Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP)

Joint Trade Associations Reject the CFPB’s “Discrimination-Unfairness” Theory

By

In a June 28 letter to Director Chopra and accompanying White Paper and press release, the ABA, CBA, ICBA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have called on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) to rescind recent revisions made to its UDAAP examination manual that had effectuated the CFPB’s controversial theory that alleged discriminatory conduct occurring outside the offering or provision of credit could be addressed using “unfairness” authority. The White Paper characterized the primary legal flaws in the CFPB’s action as follows:

  • The CFPB’s conflation of unfairness and discrimination ignores the text, structure, and legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act discusses “unfairness” and “discrimination” as two separate concepts and defines “unfairness” without mentioning discrimination. The Act’s legislative history refers to the Bureau’s antidiscrimination authority in the context of ECOA and HMDA, while referring to the Bureau’s UDAAP authority separately.
  • The CFPB’s view of “unfairness” is inconsistent with decades of understanding and usage of that term in the Federal Trade Commission Act and with the enactment of ECOA. Congress gave the CFPB the same “unfairness” authority that it gave to the Federal Trade Commission in 1938, which has never included discrimination. It makes no sense that Congress would have enacted ECOA in 1974 to address discrimination in credit transactions if it had already prohibited discrimination through the FTC’s unfairness authority. For the same reason, Congress could not have intended in 1938 for unfairness to “fill gaps” in civil rights laws that did not exist.
  • The CFPB’s view is contrary to Supreme Court precedent regarding disparate impact liability. The CFPB’s actions and statements indicate it conflates unfairness with disparate impact, or unintentional discrimination. The Supreme Court has recognized disparate impact as a theory of liability only when Congress uses certain “results-oriented” language in antidiscrimination laws, e.g., the Fair Housing Act. The Dodd Frank Act neither contains the requisite language, nor is it an antidiscrimination law.
  • The CFPB’s action is subject to review by courts because it constitutes final agency action – a legislative rule – that is invalid, both substantively and procedurally. The CFPB’s action carries the force and effect of law and imposes new substantive duties on supervised institutions. However, the Bureau did not follow Administrative Procedure Act requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking. Additionally, the CFPB’s interpretation is not in accordance with law and exceeds the CFPB’s statutory authority. The CFPB’s action should be held unlawful and set aside.
  • The CFPB’s action is subject to Congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. A Member of Congress can request a GAO opinion on whether the CFPB’s actions are a rule, which can ultimately trigger Congressional review using the procedures established in the Congressional Review Act.

The White Paper concludes:

“Such sweeping changes that alter the legal duties of so many are the proper province of Congress, not of independent regulatory agencies, and the CFPB cannot ignore the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and Congressional Review Act. The CFPB may well wish to ‘fill gaps’ it perceives in federal antidiscrimination law. But Congress has simply not authorized the CFPB to fill those gaps. If the CFPB believes it requires additional authority to address alleged discriminatory conduct, it must obtain that authority from Congress, not take the law into its own hands. The associations and our members stand ready to work with Congress and the CFPB to ensure the just administration of the law.”

Take-away:

The position taken in the White Paper that the CFPB’s actions were contrary to law may be an indication that the trade groups intend to mount an APA legal challenge. Alternatively, the arguments made could in theory form a defense to any CFPB supervisory or enforcement action premised upon its new “discrimination-unfairness” theory. Financial institutions subject to CFPB examination would be well-advised to consider the arguments raised by the groups.

CFPB Issues Bulletin About Auto Repossession, Congressional Republicans Respond

By ,

A&B Abstract: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) recently released a Bulletin addressing the repossession of vehicles and alerting market participants to what it views as those market participants’ legal obligations under federal law governing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”).  That same day, the CFPB also published an inflammatory Press Release, claiming creditors were engaged in activities causing consumers to “wake up to see their car stolen.”  Shortly thereafter, a number of Republican Congressmembers responded to the Bulletin and Press Release with a Letter expressing concern that the Bureau’s post mischaracterized the activities of vehicle finance companies.  The Letter requested information and data supporting the CFPB’s contentions that the identified issues are occurring in the current marketplace.

