InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC report highlights 2017 privacy and data security enforcement work
On January 18, the FTC released its annual report on the agency’s privacy and data security work performed in 2017. Among other items, the report highlights consumer-related enforcement activities in 2017, including:
- a settlement with a ride-sharing company over allegations that it violated the FTC Act by making deceptive claims about its privacy and data practices (previously covered by InfoBytes here);
- the first EU-U.S. Privacy Shield action resulting in settlements with three companies over allegations that they falsely claimed they were certified to take part in the framework (previously covered by InfoBytes here); and
- a joint settlement with the New Jersey Attorney General against a “smart” television manufacturer for claims that it secretly gathered users’ viewing data and sold it to third parties who used the data for targeted advertising (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
The report also covers the FTC’s approval of TRUSTe’s proposed modifications to its safe harbor program under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), previously covered by Infobytes here; and the agency’s actions related to the national “Do Not Call” Registry.
Servicemember and bank settle SCRA issue, dismiss Supreme Court request
On January 5, the Supreme Court dismissed a servicemember’s petition for a writ of certiorari after receiving a Stipulation of Dismissal from both parties who agreed to settle the dispute. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the servicemember filed the petition after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that the servicemember was not entitled to the protections against non-judicial foreclosures under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The lower court concluded that because the servicemember “incurred his mortgage obligation during his service in the Navy, the obligation was not subject to SCRA protection” even through the servicemember, after a discharge period, later re-enlisted with the Army.
OCC highlights supervisory priorities in fall 2017 semiannual risk report
On January 18, the OCC announced the release of its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2017, identifying key risk areas for national banks and federal savings associations. Top supervisory priorities will focus on credit, operational, and compliance risk. As previously discussed in the spring 2017 semiannual report, compliance risk continues to be an ongoing concern, particularly as banks continue to adopt new technologies to help them comply with anti-money laundering rules and the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), in addition to addressing increased cybersecurity challenges and new consumer protection laws. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The OCC commented that these types of risks can be mitigated by banks with “appropriate due diligence and ongoing oversight.”
Specific areas of particular concern include the following:
- easing of commercial credit underwriting practices;
- increasing complexity and severity of cybersecurity threats, including phishing scams that are the primary method of breaching bank data systems;
- using limited third-party service providers for critical operations, which can create “concentrated points of failure resulting in systemic risk to the financial services sector”;
- compliance challenges under the BSA; and
- challenges in risk management involving consumer compliance regulations.
The report also raises concerns about new requirements under the Military Lending Act along with pending changes to data collection under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which could pose compliance challenges. It further discusses a new standard taking effect in 2020 for measuring expected credit losses, which “may pose operational and strategic risk to some banks when measuring and assessing the collectability of financial assets.”
The data relied on in the report was effective as of June 30, 2017.
CFPB succession update: CFPB requests zero funding; seeks public comment regarding Bureau’s activities; & more
On January 17, in a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney requested zero dollars for the Bureau’s quarterly operating funds. Each fiscal quarter, as required by law, the CFPB formally requests that the Federal Reserve transfer a specified amount of money to the Bureau so it can perform the functions outlined in its budget. In his letter, Mulvaney stated that the prior Director maintained a “reserve fund” for the CFPB, and the money in this fund is sufficient to cover the CFPB’s expenses for the second quarter. This will be the first time in the history of the CFPB that its Director has requested no additional amount to fund quarterly operations. The CFPB also announced its plan to publish a series of Requests for Information (RFIs) in the Federal Register seeking public input on the way the Bureau is performing its statutory obligations. These RFIs will request “comment on enforcement, supervision, rulemaking, market monitoring, and education activities.” The first RFI will seek information regarding the Bureau’s Civil Investigative Demand processes and procedures.
On January 18, the CFPB voluntarily dismissed its case against four online installment lenders for allegedly deceiving customers by collecting debts that were not legally owed, previously covered by InfoBytes here. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged, among other things, that the lenders engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive acts—a violation of the Dodd-Frank Act—by collecting on installment loans that are partially or wholly void under state law. In September 2017, the case was transferred to Kansas, where the Bureau’s notice of dismissal was filed. The notice does not specify a reason for the dismissal.
CFPB plans to reconsider payday rule
On January 16, the CFPB announced plans to reconsider its final rule addressing payday loans, vehicle titles loans, and certain other extensions of credit (previously covered in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert) by engaging in a rulemaking process. While the announcement was made on the effective date of the final rule, most provisions do not require compliance until August 19, 2019. However, the deadline for submitting a preliminary approval to become a registered information system is April 16, 2018. The Bureau noted that it will consider waiver requests from potential applicants.
Notably, this marks the second recent announcement in which the agency refers to itself as “the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,” instead of the more-commonly used “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” Both titles are used in the text of the Dodd-Frank Act, though the sections of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizing creation of the CFPB used the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” naming convention. The agency also previously updated its mission statement located at the bottom of each release.
For more InfoBytes coverage on the latest CFPB changes, click here.
