InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit holds unpaid highway tolls are not “debts” under the FDCPA
On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that unpaid highway tolls are not “debts” under the FDCPA because they are not transactions primarily for a “personal, family, or household” purpose. According to the amended class action complaint at issue in the case, after a consumer’s electronic toll payment system account became delinquent, a debt collection agency sent notices containing the consumer’s account information in the viewable display of the notice envelope. The consumer filed suit alleging the collection agency violated the FDCPA. While the lower court held that the consumer had standing to bring the claim, it dismissed the action on the ground that the unpaid highway tolls fell outside the FDCPA’s definition of a debt. The 3rd Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. On the issue of standing, citing the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert), the panel reasoned that the exposed account number “implicates a core concern animating the FDCPA—the invasion of privacy” and is a legally cognizable injury that confers standing. The panel agreed with the consumer that the obligation to pay the highway tolls arose out of a “transaction” for purposes of the FDCPA because he voluntarily chose to drive on the toll roads, but found the purpose of the transaction was “public benefit of highway maintenance and repair”—not the private benefit of a “personal, family, or household” service or good as required by the FDCPA. Moreover, the court concluded that while the consumer chose to drive on the roads for personal purposes, the money being rendered was primarily for public services, as required by the statute to collect tolls “to acquire, construct, maintain, improve, manage, repair and operate transportation projects.”
Court again denies request to stay CFPB payday rule compliance date
On August 7, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied a request by two payday loan trade groups to reconsider its June decision denying a stay of the compliance date (August 19, 2019) of the Bureau’s final rule on payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other installment loans (Rule) until 445 days after final judgment in the pending litigation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court granted the trade groups’ and the CFPB’s joint request to stay the lawsuit—which asks the court to set aside the Rule— because of the Bureau’s plans to reconsider the Rule, but the court denied, without explanation, the request to stay the compliance date. In denying the reconsideration request, the court acknowledged considering, among other things, the trade groups’ motion and the CFPB’s response, which supported the motion but again, did not provide a substantive justification for the denial.
FinCEN issues extension to continue suspension of beneficial ownership requirements for automatic renewal products
On August 8, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice to provide an additional 30 days of limited exceptive relief for covered financial institutions that are required to obtain and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers with respect to certificate of deposit rollovers and loans that renew automatically. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the extension—which was set to expire August 9 and applies to qualified products and services that were established before the Beneficial Ownership Rule’s May 11 compliance date—will now continue until September 8. FinCEN noted it will continue to evaluate the requirement to determine whether additional relief is needed.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on beneficial ownership and customer due diligence requirements here.
Regulators create Global Financial Innovation Network
On August 7, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced the creation of the Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN) in collaboration with 11 global financial regulators, including the CFPB. As set forth in the GFIN Consultation Document, the three major functions of the initiative are: (i) information sharing among regulators on topics including emerging technologies and business models; (ii) providing a forum for joint policy work; and (iii) instituting “cross-border trials” to create a testing environment for companies as they deal with global regulatory challenges. GFIN’s intention is to serve as an efficient way for innovative fintech firms to interact with regulators and promote transparency, and plans to explore the concept of a “global sandbox” to create opportunities for these firms to test new financial services and products such as artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technology, and initial coin offerings in multiple jurisdictions.
In a press release issued the same day, the Bureau noted that the decision to join the group is a demonstration of its “commitment to promoting innovation by coordinating with state, federal and international regulators.” Acting Director Mick Mulvaney further commented, “We look forward to working closely with other regulatory authorities—whether in the United States or abroad—to facilitate innovation and promote regulatory best practices in consumer financial services.”
The working group seeks multi-jurisdictional comments on the Consultation Document to assess feedback on its proposed mission, function, and priorities. U.S. persons can submit comments through the Bureau’s Office of Innovation or through the FCA and other regulators. Comments must be received by October 14.
FTC seeks comments on possible adjustments to privacy and data security rulemaking authority
On August 6, the FTC published a request for comments in the Federal Register—in advance of a series of 15 to 20 public hearings scheduled to start this September—on whether the agency should make adjustments to competition and consumer protection law, enforcement priorities, and policy in light of evolving technologies and market developments. The hearings will cover a range of consumer-related issues, including the agency’s “remedial authority to deter unfair and deceptive conduct in privacy and data security matters” and the “interpretation and harmonization of state and federal statutes and regulations that prohibit [such conduct].” According to testimony presented by FTC Chairman Joseph Simons at a July 18 House Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection hearing, there exists a need for expanded rulemaking and civil penalty authority. Specifically, Simons discussed Section 5 of the FTC Act, which he stated is too limited to address all of the privacy and security concerns in the marketplace and does not provide for civil penalties. Comments on the hearing topics must be received by August 20.