Discussion of Bulletin:

On February 28, 2022, the CFPB published a compliance Bulletin and issued a Press Release expressing concerns over certain auto repossession activities.  While the Bulletin was generally neutral in tone, the Press Release accused creditors and servicers of stealing consumer’s vehicles.  Interestingly, both the Bulletin and Press Release also incorrectly stated that the collection of personal property storage fees by repossession agents was “illegal.”  While the CFPB has certainly taken the position that doing so constitutes an unfair practice under its UDAAP authority, the charging of such fees and the amounts allowed to be charged are expressly authorized under applicable state law where such activities have historically occurred.

Regardless of how one may feel about repossessions, the references in both documents various publications and findings dating back to 2016 provide insight into how the Bureau approached repossession investigations and examinations in the past, which is useful for industry to take into account.  The CFPB begins the Bulletin by noting the “extremely strong demand” and rising prices for used automobiles.  The Bureau then expresses concern that these market conditions could create incentives for more risky auto repossession practices which may violate the law.  By way of example, the Bulletin addresses findings from prior – and one might suggest quite dated – examinations and enforcement actions, where servicers are alleged to have acted improperly.

The types of activities identified by the CFPB, both in the Bulletin and Press Release as problematic were characterized as illegally seizing cars, sloppy record keeping, unreliable balance inquiries, and “ransoming” a consumer’s personal property that was in the vehicle at the time of repossession.    Conduct cited by the CPFB as improper includes the charging of fees before and after repossession, and specifically the collection of allegedly “illegal” personal property storage fees demanded by repossession agents before they would return that personal property to the borrower.  Noteworthy is the fact that this allegedly “illegal” conduct is expressly permitted under many state’s laws, though the amount that may be charged is typically limited by those same state laws.  The Bureau also raised the issue of conducting vehicle repossessions despite the presence of a bankruptcy stay and misrepresentations of the amount owed by the borrower leading to an underpayment and subsequent repossession.

In addressing issues of sloppy recordkeeping uncovered in examinations, the Bulletin focused on servicers who incorrectly coded consumers as delinquent leading to undue repossessions, referring back to certain 2017 and 2018 Supervisory Highlights – items published approximately 5 and 4 years ago respectively.  In other  instances cited in the Bulletin, servicers allegedly failed to cancel repossession orders for consumers that made payments to bring their account current, and repossession agents failed to confirm that a repossession order was still active prior to repossessing a vehicle.  Finally, the CFPB noted that it had found instances in which a borrower’s payments were not applied to the outstanding debt in the manner represented to consumers by the servicers, thereby causing some borrowers to be deemed further delinquent.

To avoid UDAAP violations, the Bulletin suggests that market participants should (1) review their policies regarding repossession, (2) communicate promptly with repossession service providers when a repossession is cancelled and monitor compliance with those orders, (3) exercise routine oversite by monitoring undue repossessions and auditing portfolios, and (4) act swiftly to correct any undue repossessions and reimburse consumers for associated costs.  The Bulletin also recommends entities should ensure consumers are not charged for unnecessary force-placed insurance.

Response from Congressional Republicans:

On March 10, 2022, eleven Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a Letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing their concerns with the inflammatory comments made in the Press Release and the dated nature of the information contained within the Bulletin.  The Letter starts by questioning the CFPB’s rhetoric, stating that it was a “gross mischaracterization” for the Bureau to equate repossession of a vehicle with theft.  Then the Letter points out that “there are over 2.2 million car repossessions” annually in the United States, and argues that the examples raised by the CFPB were not representative of the entire industry.  Next, the Letter requested that the Bureau provide data to support the contention that “high car prices increase risk of improper repossession by lenders, servicers, and investors.”  Lastly, the members of Congress touted the essential role that auto financing companies play in helping Americans get to or complete their work.

Guidance to Businesses:

The issuance of such a Bulletin, and even the Press Release itself, suggests the CFPB will be heavily scrutinizing repossession activity during future examinations.  These documents further suggest the potential for future enforcement actions where servicers have failed to meet the standards expected of them by the CFPB.  Auto loan servicers should review their policies and procedures to ensure repossession practices comply with all applicable laws and that procedures are in place to identify and prevent unwarranted repossessions.

