Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Senate Banking Committee seeks feedback on data privacy, protection, and collection

    Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security

    On February 13, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) invited stakeholder feedback on “the collection, use and protection of sensitive information from financial regulators and private companies” as a means of informing potential future legislation. In a press release issued by the committee, Crapo noted, “Given the exponential growth and use of data, and corresponding data breaches, it is worth examining how the Fair Credit Reporting Act should work in a digital economy, and whether certain data brokers and other firms serve a function similar to the original consumer reporting agencies.” He further stressed the importance of understanding how consumer data is compiled and protected, and how consumers are able to access and correct sensitive information. The release sought answers to five questions designed to help examine ways in which legislation, regulation, or the implementation of best practices can (i) provide consumers better control over their financial data, as well as timely data breach notifications; (ii) ensure consumers receive disclosures concerning both the type of information being collected and its purpose for collection; (iii) provide consumers control over how their data is being used—including the sharing of information by third-parties; (iv) protect consumer data and ensure the accuracy of reported information in a consumer’s credit file; and (v) allow consumers the ability to “easily identify and exercise control of data that is being . . . collected and shared” as a determining factor when establishing whether a consumer is eligible for, among other things, credit or employment.

    Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Senate Banking Committee Federal Legislation Consumer Protection Fair Credit Reporting Act

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court concludes communications transmitter can be liable under the TCPA

    Courts

    On February 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada rejected a cloud communication company’s motion to dismiss a TCPA class action. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs’ alleged the company “collaborated as to the development, implementation, and maintenance of [a] telemarketing text message program,” which was used by a theater production company to send text messages without prior consent in violation of the TCPA and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The company moved to dismiss the claims, arguing, among other things, that it was not liable under the TCPA because it was a “transmitter” and not an “initiator” of communications. Citing the FCC’s previous determination that, under certain circumstances transmitters may be held liable under the TCPA, the court rejected this argument, concluding that the company took steps necessary to send the automated messages and that its “alleged involvement was to an extent that [it] could be considered to have initiated the contact.” Moreover, the court determined the plaintiff sufficiently alleged injury under the TCPA, concluding that violations of privacy and injury to the “quiet use and enjoyment of [a] cellular telephone” are consistent with the purpose of the TCPA. The court did dismiss the plaintiff’s NDTPA claims, however, holding that the transaction did not involve the sale or lease of goods or services as the law requires.

    Courts TCPA State Issues Standing Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security FCC

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court holds state law claims preempted by FCRA

    Courts

    On February 8, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a consumer’s state law claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and civil conspiracy claims because they were preempted by the FCRA. According to the opinion, which affirmed and adopted a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and also allowed the consumer’s FDCPA claims to proceed, the consumer alleged the furnisher improperly filed delinquencies on his credit report, wrongfully refused to remove the delinquencies, and improperly handled the investigation of his claims. The consumer had objected to the Magistrate’s conclusions with regard to the state law claims, arguing that the FCRA preemption was not applicable because the unfair and deceptive conduct occurred after the furnisher allegedly reported inaccurate information to the credit bureaus. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that the state law claims “run [] into the teeth of the FCRA preemption provision” and are “squarely preempted” by the federal statute.

    Courts FCRA Preemption State Issues Credit Report

    Share page with AddThis
  • FDIC issues 2018 annual report

    Federal Issues

    On February 14, the FDIC released its 2018 Annual Report, which includes, among other things, the audited financial statements of the Deposit Insurance Fund and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) Resolution Fund. The report also provides an overview of key FDIC initiatives, performance results, and other aspects of FDIC operations, supervision developments, and regulatory enforcement. Highlights of the report include: (i) the FDIC’s efforts to adopt and issue proposed rules on key regulations under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA); (ii) efforts to strengthen cybersecurity oversight and help financial institutions mitigate cyber risk; (iii) supervision focus on Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering compliance; and (iv) financial institution letters providing regulatory relief to institutions affected by natural disasters. The report also highlights the FDIC’s monitoring of financial technology developments through its various research groups and committees to better understand how technological efforts may affect the financial market. Lastly, the report covers the agency’s efforts to encourage de novo bank applications, including the December 2018 request for information soliciting comments on the deposit insurance applications process (covered by InfoBytes here).

