InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal District Court Allows Discovery in Class Action Concerning Internet Company’s Collection of Biometric Data
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order handed down on February 27, a District Court in the Northern District of Illinois declined to dismiss a putative class action alleging that a cloud-based photographic storage service offered by an Internet company (the Company) violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by automatically uploading plaintiffs’ mobile photos and allegedly scanning them to create unique face templates (or “faceprints”) for subsequent photo-tagging without consent. Specifically, the Court rejected the Company’s argument that application of BIPA to facial geometry scanning by by an internet service located outside of Illinois is an improper extraterritorial application of Illinois law.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to both (i) obtain the necessary authorization or consent to the creation and subsequent storing of “faceprints” by the photo storage service, or (ii) make publicly available a data retention and destruction schedule as required under the BIPA. In responding to these claims, the Company argued that the term “biometric identifier,” as defined in the BIPA, does not extend to “in-person scans of facial geometry” and does not cover photographs or information derived from photographs. The Company also sought to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that under principles of federalism, pre-emption, and the extra-jurisdictional application of state law, the BIPA cannot properly regulate activity – such as the storage of data on the Company’s servers – that does not occur “primarily and substantially” within the state of Illinois.
In analyzing the Company’s argument, the Court looked to the following two definitions set forth in the Illinois law:
- “Biometric identifier,” which is defined as “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry” and explicitly “do[es] not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs. . . .”; and
- “Biometric information,” which is defined as “any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual,” and explicitly “does not include information derived from items or procedures excluded under the definition of biometric identifiers.”
Ultimately, the Court disagreed with the Company’s reading of “biometric data” because, among other reasons, “nothing in the text of [the BIPA] directly supports this interpretation.” The Court deferred deciding on the Company’s arguments that the claims would require extraterritorial application of the statute and/or would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause by reaching beyond state boundaries, because, among other reasons, “[d]iscovery is needed to determine whether there are legitimate extraterritoriality concerns.”
On March 9, the Company filed a motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a request for a stay of further proceedings pending the appellate court’s decision on the request for an appeal.
Fed/CFPB OIG Recommends CFPB Strengthen Conflicts-of-Interest Controls
On March 15, the Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (OIG) issued its findings in the evaluation report titled The CFPB Can Strengthen Its Controls for Identifying and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest Related to Vendor Activities (the Report), stemming from an evaluation of the risk of potential conflicts of interest when using vendors to support fair lending compliance and enforcement analysis. The Report covers the time period of June 2012 through January 2016. To assist the CFPB’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity’s fair lending oversight function, the Bureau contracted with vendors to “conduct statistical analysis designed to assess an institution’s compliance with fair lending laws and to serve as an expert witness when needed.” The function of the evaluation was to assess whether the Bureau effectively identified and avoided the risk of potential conflicts of interest for vendors supporting this type of work. Notably, while the OIG concluded that the Bureau’s relationship with one vendor heightened the risk of possible conflicts of interest and increased the need for timelier vendor disclosures and communications—a vendor took nearly two years to disclose a relationship with a firm included on a CFPB task order but later confirmed no work was performed—no actual conflicts of interest were found in its evaluation. The OIG presented the following recommendations:
- Ensure vendors comply with existing documentation requirements;
- Clarify roles and responsibilities; and
- Improve the facilitation of vendor disclosure of potential conflicts or receive affirmation that conflicts do not exist at the start of every task order.
Furthermore, the OIG recommended evaluating the costs and benefits of performing more fair lending analysis internally, which may effectively mitigate such risks
Rep. Emmer (R-Minn) Reintroduces Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act
Representative Tom Emmer (R-Minn) has reintroduced the Financial Stability Oversight Council Reform Act (H.R. 1459), which is intended to increase oversight, transparency, and accountability by subjecting the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Office of Financial Research (OFR) to the regular congressional appropriations process. The proposed legislation—which has been referred to the Committee on Financial Services—would also provide for certain quarterly reporting requirements for the OFR, including an “annual work plan” subject to public notice and comment.
CFPB Releases "Remittance Rule" Assessment; Seeks Public Comment
On March 20, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plan for assessing the effectiveness of its May 2013 final rule governing consumer remittance transfers. According to a March 17 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment—which is required under Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act—will focus on, among other things: (i) “whether the market for remittances has evolved . . . in ways that promote access, efficiency, and limited market disruption”; and (ii) whether the Remittance Rule (and other CFPB regulatory activity) has “brought more information, transparency, and greater predictability of prices to the market.” In describing the approach it planned to take in conducting its evaluation, the CFPB explained that it would seek to “compare consumer outcomes to a baseline that would exist if the Remittance Rule’s requirements were not in effect.” Comments on the plan will be due 60 days following the notice’s publication in the Federal Register.
