InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
German Data Protection Authorities Issue Position Paper In Light of Schrems EU Court Decision
Recently, German data protection authorities issued a position paper to address potential consequences of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) Schrems ruling on the handling of personal data. The first section of the paper summarizes the ruling, noting that the court found the Safe Harbor decision overly restrictive of the “supervisory powers of the European data protection supervisory authorities and does not follow the requirements of the provisions that empower the Commission to decide on the level of protection of a third country.” The remaining four sections of the paper consider the following: (i) the European Commission’s options to either adopt a new decision which declares U.S. law provides an adequate level of protection, or to push for an international treaty to include a data protection agreement with the U.S.; (ii) the legal basis for the transfer of personal data; (iii) private bodies’ use of standard contractual clauses, concluding that private bodies must “consider terminating the underlying standard contract with the data importer in the U.S. or suspending data transfers”; and (iv) enforcement concerning private bodies, noting that authorities will examine “whether orders against private bodies must be issued and on which basis data transfers to the United States must be suspended or banned.”
North Carolina Passes Legislation to Clarify Applicability of Motor Vehicle Service Agreement Protections
On October 22, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law North Carolina SB 195 to clarify the types of service agreements that come under the existing framework governing how motor vehicle service agreements are sold. The bill revises the existing statute to specifically describe a set of products considered to be motor vehicle service agreements and delegates to the Commissioner of Insurance power to define additional products consistent with the law. The bill also amends the statute to expressly carve out from the regulatory framework maintenance agreements offered by certain entities. Finally, the new law amends the statute to clarify that ancillary anti-theft protection program and ancillary anti-theft protection program warranty products are not considered contracts of insurance. The amendments are effective as of October 1, 2015.
CFPB Files Suit Against Student Financial Aid Company
On October 29, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against a California-based student financial aid operation and its owner (Defendants). According to the complaint, the Defendants represented that by paying a fee and sending in an application, consumers were applying for financial aid or the Defendants would apply for aid on behalf the students. The CFPB alleges, however, that consumers did not receive the promised services in exchange for their payment and that the Defendants collected more than $4 million from at least 76,000 consumers from January 2011 through the filing of the complaint. The CFPB alleges that the Defendants violated the CFPA by (i) deceiving students to pay for services that the Defendants did not actually provide; (ii) using letterhead that falsely indicated affiliation with the government and university financial aid offices; and (iii) pressuring students to enroll in the program and pay a fee by creating false deadlines and making deceptive statements about the consequences of missing the deadlines. The CFPB also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide privacy notices to consumers as required by Regulation P. The complaint seeks a civil money penalty, restitution to harmed consumers, and a prohibition against future violations.
Department of Education Finalizes Rules Affecting Federal Student Loan Borrowers
On October 27, the Department of Education announced final regulations regarding how students access Federal student aid and implementing a Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) program. The new rules addressing access to Federal student aid (i) protect students against “excessive” fees to access aid; (ii) require institutions to give greater choice and information to students about how to receive aid; and (iii) prohibit institutions from requiring students to open certain accounts for the deposit of student aid refunds, among other things. The rules also limit the amount of information institutions can share with third party institutions providing campus debit and prepaid cards to students under partnerships with schools and require schools to disclose on their websites the terms of those partnerships. The second set of rules announced on October 27 establishes an expanded Pay As You Earn program, which caps payments at 10 percent of annual income. The REPAYE plan covers five million more Direct Loan borrowers, without regard to when the borrowers first obtained their loans.
FDIC Vice Chairman Elected as President of the International Association of Deposit Insurers
On October 30, the FDIC announced that Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig will serve as the President of the International Association of Deposit Insurers (IADI) and as Chairman of its Executive Council for a two-year term. The IADI sets global deposit insurance standards and promotes financial stability by facilitating international cooperation and developing best practices among deposit insurers and other parties responsible for financial safety net arrangements. Hoenig will continue to serve as Vice Chairman of the FDIC.