    Federal Issues FDIC Bank Supervision EGRRCPA Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering De Novo Bank Fintech Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Deposit Insurance

    Share page with AddThis
  • VA Circular clarifies rules on cash-out refis

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 14, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) released Circular 26-19-05 (and on February 15, accompanying Change Circular 26-19-05) to clarify the VA’s interim final rule regarding VA-guaranteed cash-out refinancing loans, which was released in December 2018 and became effective on February 15. The interim final rule was previously covered by InfoBytes. Among other things, the Circular provides clarification regarding (i) the Net Tangible Benefit test; (ii) the contents of the loan comparison and home equity disclosures (including sample 3-day and final loan closing disclosures); (iii) the loan seasoning requirements, including a new obligation that, for loans refinanced within 1 year of the original closing date, lenders obtain a payment history/ledger documentating all payments, unless a credit bureau supplement clearly identifies all payments made in that timeframe; and (iv) the manner by which lenders should calculate fee recoupment.  

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Department of Veterans Affairs Refinance Mortgages Lending EGRRCPA

    Share page with AddThis
  • OFAC sanctions Iranian entities and individuals supporting intelligence gathering and cyber targeting of U.S. persons

    Financial Crimes

    On February 13, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against an Iran-based entity and four affiliated Iranian individuals for their alleged roles in providing support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force’s (IRGC-QF) efforts to recruit and collect intelligence from foreign attendees of international conferences, including facilitating contact between the IRGC-QF and U.S. persons. According to OFAC, the sanctions were issued pursuant to Executive Order 13224, which authorizes “the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism.” The same day, OFAC also sanctioned a separate Iran-based entity and six associated individuals, pursuant to Executive Order 13606, for their alleged involvement in the cyber targeting of current and former U.S. government and military personnel, in an effort to gain access to their computer systems and implant malware.

    As a result of the OFAC sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified individuals and entities and subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from entering into transactions with the individuals and entities. Additionally, OFAC notes that “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the persons designated today pursuant to E.O. 13224 or that are Iranian persons on OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons . . . could be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.”

    Visit here for additional recent InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Iran.

    Financial Crimes OFAC Department of Treasury Iran Sanctions Of Interest to Non-US Persons

    Share page with AddThis
  • D.C. Mayor establishes sandbox and innovation council

    Fintech

    On February 11, the District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking announced the formation of the District of Columbia Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox and Innovation Council. The Council, which will examine the feasibility of implementing a financial services regulatory sandbox in the District, will also “develop a blockchain and innovation regulatory framework to facilitate financial services innovation in the District.” D.C. Mayor Bowser, who established the Council in January, has directed the advisory group to review barriers that fintech, insurtech, regtech, and other technology companies face when attempting to bring innovative services to the District, and to evaluate how these impediments can be mitigated or eliminated to foster innovation, including making recommendations for ways to reduce the regulatory burden on financial services providers that impede innovation. Among other things, the Mayor also has tasked the Council with studying the potential dangers regulatory sandboxes pose to consumers and the possible safeguards to such dangers. The Council—whose membership will include a cross section of professionals from the insurance, securities, banking, and lending industries; consumer representatives; technology industry members; and individuals specializing in financial services regulation and the captive insurance industry—will report legislative, programmatic, and policy recommendations to the Mayor within the first six months after its initial meeting.

    Fintech Regulatory Sandbox Blockchain

    Share page with AddThis
  • Democratic AGs object to CFPB sandbox

    State Issues

    On February 11, a coalition of 22 Democratic state Attorneys General responded to the CFPB’s proposed policy on No-Action Letters (NAL) and a new federal product sandbox, pushing back on the Bureau’s efforts to provide relief to financial institutions looking to implement new consumer financial products or services. (InfoBytes coverage on the proposal available here.) The Attorneys General argued that the Bureau “has no authority to issue such sweeping immunity absent formal rulemaking” and urged the Bureau to rescind the proposals, which the Bureau had stated were exempt from the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.

