June 8, 2022 - Of Interest

A&B Abstract:

On May 12, 2022, the Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “OCFR”) issued an Industry Advisory (the “Advisory”) “put[ting] [the] industry on notice” of the recent decision issued by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ashly Alexander, et. al. v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC. The Advisory directs lenders and servicers to review their practices in charging consumer borrowers loan payment fees (referred to herein as “convenience fees”) both to ensure on-going compliance with the law and to determine whether any improper fees have previously been assessed so that they can undertake appropriate reimbursements to affected borrowers.

The Carrington Decision

In Carrington, the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) incorporates §§ 804 through 812 of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), including the FDCPA’s prohibition on “[t]he collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law,” under § 808(1). Because Maryland law does not expressly permit or authorize the assessment of convenience fees, the court held that such fees must be expressly authorized by the loan documents in order to be permitted under § 808(1).

The Carrington court further clarified that the FDCPA’s substantive provisions apply to any person who meets the broad definition of a “collector” under the MCDCA, even if such person would not be considered a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. Notably, the FCDPA contains important exclusions from the definition of “debt collector”, such as when a person is collecting a debt that was obtained prior to default, or if the person collecting the debt was the original creditor. On the other hand, as amended effective October 1, 2018, the MCDCA defines a “collector” broadly to include all persons collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction and does not provide for similar exclusions. We discussed the Carrington decision in greater detail in a prior blog post.

The Advisory

The Advisory reminds Maryland “collectors” of the Carrington court’s ruling, that collecting fees on any form of loan payment violates the MCDCA if the fees are not set forth in the loan documents. As a result, Maryland lenders and servicers are cautioned “that any fee charged, whether for convenience or to recoup actual costs incurred by lenders and servicers for loan payments made through credit cards, debit cards, the automated clearing house (ACH), [or other payment methods], must be specifically authorized by the applicable loan documents.” The Advisory makes clear that “[i]f such a fee is not provided for in the applicable loan documents, it would be deemed illegal.” Further, attempts to circumvent this fee restriction by directing consumers to a payment platform associated with the lender or servicer that collects a loan payment fee or requiring consumers to amend their loan documents for the purposes of inserting such fees could also violate Maryland law.”

The Advisory anticipates that some lenders or servicers may discontinue offering certain payment options as a result of the Carrington decision. However, the Commissioner expressly requests that such lenders or servicers promptly notify their customers of such change and encourages lenders and servicers “to work with consumers to minimize the impact any change in payment options could have, including where possible, continuing such payment options without fees, especially when consumers are attempting to pay their obligations in a timely manner.”

Lenders and servicers are directed to review their records to determine whether any improper fees have previously been assessed and, if so, make appropriate reimbursements to affected borrowers. The OCFR intends to monitor the impact that the Carrington decision has on lender and servicer fee practices and lenders and servicers can expect a follow-up on this topic from the OCFR in the coming months.

Takeaway

The implications of the Carrington decision are numerous. First, lenders and servicers must immediately cease the collection of convenience fees from Maryland borrowers, unless such fees are expressly authorized by the loan documents. Lenders and servicers choosing to discontinue certain payment services as a result of the Carrington decision, must also ensure that affected consumers are promptly notified of such change. In addition, lenders and servicers who meet the definition of a “collector” under the MCDCA must ensure compliance with §§ 804 through 812 of the federal FDCPA, regardless of whether they meet the FDCPA’s definition of a “debt collector.” Finally, while the Carrington decision was focused on the permissibility of convenience fees, we note that the court also held that “[t]he FDCPA’s far-reaching language [under § 808(1)] straightforwardly applies to the collection of ‘any amount.’” Thus, the implications of the Carrington decision go beyond convenience fees to arguably any other fee that is not expressly authorized by the loan documents or permitted by law, and we understand that Maryland regulators have informally indicated as much. Accordingly, lenders and servicers should carefully review all fees that are, or may be, assessed to Maryland borrowers to ensure such fees are either expressly authorized by the loan documents or permitted by law.

