Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

CFPB Announces New Initiatives to Prevent Consumer Harm

By

A&B ABstract

On March 6, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced three new initiatives aimed at preventing consumer harm.  The CFPB will be: (1) implementing an advisory opinion program; (2) amending and reissuing its responsible business conduct bulletin; and (3) engaging with Congress to advance proposed whistleblower legislation.

Advisory Opinion Program

According to the CFPB, the advisory program will allow parties to submit compliance questions online.  After reviewing the questions, the CFPB will publish responding advisory opinions in the Federal Register and on the CFPB website with an interpretation of the CFPB’s existing rules.  This process aligns with processes followed by many other agencies and will provide transparency to the CFPB’s interpretive guidance.

The CFPB will issue procedures for how submissions will be prioritized and addressed, which should allow parties seeking advisory opinions to better tailor their requests.  The goals of the CFPB appear to be to increase transparency on the CFPB’s part and to provide regulatory certainty to all regulated entities and other stakeholders.

To this end, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger stated that the “[a]dvisory opinions will ensure that companies know what compliance entails and what constitutes a violation.”

Responsible Business Conduct Bulletin

CFPB originally published a Responsible Business Conduct Bulletin in June 2013.  The CFPB’s amended and reissued bulletin aims at strengthening the original bulletin and clarifying the CFPB’s approach to responsible business conduct.  In the CFPB’s view, responsible business conduct “can improve the Bureau’s ability to promptly detect violations, increase the effectiveness of its supervisory and enforcement work, enable the Bureau to better focus its finite resources, and help more consumers get redress.”

The bulletin identifies four categories of responsible conduct for entities—(1) self-assessing; (2) self-reporting; (3) remediation; and (4) cooperation—that the CFPB will favorably consider in addressing violations in supervisory and enforcement matters.

“Responsible conduct is in the public interest. Entities that build a culture of compliance and engage in responsible conduct support consumer protection and the Bureau’s efforts to both prevent harm to consumers and enforce the law against bad actors,” Director Kraninger said.

Whistleblower Legislation

The CFPB’s proposed whistleblower legislation would amend Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and provide authority to establish a whistleblower award program.  In essence, the program would incentivize whistleblowers to contact the CFPB by providing a whistleblower that provides voluntary information leading to a successful enforcement action with an award based on a percentage of the monetary sanction collected.

The CFPB believes the incentive created for employees to report wrongdoing will assist in advancing enforcement cases, especially as it relates to fair lending violations. “We [] want to incentivize whistleblowers to contact us if they believe their employer is not complying with the law,” said Director Kraninger.

Key Takeaways

Consumer financial products and services providers should be aware of these developments and how they could potentially affect their business.  A properly implemented advisory opinion program should lead to greater clarity into the CFPB’s interpretation of its rules and more regulatory certainty regarding what is or is not a violation.  Such entities should engage in and document responsible business conduct to better secure leniency from the CFPB in the supervisory and enforcement context.  The development of a whistleblower program could lead to increased enforcement activity and impact the content of civil investigative demands based on such tips.

CFPB Deputy Director Brian Johnson to Join Alston & Bird as Partner in Washington, D.C.

By

Alston & Bird is expanding its consumer financial services and public policy capabilities with the addition of Brian Johnson, deputy director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who will join the firm in March as partner in Washington, D.C.

“Brian’s impressive combination of experience and leadership in government regulation and oversight in the financial services industry is second to none,” said Chris Frieden, Alston & Bird partner and co-chair of the firm’s Financial Services & Products Group. “He will be a strong voice and advocate for our clients on legal and policy issues at the most senior levels in the CFPB and across Washington.”

Johnson has served as the CFPB’s deputy director since May 2019. As second-in-command of the agency and principal advisor to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger, he has been responsible for all policy development and strategic planning and execution of the CFPB’s examination, enforcement, rulemaking, and research activities. He has served as the director’s representative in high-level and sensitive matters involving Congress; the Departments of the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, and Education; federal regulatory agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; as well as state organizations, including the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and National Association of Attorneys General.

Johnson is also credentialed in the FinTech regulatory space. He developed and led the implementation of the CFPB’s Office of Innovation, which launched in 2018 as a regulatory framework designed to reduce potential barriers to innovation as the financial services industry develops new products and services related to cryptocurrencies, blockchain technologies and microlending, and loans by individuals.

“The CFPB’s legal and regulatory framework, which is mirrored by numerous state regulators and attorneys general, continues to be a significant challenge for many in the industry,” said Nanci Weissgold, Alston & Bird partner and co-leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Team. “Brian brings an insider’s view of the CFPB and its relationships with the executive branch and Congress that will serve our clients well on matters ranging from regulatory and compliance issues and examinations to enforcement and related litigation.”

Johnson first joined the CFPB in December 2017 as senior advisor to then-Acting Director Mick Mulvaney and was named policy director in April 2018. He became acting deputy director and principal advisor to the agency’s current director in July 2018.