House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Hearing Examines Decline in New Bank/Credit Union Charter Applications
In an afternoon hearing on March 21 entitled “Ending the De Novo Drought: Examining the Application Process for De Novo Financial Institutions,” Members of the House Financial Services Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee met to examine the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on the creation of new or “de novo” financial institutions. According to a majority staff memorandum released in advance of the hearing, the number of new, or “de novo,” bank and credit union charters has declined to historic lows since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. From 2010 to 2016, there were only five new bank and 16 new credit union charters granted. In comparison, between 2000 and 2008, 1,341 new banks and 75 new credit unions were chartered.
Three of the witnesses – each of whom appeared on behalf of a banking industry group – generally agreed that the Dodd-Frank Act has, to some extent, had a “chilling impact” on the creation of new banks:
- Kenneth L. Burgess, speaking on behalf of the American Bankers Association noted, among other things, that “in the five years since Dodd-Frank was enacted, the pace of lending was half of what it was several years before the financial crisis. Some banks have stopped offering certain products altogether, such as mortgage and other consumer loans.”
- Keith Stone, representing the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, noted that “[t]he compliance requirements in a post-Dodd-Frank environment have grown to a tipping point where it is nearly impossible for many smaller institutions to survive, much less start from scratch.”
- Patrick J. Kennedy, Jr., appearing on behalf of the Subchapter S Bank Association, noted that “[m]any banks exited the mortgage loan business because of the complexity and uncertainty resulting from Dodd Frank, the CFPB and related rulemaking.”
The fourth witness, Sarah Edelman, offered an alternative explanation for the decline in new bank applications to the FDIC. Ms. Edelman—who is currently the director of housing finance at the Center for American Progress—testified as to her belief that the “decline” in “[t]he number of new bank applications to the FDIC . . . is largely the result of macroeconomic factors, including, historically low interest rates reducing the profitability of new banks, as well as investors being able to purchase failing banks at a discount following the financial crisis.”
In December of last year, the FDIC released a handbook entitled Applying for Deposit Insurance – A Handbook for Organizers of De Novo Institutions, which provides an overview of the business considerations and statutory requirements that de novo organizers face as they work to establish a new depository institution and offers guidance for navigating the phases of establishing an insured institution. Rather than establish new policy or offer guidance, the Handbook instead “seeks to address the informational needs of organizers, as well as feedback from organizers and other interested parties during recent industry outreach events.” Comments were due February 20. Additional resources are available through an FDIC website dedicated to applications for deposit insurance.
Members of the House Financial Services Committee Weigh in on Rollout of the DOL Fiduciary Rule
On March 17, GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to Acting Labor Secretary Ed Hugler expressing their support for the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) proposal to delay the implementation of its Fiduciary Rule from April 10 until June 9. The letter asserts, among other things, that a delay is “necessary to review the rule’s scope and assess potential harm to investors, disruptions within the retirement services industry, and increases in litigation, as required by the Presidential Memorandum signed by President Trump on February 3, 2017.” The GOP Members also note that they “have long been concerned with the DOL Fiduciary Rule's impact on retail investors and the U.S. capital markets,” and, have therefore “advocated that the expert regulator—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—should craft an applicable rule.”
Later that day, House Democrats sent their own letter to the Acting Labor Secretary expressing opposition to the DOL’s proposed 60-day delay of its Fiduciary Rule. Specifically, the Democratic members contend that “the rule is reasonable and workable for advisers,” because, among other reasons, “the DOL provided appropriate relief that mitigates industry concerns and compliance costs.”
Amendment to Utah Law Clarifies “Deferred-Deposit” Lender Registration Process; Adds Criminal Background Check
On March 17, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed an amendment to HB. 40, Utah’s Check Cashing and Deferred Deposit Lending Registration Act, which modifies registration requirements relating to the disclosure of criminal conviction information for individuals engaged in the business of cashing checks or deferred deposit lending. The amendment requires that the registration or renewal statement shall disclose whether there has been a criminal conviction involving an “an act of fraud, dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering” regarding any officer, director, manager, operator, principal, or employee. This information must be obtained through either a Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification report or by conducting an acceptable background check similar to the aforementioned report.
The amendment also addresses operational requirements for deferred deposit loans. Interest and fee schedules are required to be conspicuously posted, as should contact information for filing complaints and listings of states where the deferred deposit lender is authorized to offer loans. The amendment also provides clarification on rescinding loans, partial payment allowances, and restrictions on loan extensions.
House Financial Services Committee Holds Hearing to Consider the “Unconstitutional Structure of the CFPB”
On March 21, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (CFPB's) Unconstitutional Design.” The majority staff memorandum issued prior to hearing stated that its purpose was to: (i) “examine whether the structure of the [CFPB] violates the Constitution,” and (ii) consider potential “structural changes to the Bureau to resolve any constitutional infirmities.”