On May 26, 2022 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a Consumer Financial Protection Circular stating that creditors utilizing algorithmic tools in credit making decisions must provide “statements of specific reasons to applicants against whom adverse action is taken” pursuant to ECOA and Regulation B. The CFPB previously stated that circulars are policy statements meant to “provide guidance to other agencies with consumer financial protection responsibilities on how the CFPB intends to enforce federal consumer financial law.” The circular at issue posits that some complex algorithms amount to an uninterpretable “black-box,” that makes it difficult—if not impossible—to accurately identify the specific reasons for denying credit or taking other adverse actions. The CFPB concluded that “[a] creditor cannot justify noncompliance with ECOA and Regulation B’s requirements based on the mere fact that the technology it employs to evaluate applications is too complicated or opaque to understand.”

This most recent circular follows a proposal from the CFPB related to review of AI used in automated valuation models (“AVMs”). As we noted in our previous post on that topic, the CFPB stated that certain algorithmic systems could potentially run afoul of ECOA and implementing regulations (“Regulation B”). In that prior outline of proposals with respect to data input, the CFPB acknowledged that certain machine learning algorithms may often be too “opaque” for auditing. The CFPB further theorized that algorithmic models “can replicate historical patterns of discrimination or introduce new forms of discrimination because of the way a model is designed, implemented, and used.”

Pursuant to Regulation B, a statement of reasons for adverse action taken “must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor’s internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor’s credit scoring system are insufficient.” In the circular, the CFPB reiterated that, in utilizing model disclosure forms, “if the reasons listed on the forms are not the factors actually used, a creditor will not satisfy the notice requirement by simply checking the closest identifiable factor listed.” In another related advisory opinion, the CFPB earlier this month also asserted that the provisions of ECOA and Reg B applies not just to applicants for credit, but also to those who have already received credit. This position echoes the Bureau’s previous amicus brief on the same topic filed in John Fralish v. Bank of Am., N.A., nos. 21-2846(L), 21-2999 (7th Cir.). As a result, the CFPB asserts that ECOA requires lenders to provide “adverse action notices” to borrowers with existing credit. For example, the CFPB asserts that ECOA prohibits lenders from lowering the credit limit of certain borrowers’ accounts or subjecting certain borrowers to more aggressive collections practices on a prohibited basis, such as race.

The CFPB’s most recent circular signals a less favorable view of AI technology as compared to previous statements from the Bureau. In a blog post from July of 2020, the CFPB highlighted the benefits to consumers of using AI or machine learning in credit underwriting, noting that it “has the potential to expand credit access by enabling lenders to evaluate the creditworthiness of some of the millions of consumers who are unscorable using traditional underwriting techniques.” The CFPB also acknowledged that uncertainty concerning the existing regulatory framework may slow the adoption of such technology. At the time, the CFPB indicated that ECOA maintained a level of “flexibility” and opined that “a creditor need not describe how or why a disclosed factor adversely affected an application … or, for credit scoring systems, how the factor relates to creditworthiness.” In that prior post, the CFPB concluded that “a creditor may disclose a reason for a denial even if the relationship of that disclosed factor to predicting creditworthiness may be unclear to the applicant. This flexibility may be useful to creditors when issuing adverse action notices based on AI models where the variables and key reasons are known, but which may rely upon non-intuitive relationships.” That post also highlighted the Bureau’s No-Action Letter Policy and Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy as tools to help provide a safe-harbor for AI development. However, in a recent statement, the CFPB criticized those programs as ineffective and it appears those programs are no longer a priority for the Bureau. So too, that prior blog post now includes a disclaimer that it “conveys an incomplete description of the adverse action notice requirements of ECOA and Regulation B, which apply equally to all credit decisions, regardless of the technology used to make them. ECOA and Regulation B do not permit creditors to use technology for which they cannot provide accurate reasons for adverse actions.” The disclaimer directs readers to the CFPB’s recent circular as providing more information. This latest update makes clear that the CFPB will closely scrutinize the underpinnings of systems utilizing such technology and require detailed explanations for their conclusions.

Archives for June 8, 2022