Illinois District Court Enters Final Judgment Against For-Profit College to Resolve CFPB Litigation
On October 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a default judgment and order against a for-profit college company to resolve litigation with the CFPB. In a September 2014 lawsuit, the CFPB alleged that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by making false and misleading representations to students to encourage them to take out private student loans. The CFPB also alleged that the company violated the FDCPA by taking aggressive and unfair action to collect on the loan payments when they became past due. The court order requires the company to pay approximately $531 million in redress to student borrowers, which the company is unable to pay because it has dissolved and its assets have been distributed in its bankruptcy case. The CFPB indicated that it will continue to seek additional relief for students affected by the company’s practices despite the company’s inability to pay the judgment.
State-Chartered Bank Settles with New York DFS for Alleged Violations of Banking Law
On October 28, the New York DFS resolved an enforcement action with a New York State-charted bank for alleged violations of state banking law. The DFS alleged that the bank hired a former New York Federal Reserve Bank examiner and permitted him to work on matters for an entity that the employee had examined while at the New York Fed, in violation of a notice of post-employment restrictions from the New York Fed. The DFS also alleged that the employee obtained confidential regulatory or supervisory information from a now former New York Fed employee and distributed the information to a Managing Director at the bank for the purpose of advising the entity. In addition to the bank’s alleged failure to screen the employee from working on matters related to the entity he had examined, the DFS’s order alleges that the bank failed to “provide training to personnel regarding what constituted confidential supervisory information and how it should be safeguarded.” Under the settlement terms, the bank will (i) pay a civil money penalty of $50 million to the DFS; (ii) reform its policies and procedures to ensure the proper handling of confidential supervisory information and the monitoring of assignments of former government employees; and (iii) not re-hire the bank employee and Managing Director, who had been terminated as result of the matter.
OFAC Authorizes Transactions Involving Certain Belarusian Entities
On October 29, OFAC granted a General License authorizing nine Belarusian entities to make transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405, effective October 30. The General License also authorizes transactions with any entities that are owned 50 percent or more by the nine named entities. U.S. persons must report authorized transactions or series of transactions exceeding $10,000 to the U.S. Department of State no later than 15 days after execution. The General License expires on October 31, 2016, unless extended or revoked.
CFPB Enforcement Action Targets Background Check Company's Screening Practices
On October 29, the CFPB announced a consent order with a national employment background screening provider and its affiliate for alleged violations of the FCRA. According to the CFPB, the company and its affiliate failed to (i) use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in reports that they provided to employers; (ii) take appropriate measures to ensure that non-reportable information, such as civil suits and civil judgments older than seven years, was not included in reports; and (iii) comply with the requirement to maintain “strict procedures” to ensure complete and up to date information in reports or notify consumers when the reported information was likely to have an adverse effect on their ability to obtain employment. Under the terms of the consent order, the company and its affiliate are required to provide $10.5 million in relief to consumers and pay a $2.5 million civil money penalty. In addition, the company and its affiliate must revise their compliance procedures and hire an independent consultant to assess their policies, procedures, staffing levels, and systems.
CFPB Orders Auto Finance Company to Pay Over Three Million for Alleged Unfair Debt Collection Practices
On October 28, the CFPB filed an administrative order against an Ohio-based auto lender specializing in extending credit to servicemembers. The CFPB alleged that the company violated the CFPA by engaging in unfair, abusive, and deceptive debt collection practices, including: (i) contacting and threatening to contact servicemembers’ commanding officers to inform them of delinquencies and alleged military violations requiring discipline; (ii) exaggerating the potential disciplinary actions, such as demotion, loss of promotion, and discharge, that servicemembers may face if they failed to make payments; (iii) representing that the company could commence an involuntary allotment or wage garnishment without obtaining a court judgment; and (iv) threatening legal action when the company did not intend to take legal action at the time. Among other things, the consent order requires that the company: (i) refund or credit over $2 million to consumers; and (ii) pay a $1 million civil money penalty.