Chairwoman Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) introduced the proceeding by describing the CFPB as a “an unconstitutional behemoth” with a 'Washington knows best' mindset,” that “side-steps accountability to Congress and the President.” Three of the four witnesses called to testify before the panel shared the general position that the CFPB is unconstitutional as currently structured.
- The Honorable Theodore Olson , a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and lead counsel for PHH in its suit against the CFPB, shared his personal opinion that the Bureau, “[m]ore than any other administrative agency ever created by Congress,” is “far outside of our constitutional structure, holds the potential for tyrannical governance, and obscures the lines of governmental accountability. [T]he CFPB’s structure is the product of aggregating some of the most democratically unaccountable and power-centralizing features of the federal government’s administrative state.” Particularly with respect to the President, Mr. Olson noted that “by preventing the President from removing the head of the Bureau except for very limited circumstances,” the President is effectively “stripped of the power to faithfully execute the laws in these circumstances.”
- Professor Saikrishna Prakash, a Law Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law questioned the Bureau’s constitutionality, characterizing the Director of the CFPB as “the second most powerful officer in the government for he serves under no one’s supervision, enjoys a vast budget not subject to the appropriations process, and exerts enormous influence over several prominent aspects of the economy.”
- Adam White, a Research Fellow with the Hoover Institution similarly urged Congress to reform the CFPB while also cautioning against allowing the “CFPB’s original structure to . . . become the new benchmark for the next generation of ‘independent agencies.’”
Meanwhile, offering several arguments in support of the Bureau’s current structure was Brianne Gorod – a public interest attorney who has helped prepare briefing in the PHH v CFPB matter on behalf of “current and former members of Congress, who were sponsors of Dodd-Frank” and “participated in drafting it,” and “serve or served on committees with jurisdiction over the [CFPB].” (See, e.g., Motion for Leave to Intervene in Support of the CFPB). Ms. Gorod argued, among other things, that “the President’s ability to remove the Director [of the CFPB] only for cause does not ‘impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty[,]’” but rather, to the contrary, “provides the Executive with substantial ability to ensure that the laws are ‘faithfully executed.’” For this reason and others, Ms. Gorod argued that “the CFPB’s leadership structure . . . is consistent with the text and history of the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent.”
French Financial Crimes Investigator Joins SFO Criminal Investigation of Aircraft Manufacturer
On Thursday, March 16, 2017, an aircraft manufacturer based in Toulouse, France, reportedly announced that a preliminary investigation has been opened by the Parquet National Financier, France’s financial crimes investigator, regarding the same fraud, bribery, and corruption allegations being probed by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The company stated that the investigations into the use of third party agents by the company’s civil aviation business are being conducted in tandem, and it plans to cooperate fully with both the PNF and SFO. This unusual cooperation between France and the UK could potentially lead to the first use of a deferred prosecution agreement following France’s November 2016 enactment of the Law on Transparency, the Fight against Corruption and Modernization of Economic Life, which was enacted in response to international pressure on the French government to strengthen its corruption laws following severe sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice on French companies in recent years.
For prior coverage of the SFO’s investigation, please click here.
Special Alert: OCC Issues Highly-Anticipated Guidance for Evaluating Charter Applications from Fintech Companies
On March 15, 2017, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued further guidance regarding how it will evaluate applications by fintech companies to become Special Purpose National Banks (SPNBs). In its release, the OCC summarized the more than 100 comments it received in response to its December 2016 white paper and provided a draft supplement to the OCC Licensing Manual outlining proposed requirements for fintech companies to become SPNBs.
Last week’s release is the latest in the OCC’s efforts to support the intersection between banking and technology companies. In August 2015, Comptroller Thomas Curry announced the OCC’s intent to assemble a team of policy experts, examiners, attorneys, and other agency staff to begin researching innovative developments in the financial services industry. In March 2016, the OCC published a summary of its initial research and plans to guide the development of responsible financial innovation. In September 2016, the OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying the framework and process for receiverships of national banks without FDIC-insured deposits. That proposal applied to all non-depository national banks, including those with special purpose national bank charters. In October 2016, the OCC detailed its plans to implement a responsible innovation framework and announced the establishment of the Office of Innovation, a dedicated, central point of contact for fintech companies as well as requests and information related to innovation. Finally in December 2016, the OCC published a white paper announcing its intent to create a SPNB charter for fintech companies and invited comments and posed discrete questions for consideration regarding the proposals.Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the guidance or other related issues, visit our Financial Institutions Regulation, Supervision & Technology (FIRST) and FinTech practice pages for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.