InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
U.K. FCA Proposes Consumer Credit Regulatory Regime, New Payday Lending Rules
On October 3, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) proposed a framework for its regulation of consumer credit when those authorities transfer to the FCA from the Office of Fair Trading on April 1, 2014. As part of the U.K.’s ongoing regulatory reform and restructuring, after that date the FCA will supervise more than 50,000 firms who have existing credit licenses. The FCA proposes, among other things, (i) requiring lenders to conduct affordability checks on borrowers, (ii) requiring clear, fair and not misleading advertisements, and (iii) banning misleading advertisements. The regime would include additional new rules for payday lenders, which would: (i) restrict loan roll-overs to a maximum of two, (ii) require lenders to provide borrowers who roll-over loans with information about debt advice resources, (iii) restrict to two the number of times an automatic payment deduction authority can be used, and (iv) restrict the content of payday lending advertisements. The Consultation Paper is open for comment through December 3, 2013. The FCA plans to publish the final rules and guidance in February 2014.
Payment Network Providers Seek Collaboration On Digital Payment Standard
On October 1, three payment network providers proposed that industry stakeholders collaborate on a token-based global security standard for online and mobile commerce. To meet growing consumer demand for secure digital transactions, the providers propose replacing traditional account numbers with a digital payment “token” for online and mobile transactions. They argue that tokens provide an additional layer of security and eliminate the need for merchants, digital wallet operators or others to store account numbers. The proposed standard used to generate tokens would be based on existing industry standards and would be available to all payment networks and other payment participants. The providers identify the following as key elements of the proposed standard: (i) new data fields to provide richer information about the transaction, which can help improve fraud detection and expedite the approval process, (ii) consistent methods to identify and verify a consumer before replacing the traditional card account number with a token, and (iii) a common standard designed to simplify the process for merchants for contactless, online or other transactions. The proposed standard incorporates comments from card issuers and merchants, and the participants intend to seek further collaboration from standard-setting bodies and other stakeholders.
CFPB Credit Card Report Identifies Practices For Further Scrutiny
On October 2, the CFPB released its first review of the consumer credit card market. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the CARD Act) requires the CFPB to prepare a report every two years to examine developments in the consumer credit card marketplace, including (i) the terms of credit card agreements and the practices of issuers, (ii) the effectiveness of disclosures, and (iii) the adequacy of UDAP protections. The CFPB also must review the impact of the CARD Act on (i) the cost and availability of credit, (ii) the safety and soundness of issuers, (iii) the use of risk-based pricing, and (iv) product innovation. In connection with this initial report, the CFPB hosted a credit card field hearing in Chicago, IL, at which Director Cordray reviewed the report’s findings and industry representatives and consumer advocates discussed the current state of the credit card market.
In its review of the post-CARD Act market, the CFPB found that the CARD Act largely accomplished its intended goals. The CFPB reports that: (i) the total cost of credit declined by two percentage points between 2008 and 2012; (ii) overlimit fees and repricing actions have been effectively eliminated; (iii) the size of late fees has decreased; (iv) there is sufficient available credit, notwithstanding the impacts of the financial crisis, but less than in 2007; and (iv) the CARD Act’s ability-to-repay provisions have protected young consumers.
However, the CFPB identifies numerous concerns it has about the credit card market, including “practices that may pose risks to consumers and may warrant further scrutiny by the Bureau.” Those concerns include:
- Add-on products: The CFPB remains concerned about the ways these products are marketed and will continue to pursue allegedly deceptive practices. All of the CFPB’s major enforcement actions to date have involved add-on products, most of which related to credit cards.
- “Fee harvester” cards: The CFPB recognizes that some upfront fees that exceed 25% of the initial credit limit have been held not to be covered by the CARD Act because a portion of the fees are paid prior to account opening. Still, the CFPB plans to monitor the use of application fees in connection with account openings to determine if it should take action under its available authorities.
- Deferred interest products: The CFPB intends to study the risks and benefits of private label cards that finance purchases without interest for a period of time but then assess interest retroactively if the balance is not paid in full by a given date.
- Online disclosures: The CFPB intends to assess the methods by which card issuers provide consumers with disclosures when they access their accounts online.
- Rewards products disclosures: The CFPB will review whether disclosures for “highly complex” rewards products are being made in a clear and transparent manner and whether “additional action” is warranted.