CFPB Issues Warning to Mortgage Servicing Industry

By ,

A&B ABstract: On April 1, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued a Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance (the “Bulletin”) on the Bureau’s supervision and enforcement priorities with regard to housing insecurity in light of heightened risks to consumers needing loss mitigation assistance once COVID-19 foreclosure moratoriums and forbearances end.  The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers to begin taking appropriate steps now to prevent “a wave of avoidable foreclosures” once borrowers begin exiting COVID-19 forbearance plans later this Fall, and also highlights the areas on which the CFPB will focus in assessing a mortgage servicer’s compliance with applicable consumer financial laws and regulations.

The Bulletin

The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers of the Bureau’s “commit[ment] to using its authorities, including its authority under Regulation X mortgage servicing requirements and under the Consumer Financial Protection Act” to ensure borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic “receive the benefits of critical legal protections and that avoidable foreclosures are avoided.”

Specifically, the Bureau highlighted two populations of borrowers as being at heightened risk of referral to foreclosure following the expiration of the foreclosure moratoriums if they do not resolve their delinquency or enter into a loss mitigation option, namely, borrowers in a COVID-19-related forbearance and delinquent borrowers who are not in forbearance programs.

As consumers near the end of their forbearance plans, the CFPB expects “an extraordinarily high volume of loans needing loss mitigation assistance at relatively the same time.” The Bureau specifically expressed its concern that some borrowers may not receive effective communication from their servicers and that some borrowers may be at an increased risk of not having their loss mitigation applications adequately processed. To that end, the Bureau plans to monitor servicer engagement with borrowers “at all stages in the process” and prioritize its oversight of mortgage servicers in deploying its enforcement and supervision resources over the next year.

Servicers are expected to plan for the anticipated increase in loans exiting forbearance programs and related loss mitigation applications, as well as applications from borrowers who are delinquent but not in forbearance. Specifically, the Bureau expects servicers to devote sufficient resources and staff to ensure they are able to clearly communicate with affected borrowers and effectively manage borrower requests for assistance in order to reduce foreclosures. To that end, the Bureau intends to assess servicers’ overall effectiveness in assisting consumers to manage loss mitigation, and other relevant factors, in using its discretion to address potential violations of Federal consumer financial law.

In light of the foregoing, the Bureau plans to focus its attention on how well servicers are:

  • Being proactive. Servicers should contact borrowers in forbearance before the end of the forbearance period, so they have time to apply for help.
  • Working with borrowers. Servicers should work to ensure borrowers have all necessary information and should help borrowers in obtaining documents and other information needed to evaluate the borrowers for assistance.
  • Addressing language access. The CFPB will look carefully at how servicers manage communications with borrowers with limited English proficiency (LEP) and maintain compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other laws. It is worth noting that the Bureau issued a notice in January 2021 encouraging financial institutions to better serve LEP borrowers in a language other than English and providing key considerations and guidelines.
  • Evaluating income fairly. Where servicers use income in determining eligibility for loss mitigation options, servicers should evaluate borrowers’ income from public assistance, child-support, alimony or other sources in accordance with the ECOA’s anti-discrimination protections.
  • Handling inquiries promptly. The CFPB will closely examine servicer conduct where hold times are longer than industry averages.
  • Preventing avoidable foreclosures. The CFPB will expect servicers to comply with foreclosure restrictions in Regulation X and other federal and state restrictions in order to ensure that all homeowners have an opportunity to save their homes before foreclosure is initiated.

Takeaway

As more and more borrowers begin to near the end of their COVID-19-related forbearance plans, and as applicable foreclosure moratoriums near their anticipated expiration dates, mortgage servicers should consider evaluating their mortgage servicing operations, including applicable policies, procedures, controls, staffing and other resources, to ensure impacted loans are handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state servicing laws and regulations.

CFPB Brings Action Against Connecticut Mortgage Lender

By

The number of enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) more than doubled from 2019 to 2020. The CFPB made clear that cracking down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) remains a core focus, with 11 of the 15 complaints it filed last year alleging such violations.

Earlier this month, the CFPB filed another lawsuit alleging unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA. At the dawn of a new year and a new Administration, this litigation may be the proverbial canary in the coalmine for others in the financial services industry. As the case proceeds and briefing is filed, the tone and focus of the new Administration may be brought to light.

