back 25 years to the first borrower defense rule” and “makes it all but impossible for defrauded borrowers to successfully obtain loan relief.” The states argue that the Department’s 2019 Rule is thus arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and request that the Second Circuit reverse the district court’s holding to the contrary.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July 2020, state attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education, also asking the court to vacate the Department’s 2019 final rule.
CFPB, Arkansas AG settle FCRA violations
On August 4, in an action brought by the CFPB and the Arkansas attorney general, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered a stipulated final judgment and order against a Utah-based home-security and alarm company (defendant) for allegedly failing to provide proper notices under the FCRA. As previously covered by InfoBytes here, according to the complaint, the company extended credit to its customers by allowing them to defer payment for alarm and security-system equipment over the life of a long-term contract. In extending credit to its customers, the company allegedly obtained and used consumers’ credit scores to determine the amount of activation fees it would charge for its products and services and then charged higher fees to consumers who had lower credit scores, without providing those consumers with required risk-based pricing notices in accordance with the FCRA and Regulation V. Under the terms of the order, the company is required to submit a compliance plan and pay a $600,000 civil money penalty, of which $100,000 will be offset if it pays that amount to settle related litigation with the State of Arkansas that is pending in state court. The company will also be required to provide proper risk-based pricing notices as required under the FCRA.
Mississippi AG reaches $3.7 million settlement with auto finance company
On July 21, the Mississippi attorney general announced a settlement with an auto finance company to resolve alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The AG claimed the auto finance company, among other things, allegedly placed consumers into loans with a high probability of default and engaged in aggressive collection practices. Under the terms of the settlement, the auto finance company will pay $3.7 million to the state, including $1.8 million in consumer restitution, and will stop collecting on loans allegedly extinguished under Mississippi law. Additionally, the auto finance company (i) will account for a borrower’s ability to pay and set a reasonable debt-to-income threshold; (ii) may not require dealers to sell any ancillary products; (iii) will “monitor dealers for possible inflation, power booking, or expense deflation”; (iv) may “not misrepresent a consumer’s prospect of redeeming a vehicle that has been repossessed”; (v) may not require borrowers to make payments through methods requiring additional third-party fees; and (vi) will notify all relevant credit reporting agencies that the borrowers’ debts have been extinguished.
FDIC argues “valid-when-made rule” fills statutory gaps
On July 15, the FDIC filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s “valid-when-made rule.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August state attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Act],” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.” The complaint asked the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing the rule and to hold the rule unlawful. The FDIC countered that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule because it “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law,” but rather clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority (covered by InfoBytes here).
The AGs disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the rule violates the APA because the FDIC’s interpretation in its “Non-Bank Interest Provision” (Provision) conflicts with the unambiguous plain-language statutory text, which preempts state interest-rate caps for federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (FDIC Banks) alone, and “impermissibly expands the scope of [12 U.S.C.] § 1831d to preempt state rate caps as to non-bank loan buyers of FDIC Bank loans.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In its reply in support of the summary judgment motion, the FDIC’s arguments included that the rule is a “reasonable interpretation of §1831d” in that it filled two statutory gaps by determining that “the interest-rate term of a loan is determined at the time when the loan is made, and is not affected by subsequent events, such as a change in the law or the loan’s transfer.” The FDIC further claimed that the rule should be upheld under Chevron’s two-step framework, and that §1831d was enacted “to level the playing field between state and national banks, and to ‘assure that borrowers could obtain credit in states with low usury limits.’” Additionally, the FDIC refuted the AGs’ argument that the rule allows “non-bank loan buyers to enjoy § 1831d preemption without facing liability for violating the statute,” pointing out that “if a rate violates § 1831d when the loan is originated by the bank, loan buyers cannot charge that rate under the Final Rule because the validity of the interest is determined ‘when the loan is made.’”
District Court approves $35 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 14, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against the named defendant in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which had alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. A second amended complaint also included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the FDCPA and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
In 2019, the named defendant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 case. As the defendant is a Chapter 7 debtor and no longer conducting business, the Bureau did not seek its standard compliance and reporting requirements. Instead, the finalized settlement prohibits the defendant from resuming operations, disclosing or using customer information obtained during the course of offering or providing debt relief services, or attempting “to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment” from any consumers who purchased or agreed to purchase debt relief services. The defendant is also required to pay more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states.
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here).
District Court approves $6.02 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 1, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against two defendants in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserted the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments.
The finalized settlement issued against the two relief defendants, who neither admit nor deny the allegations except as specifically stated, requires the payment of $3.98 million by one defendant and $2.04 million by the other. However, based on the defendant’s inability to pay, full payment of the $2.04 million will be suspended. The finalized settlement also ordered the paying relief defendant to disgorge any funds held in accounts in excess of the $3.98 million, “including any income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, as of the date the funds are transferred.” Moreover, both relief defendants are required to grant all rights and claims of identified assets to the Bureau, as well as any assets “currently in the possession, custody, or control of the Receiver.”
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). Orders have yet to be entered against the remaining defendants.