- Grace period disclosures: The CFPB believes it may need to take action to ensure that disclosures sufficiently inform consumers that once they carry a credit card balance into a new billing cycle, they no longer enjoy the grace period on new purchases.
CFPB Enforcement Action Targets Debt Settlement Payment Processing
On October 3, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against a leading debt-settlement payment processor and its President/CEO for allegedly assisting clients in the debt-settlement industry charge and collect millions of dollars in unlawful fees since October 2010. According to the complaint, the defendants “knew or consciously avoided knowing” that the company’s services were used to charge illegal upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule to more than 11,000 consumers across multiple states. The defendants agreed to a consent order that will: (i) prohibit the company from processing payments for debt-settlement companies and for members of the related mortgage-settlement industry going forward; (ii) subject the parties to regular monitoring by and reporting to the CFPB, as well as recordkeeping requirements; and (iii) mandate a civil money penalty of $1.376 million. On the date announced, Deputy Director Steve Antonakes remarked that the action should send a message that the CFPB is “working to ensure federal consumer laws are being followed at every stage of the process, including taking action against those who unlawfully facilitate illegal conduct of others.”
The CFPB has already taken action against the debt-settlement companies themselves, obtaining judgments against two companies in 2012 and 2013 and filing a complaint against four others in May.
CFPB Event Focuses on Student Banking
On September 30, the CFPB (or the Bureau) hosted a “Banking on Campus” forum, an event it described as a continuation of its February 2013 request for information about financial products and services marketed to college students. The event featured remarks from government officials, including the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Education, as well as presentations from students, school officials, financial institution representatives, and consumer advocacy groups. Generally, the discussion centered on the potential financial impact of exclusive marketing arrangements between schools and financial service providers on students, particularly with regard to financial aid disbursement products.
Director Cordray provided opening remarks in which he stated the Bureau’s concern that colleges and universities may be encouraging or even requiring students to use financial products that do not offer the best deals, while the schools are “secretly making money” from marketing agreements with financial service providers.
CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman, Rohit Chopra followed with a presentation that summarized the findings from the Bureau’s request for information, which may indicate the direction the CFPB will take in further scrutinizing student banking products and services. According to Mr. Chopra, the CFPB received 162 responses to its request for information and reviewed publicly available information. The Bureau’s initial observations include, among others, that: (i) financial product marketing partnerships have shifted to student checking, debit and prepaid card products (particularly student ID card accounts and financial aid disbursement cards/accounts); (ii) college affinity products generally do not appear to have more attractive features compared to other student checking products; and (iii) marketing arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education for many student banking products are not well understood.
Mr. Chopra identified the following as questions requiring further exploration:
- How can colleges and universities better use their bargaining power to negotiate better product terms and conditions?
- How can students be better equipped to shop for student checking, debit, and prepaid card products?
- What obstacles do colleges and universities face when seeking to adopt established professional best practices on disclosure of debit card arrangements?
- Have colleges and universities established codes of conduct for employees who negotiate marketing agreements for checking, debit, and prepaid card products?
- How does the delivery model for federal student aid impact this market, and what can be learned from other federal benefit delivery models, such as Treasury’s Direct Express program?
Several of the student and consumer advocacy group panelists claimed that under exclusive marketing arrangements between financial service providers and schools, students are steered into unneeded and non-competitive products that result in unnecessary fees. Those participants called for more choice for students and stressed that schools should promote direct deposit of disbursement funds over the use of cards to allow students to choose their own financial service provider. At least one consumer group panelist called for revenue sharing agreements between schools and providers to be prohibited. Other participants referenced U.S. PIRG’s May 2012 report, which contains campus card best practices and recommendations for the CFPB to enforce the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, including by enforcing the rule that prohibits any person from being required to have an account at a particular institution as a condition of receipt of a government benefit
Special Alert: HUD Proposes Its Own QM Rule
On September 27, HUD released a proposal defining what constitutes a “qualified mortgage” (QM) for purposes of loans insured by the FHA. We have prepared a Special Alert regarding this proposal, which, once it is finalized and takes effect, will replace the temporary QM definition for FHA loans established by the CFPB in its January 2013 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule. QMs, when made in accordance with the applicable requirements, provide lenders with some legal protection against borrower lawsuits under TILA alleging the lender did not sufficiently consider the borrower’s ability to repay the loan.