3rd Circuit says business meets “principal purpose” definition of collector under the FDCPA
On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that a company using the mail and wires to collect “any debts” meets the “principal purpose” definition under the FDCPA. According to the opinion, after homeowners defaulted on a home equity line of credit, the debt was sold and the mortgage assigned to a company whose sole business is the purchase of debts entered into by third parties and collecting on those debts. After several attempts to collect the debt, the company filed a foreclosure action in Pennsylvania. The homeowners contacted the company requesting loan statements to resolve the debt but the company refused to provide statements. The homeowners later received a collection email with an even higher amount than previously communicated and filed an action alleging the company violated the FDCPA. The lower court rejected the company’s arguments that it was not a debt collector under the FDCPA’s “principal purpose” definition—any person “who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts”—and held that the company violated the act.
The company appealed, challenging the lower court’s determination that it met the definition of debt collector, instead arguing it was a “creditor.” The 3rd Circuit, following the plain text of the FDCPA, held that “an entity whose principal purpose of business is the collection of any debts is a debt collector regardless whether the entity owns the debts it collects.” Affirming the lower court’s determination, the appellate panel disagreed with the company, reasoning that the company admitted its sole business is collecting purchased debts and it uses “mails and wires for its business,” such that it could be “no plainer” that the company fits the “principal purpose” definition under the FDCPA.
CFPB updates “workpapers” section of Supervision and Examination Manual
In August, the CFPB released an updated version of the Supervision and Examination Manual, which includes minor changes to the workpapers section of the examination process and an updated scope summary template. According to the manual, workpapers are the records documenting the review conducted by examiners to reach conclusions about the financial institution’s compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The manual emphasizes that “[a]ll information collected and all records created during the review that are used to support findings and conclusions could potentially be included in the workpapers” and all workpapers must be reviewed and signed off by the examiner in charge. The Bureau requires all workpapers and related documentation to be maintained in electronic form.
Federal Reserve requests comments on proposal to include omitted items from capital assessments and stress testing information collection
On August 8, the Federal Reserve Board published a notice and request for comment in the Federal Register seeking to revise, without extension, the existing information collection “Capital Assessments and Stress Testing.” The information collection is applicable to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more and U.S. intermediate holding companies established by foreign banking organizations that are subject to enhanced testing in order to mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States. Last December, the Fed published modifications to the FR Y-14Q, Schedule L, which took effect as of the March 31, 2018, report date. However, following the adoption of the proposed changes, the Fed became aware of items mistakenly omitted from the report forms and instructions for the FR Y-14Q, which require respondents to report “total stressed net current exposure under the two supervisory stressed scenarios.” The proposal will revise sub-schedule L.5 (Derivatives and SFT Profile) for the FR Y-14Q report by adding the missing items. Comments on the proposal must be received by October 9.
Fannie Mae issues Selling Guide updates, removes requirement to use Market Conditions Addendum for appraisals
On August 7, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide update SEL-2018-06, which announces, among things, the removal of the requirement to use the Market Conditions Addendum (Form 1004MC) for appraisals and clarification of the policies regarding disbursement of HomeStyle Renovation funds. Specifically, effective immediately, the Selling Guide provides that lenders are no longer required to use Form 1004MC for appraisals as the agency’s Collateral Underwriter program provides market trend information for lenders and Fannie Mae to measure and manage market risks. However, appraisers remain responsible for analyzing market conditions and reporting them in the Neighborhood section of Fannie Mae’s appraisal forms. The update also clarifies that for HomeStyle Renovation funds disbursed using a wire transfer, the lender must obtain written consent to release the funds. Additionally, the update clarifies that all mechanics liens must be cleared or waived by the final disbursement of funds—a lien waiver is not required at each disbursement stage. The announcement also notes that the previously released information regarding Fannie Mae’s high loan-to-value refinance option (covered by InfoBytes here) is now available in the Selling Guide.
FHFA reports results of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac annual stress tests
On August 7, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published a report providing the results of the fifth annual stress tests conducted by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). According to the report, Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests Results – Severely Adverse Scenario—which provides modeled projections on possible ranges of future financial results and does not define the entirety of possible outcomes—the GSEs will need to draw between $42.1 billion and $77.6 billion in incremental Treasury aid under a “severely adverse” economic crisis, depending on how deferred tax assets are treated. The losses would leave $176.5 billion to $212 billion available to the companies under their current funding commitment agreements. Notably, the projected bailout maximum is lower this year than FHFA reported last year, which ranged between $34.8 billion and $99.6 billion.