    In addition to challenging the Bureau’s authority to establish these policies, the Attorneys General asserted specific concerns with the NAL proposal, including (i) the fact that the proposed NAL policy would make NALs binding on the CFPB indefinitely; (ii) the streamlined application process and 60-day decision window, potentially causing the Bureau to render hasty, uninformed decisions; and (iii) the proposed NAL policy’s purported deviations from the policies of other federal agencies, such as the SEC.

    As for the new product sandbox, the Attorneys General viewed the proposed policy as “even more troubling” than the NAL proposal, as it provides immunity from “enforcement actions by any Federal or State authorities, as well as from lawsuits brought by private parties.” The Attorneys General rejected the Bureau’s contention that the statutory safe harbors in TILA, ECOA, and the EFTA grant the authority to provide the broad enforcement relief and accused the Bureau of “abandoning its critical role in monitoring the risk that new and emergency technologies post to consumers in the financial marketplace.”

    State Issues State Attorney General Fintech CFPB Regulatory Sandbox Safe Harbor

    Share page with AddThis
  • 7th Circuit vacates class decertification decision in auto finance lawsuit

    Courts

    On February 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit vacated a lower court’s decision to rescind class certification for a group of automotive dealerships (plaintiffs), concluding the lower court did not provide a sufficiently thorough explanation of its decision for the appeals court to reach a decision. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs were granted class certification of breach of contract and RICO claims, among others, brought against an inventory financing company for allegedly improperly charging interest and fees on credit lines before the money was actually extended by the company for the automobile purchases. The company had moved the district court to reconsider the class certification, arguing the plaintiffs admitted the financing agreements were ambiguous on their face, and therefore extrinsic evidence on an individual basis would be required to establish the parties’ intent. In response, the plaintiffs had argued that patent ambiguity in the contract does not require consideration of extrinsic evidence and individualized proof. The district court had agreed with the company, concluding that “ambiguity in the contracts requires consideration of extrinsic evidence, necessitates individualized proof, and undermines the elements of commonality and predominance for class certification.”

    On appeal, the 7th Circuit concluded the denial of class certification lacks “sufficient reasoning” to ascertain the basis of the decision, noting that while the original decision to grant certification was a “model of clarity and thoroughness,” the decision to withdraw certification provides only a conclusion. Moreover, the appellate court concluded that the mere need for extrinsic evidence does not in itself render class certification improper and therefore the court needed a more thorough explanation of its reasoning to decertify the class.

    Courts Seventh Circuit Appellate Class Action Auto Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • District Court: New Jersey licensing requirements apply to debt collector

    Courts

    On February 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a debt collector and its legal counsel, holding that the plaintiff debtor made a plausible claim under the FDCPA that the debt collector was required by New Jersey’s Consumer Financing Licensing Act (NJCFLA) to be licensed as a consumer lender. According to the opinion, the plaintiff had defaulted on his credit card debt and, nine years later, received a letter from the defendant’s legal counsel seeking payment of the balance due. The plaintiff filed a proposed class action arguing that the letter violated the FDCPA because the debt collector had not been licensed with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance prior to purchasing the debt, and therefore lacked the authority to collect on the debt. The defendant debt collector moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming, among other things, that it was exempt from the licensing requirements because it did not qualify as a “consumer loan business” under the NJCFLA. The debt collector argued that it never exceeded the state’s interest rate cap and therefore was exempt from the licensing requirements. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s licensing violation arose from a second part of the “consumer loan business” definition, under which the licensing requirements apply because the defendant “directly or indirectly engag[es] . . . in the business of buying. . . notes.” The district court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that “[t]his statutory language does not narrow the category of lenders falling under that definition according to the interest rates that they charge.”

    Courts Debt Collection FDCPA Licensing State Issues Consumer Lending

    Share page with AddThis

Pages

Upcoming Events