The CFPB’s temporary QM definition will continue to apply to loans that are eligible to be guaranteed or insured by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture until those agencies establish their own QM definitions. Similarly, the CFPB’s temporary QM definition will continue to apply to loans that are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any successor entity for as long as those entities remain under the conservatorship or receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Authority or until January 10, 2021, whichever is earlier.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the Special Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
CFPB Rejects Tribal Lenders' CID Challenge
On September 26, the CFPB denied three tribal lenders’ joint petition to set aside civil investigative demands (CIDs) issued in June 2012. The CIDs were issued in connection with the Bureau’s investigation into several lenders that offer a variety of online small-dollar credit products, including payday loans, installment loans, and lines of credit. The July 2012 petition primarily argued that the CFPB does not have jurisdiction over the three lenders, which are organized and chartered under the “sovereign authority of federally recognized Indian Tribes with longstanding traditions of tribal independence.”
The CFPB’s decision and order rejects the lenders’ claim that the CFPB lacks authority over tribally-affiliated entities under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, stating that the Supreme Court has “long established” that generally-applicable federal statutes apply to Indian tribes, individual Indians, and tribally-affiliated entities. Moreover, in explaining why certain exceptions would not apply to this general rule, the Bureau noted that it “has reason to believe that the Lenders are making loans to non-Indians over the internet, and it seeks to investigate those lending practices for compliance with Federal consumer financial laws.” The decision and order likewise rejects the lenders’ claim of tribal sovereign immunity, finding that “[e]very court of appeals to address the issue has agreed that Indian tribes, like individual States, do not enjoy immunity from suits by the federal government.”
The lenders’ petition also raised procedural challenges, argued that the requests were vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and sought to incorporate by reference arguments from another entity’s motion to set aside a separate CID. The CFPB rejected all arguments as lacking merit and further announced that it will not consider incorporated arguments going forward. While directing the three tribal lenders to comply with the CIDs within 21 calendar days, the Bureau also noted that the tribal lenders were welcome to continue to discuss issues regarding the scope and burden of individual interrogatories and document requests with the Bureau’s enforcement team.
In an article published earlier this year, BuckleySandler attorney Amanda Raines analyze the reasoning behind previous decisions to deny such petitions and identify issues that companies must be cognizant of while navigating the investigation and petitioning phases.
Congressional Democrats Seek Information on Student Debit Cards; CFPB Plans "Banking on Campus" Event
On September 26, several Democratic Members of Congress, including Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA), House Education Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA), and Senate Banking Committee members Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), sent letters to the CEOs of numerous financial institutions asking that the institutions explain their student debit card deals with colleges and universities. The letters ask each financial institution for: (i) a list of colleges/universities where the institution has an agreement to enroll students in any deposit account or prepaid debit account and where the marketing, materials or financial instruments used to access such accounts are co-branded with a college or university logo, symbol, mascot or name; (ii) the number of accounts opened through agreements at each institution of higher education listed from the previous question, and the total fees collected from such accounts over the last three academic years; (iii) the total value of monetary and non-monetary remuneration provided to such institutions of higher education for the marketing of these products over each of the last three academic years; and (iv) whether any of the institution’s employees or agents have ever provided any monetary or non-monetary gift to an employee or agent of an institution of higher education, including meals, entertainment, gift cards, or compensation for an advisory committee above a $10 value as part of the institution’s marketing strategy over the past three academic years.
Earlier this year the CFPB initiated a review of campus affinity relationships, and on Monday, September 30, the CFPB is hosting an event regarding financial products offered at colleges.
CFPB Releases QM Compliance Chart for Small Creditors
On September 24, the CFPB released an additional mortgage rule implementation resource, entitled the Small Creditor Qualified Mortgages Flowchart. The flowchart walks small creditors through a series of questions to help those institutions determine the types of qualified mortgages they can originate. The chart is included on the CFPB’s broader mortgage rule implementation resources website.
Federal Agencies Issue Guidance On Reporting Elder Financial Abuse Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley
On September 23, eight federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board, the CFPB, the OCC, and the FDIC, issued interagency guidance to clarify the applicability of Gramm-Leach Bliley Act privacy provisions to reporting suspected financial exploitation of older adults. The guidance states that although the Act generally prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party without notifying the consumer and providing an opportunity to opt-out of the disclosure, the Act contains several exemptions that generally allow for the reporting of suspected elder financial abuse, either at the request of a local, state, or federal agency or on the financial institution’s own initiative.