In a Client Advisory, our Financial Services Litigation Team examines the latest effort by the CFPB to crack down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

Misrepresentation and Deception: Government Enforcement Agencies Ready to Litigate

By ,

A&B ABstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be drafting the attention to consumer protection regulators to products that were active after the 2008 recession.

In the midst of the global pandemic, with unemployment rates surging to unprecedented levels, consumer protection regulators appear focused on areas where cash-strapped consumers may turn,  such as credit repair, payday loans, and mortgage and other debt relief.

Notably, these are the same areas that consumer protection regulators were active in during the post-2008 recession. For example, on May 22, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit alleging that defendants misrepresented that they can offer solutions that will or likely will substantially increase consumers’ credit scores despite not achieving those results.

In addition, on May 19, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was granted a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against a payday lending operation alleging that it deceptively overcharged consumers millions of dollars and withdrew money repeatedly from consumers’ bank accounts without their permission.

These lawsuits are just two of many efforts that government enforcement agencies have undertaken recently to combat fraud and protect consumers. Businesses should be aware that agencies are actively pursuing litigation as a means to remedy potential consumer harm.

CFPB and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair and Nikitas Tsoukales

The CFPB and Massachusetts allege that Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair (KCR) and its president, Nikitas Tsoukales violated §§ 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s (TSR) prohibition on deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices, and the Massachusetts Credit Services Organization Law. 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3 & 310.4; M.G.L. c. 93, §§ 68A-E (MA-CSO). KCR markets to consumers a service for supposedly removing harmful information from the consumer’s credit history, credit record, or credit scores or ratings.  Since 2011, KCR has collected at least $23 million in fees from tens of thousands of consumers through its telemarketing services.

The Complaint

According to the complaint, consumers pay KCR a “first work fee” upon enrolling with the company and then charges an additional monthly fee. KCR allegedly collects these fees from consumers before performing any service. KCR markets to consumers that “on average it can raise a person’s credit score by 90 points in 90 days” and that clients start “seeing removals of bad credit history in 45 days.”  However, “consumers did not see credit scores with an average 90-point increase in 90 days,” nor did they see “removals on their credit reports within 45 days” of enrolling with KCR in many instances.

The Complaint alleges that this scheme constitutes an abusive telemarking act because it is an improper advance fee to remove derogatory information from, or improve, a person’s credit history, credit record, or credit rating.

Further, the Complaint alleges that KCR’s conduct violates the CFPA because KCR allegedly misrepresented the material aspects of its services. Therefore, the CFPB and Massachusetts are seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil monetary penalties.

FTC v. Lead Express, Inc., et al.

On May 11, 2020, the FTC filed an ex parte emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and sought other relief including an asset freeze against 11 payday lenders operating as a common enterprise through websites and telemarketing.  The FTC alleged that the entities were engaging in the deceptive, unfair, and unlawful marketing tactics in violation of the FTC Act, the TSR, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) , and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

The Complaint

According to the FTC’s complaint, despite claiming that consumers’ loans would be repaid after a fixed number of payments, the defendants typically initiated repeated finance-charge-only withdrawals without crediting the withdrawals to the consumers’ principal balances. Thus, consumers allegedly paid significantly more than what they were told they would pay. These misrepresentations violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) as well as the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii)).  Additionally, the defendants allegedly made recurring withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts without proper authorization which violates Section 907(a) of EFTA (15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a)) and illegally used remotely created checks, which under the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9)) are a prohibited form of payment in telemarketing.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants often failed to make required credit transaction disclosures in violation of Section 121 and 128 of TILA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1631 and 1638), and Sections 1026.17 and 1026.18 of Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §§ 1026.17 and 1026.18).

The Court Order

On May 22, 2020, the District Court of Nevada granted an emergency motion for temporary restraining order against all eleven defendants. The order restrains the defendants from: (1) engaging in prohibited business activities in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering any loan or extension of credit, (2) releasing or using customer information, and (3) destroying, erasing falsifying documents relating to the business.  Furthermore, the defendants’ assets are frozen pending the show-cause hearing or further court order which will take place via videoconferencing on June 2, 2020.

Takeaway

With these two cases, government enforcement agencies support their statements that as the global pandemic continues, they are watching for deceptive or fraudulent practices in the financial services industry. Businesses should remain vigilant in their compliance with existing and new laws and regulations.