New York Senate bill proposes replacing online lending task force with study
On January 8, the New York State Senate Committee on Rules voted to amend legislation to authorize the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to conduct a study about online lending. The original legislation, S6593A, signed into law by Governor Cuomo on December 29, 2017, created a seven-person task force responsible for analyzing online lending activity in the state. The proposed amendments to this legislation, S07294 and A8938, which would be effective immediately if passed by both houses of the New York legislature and signed into law, remove the requirement for a task force, and instead authorize NYDFS to direct the study and produce a public report with recommendations prior to July 1. According to the amendments, the study should analyze (i) lending practices of the online lending industry and primary differences between online lenders and traditional lenders; (ii) types of credit products available online; (iii) a review of available complaints, actions and investigations related to online lenders; and (iv) a survey of existing state and federal laws that apply to the online lending industry.
City of Philadelphia’s discriminatory lending lawsuit moves forward
On January 16, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a national bank’s motion to dismiss the City of Philadelphia’s (City) claims that the bank engaged in alleged discriminatory lending practices in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). As previously covered in InfoBytes, the City filed a complaint in May of last year against the bank alleging discrimination under both the disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The City asserted that the bank’s practice of offering better terms to similarly-situated, non-minority borrowers or refusing to make loans in minority neighborhoods has led to foreclosures and vacant homes, which in turn, has resulted in a suppression of property tax revenue and increased cost of providing services such as police, fire fighting, and other municipal services. In support of its motion to dismiss, the bank argued, among other things, that the City’s claim (i) is time barred; (ii) improperly alleges the disparate impact theory; and (iii) fails to allege proximate cause as required by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling (see previous Special Alert here).
While the court expressed “serious concerns about the viability of the economic injury aspect of the City’s claim with regard to proximate cause,” the court found that the bank “has not met its burden to show why the City’s entire FHA claim should be dismissed.” Consequently, the court held that the case may proceed to discovery beyond the two-year statute of limitations period for FHA violations in order to provide the City an opportunity to prove whether the bank’s policy caused a racial disparity that constituted a violation continuing into the limitations period.
Supreme Court to review whether SEC’s ALJ appointment process is constitutional
On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it had granted a writ of certiorari in Lucia v. SEC—a case which challenges the SEC’s practice of appointing administrative law judges (ALJs) and moves the Court to consider whether the ALJ appointment practice violates the Appointments Clause (Clause) of the Constitution. In Lucia, the petitioner—against whom an ALJ had issued sanctions, imposed a lifetime securities ban, and fined $300,000—appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and argued that ALJs are officers of the United States and therefore subject to provisions of the Clause, including the requirement that officers be appointed by the president, the head of a department, or a court of law. However, the D.C. Circuit upheld the ALJs sanctions and ruled that ALJs are not “inferior officers” subject to the Clause. In his petition for certiorari, the petitioner claimed that because he was subjected to a “trial before an unconstitutionally constituted tribunal,” the ALJ’s decision should be dismissed or a new hearing granted.
Notably, last November, the Solicitor General of the United States submitted a brief on behalf of the SEC to the Supreme Court, arguing that the SEC views in-house judges as officers of the U.S. government—not mere employees—who are subject to the Clause. Additionally, on November 30, the SEC ratified the appointment of its ALJs to resolve “any concerns that administrative proceedings presided over by its ALJs violate the Appointments Clause.”
A decision by the Court may resolve a split between the D.C. Circuit, which has ruled that ALJs are not “inferior officers” of the U.S. government, and the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, which disagreed and ruled separately that ALJs are officers.
See also previous Lucia coverage in an InfoBytes blog post and a Special Alert concerning the effect a decision in Lucia may have on the ongoing litigation in PHH v. CFPB.
Agencies adjust civil penalties for inflation
On January 12, the CFPB published a final rule adjusting upward the maximum amount of each civil penalty within their jurisdictions, as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act. As explained in the rule, the new maximum penalty amounts for 2018 are calculated by multiplying the corresponding 2017 penalty by a “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier—which for 2018 has been set by the OMB at 1.02041—and then rounding to the nearest dollar. The new penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2018.
In addition, the FDIC, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve recently issued similar Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment notices.
Fed terminates foreclosure enforcement actions, fines five banks CMPs
On January 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced the termination of ten enforcement actions for legacy mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing activities, along with the issuance of more than $35 million in combined civil money penalties (CMPs) against five of the ten banks. Combined with penalties previously assessed against other supervised firms (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the Fed’s mortgage servicing enforcement actions have totaled approximately $1.1 billion in penalties. The CMPs assessed against the five banks range from $3.5 million to $14 million.
According to the Fed, the termination of the ten enforcement actions is a result of “evidence of sustainable improvements in the firms’ oversight and mortgage servicing practices.” Under the terms of the previously issued consent orders, in addition to the CMPs, the banks were required to (i) improve residential mortgage loan servicing oversight, and (ii) correct deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing for banks with Fed supervised-mortgage servicing subsidiaries.
The Fed also announced the termination of two related joint enforcement actions (see here and here) with the OCC, FDIC and FHFA (a party to only one of the actions) against key mortgage servicing service providers. According to the announcement, the terminations were a result of proof of “sustainable improvements” in the companies’ foreclosure-related practices.