Earlier in his career, Johnson served on the House Financial Services Committee, where he spent more than five years in various positions, including senior counsel, chief financial institutions counsel, and policy director. While on the committee, he led the policy and legislative work for the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee on issues related to consumer protection and credit, mortgage origination, credit reporting, banking, and data security.

Before joining Congress, Johnson served on the staff of former Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, now governor, and the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Johnson also clerked for the Hon. Terrence O’Donnell, former justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

“Brian’s experience both at the CFPB and in Congress will be a boost to our clients as they pilot the consumer finance regulatory and enforcement cross-currents at both the federal and state levels,” said Dennis Garris, partner in charge of Alston & Bird’s Washington, D.C. office. “Brian’s addition will complement our other recent arrivals, adding to our deep and dynamic bench of attorneys whose insights and knowledge serve our clients’ most important business needs in Washington and nationally.”

Johnson is the most recent addition to Alston & Bird’s Washington, D.C. office. He follows Jason Levine, who arrived from Vinson & Elkins in January as litigation partner; Kathleen Benway, a former Federal Trade Commission official who joined in December from Wilkinson Barker Knauer as government investigations partner; Richard Slowinski, who arrived from Baker McKenzie as tax partner in October; and Jane Lucas, who joined in September from the White House as public policy and health care counsel.

 

CFPB Issues Winter 2020 Supervisory Highlights

By ,

A&B ABstract:

The Winter 2020 Supervisory Highlights identifies the CFPB’s findings from recent examinations, noting violations that resulted in compliance management system weakness.

CFPB Issues New Edition of Supervisory Highlights:

The Winter 2020 edition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Supervisory Highlights details recent examination findings relating to debt collection, mortgage servicing, and student loan servicing, among other topics.

Debt Collection

 With respect to debt collection, the CFPB focused on:

  • Failure to disclose in communications subsequent to the initial written communication that the communication is from a debt collector, in violation of Section 807(11) of the FDCPA; and
  • Failure to send a written validation notice within five days after the initial communication with the consumer, in violation of Section 809(a) of the FDCPA.

As a result of these deficiencies, the CFPB reported that servicers revised their policies and procedures, and monitoring and training programs.

Mortgage Servicing and Loss Mitigation

With a focus on compliance with the loss mitigation provisions of Regulation X, the CFPB’s first finding was that servicers failed to notify borrowers in writing of the servicer’s determination that the loss mitigation application is complete or incomplete within five business days of receiving a loss mitigation application.  Second, the CFPB found that servicers failed to provide borrowers with a written notice of available loss mitigation options within 30 days of receiving the complete loss mitigation application.

Finally, the CFPB cited servicers’ failure to comply with Regulation X’s requirements, including providing a written notice to borrowers, for offering a short term loss mitigation option to a borrower based on an evaluation of an incomplete loss mitigation application. In this instance, the servicers granted short-term forbearance if the borrower in a disaster area experienced home damage or loss of income from the disaster. The borrowers received such accommodation after speaking with the servicer over the phone and responding to certain questions.

In response to that finding, the CFPB reminded servicers that an application for loss mitigation can be oral or written.   Because the servicer’s efforts to respond to a natural disaster were the partial cause of violations, the CFPB only required the servicer to develop plans to ensure staffing capacity in response to any future disaster-related increases in loss mitigation applications. The CFPB also reminded servicers of its September 2018 Statement on Supervisory Practices Regarding Financial Institutions and Consumers Affected by a Major Disaster or Emergency, which provides flexibility for servicers to assist borrowers during a major disaster or emergency but does not lift the Regulation X requirements.

Payday Lending

With a focus on Regulation Z, Regulation B, and unfair acts or practices, the CFPB found that lenders engaged in unfair acts or practices when they: (1) processed borrowers’ payments, but did not apply such payments to borrowers’ loan balances in lenders’ systems; (2) lacked systems to detect unapplied payments; and (3) incorrectly treated borrowers accounts as delinquent. The CFPB found that the injury was not reasonable avoidable by the borrowers because lenders conveyed incorrect information to them about their accounts and failed to follow up on borrower’s complaints. Furthermore, because the cost to lenders to implement appropriate accounting controls to reconcile payments would have been reasonable, countervailing benefits did not outweigh the injury.

Additionally, the CFPB found that a payday lender engaged in unfair acts or practices by assessing consumers a fee as a condition of paying or settling a delinquent loan when the underlying loan contract required the lender to pay that particular fee. The lender mischaracterized the fee as a court cost (which would have been paid by the borrower) or did not disclose it. According to the CFPB, a lack of monitoring and/or auditing of the lender’s collection practices caused the error. In response to this finding, the lender refunded the fee to affected consumers and made changes to its compliance management system.

Other Payday Lending Observations

Further, the CFPB found that payday lenders:

  • Violated Regulation Z by relying on employees to manually calculate APRs when the lender’s loan origination system was unavailable. The CFPB found that errors made in calculating the term of the loan, which resulted in misstated APRs, were caused by weaknesses in employee training.
  • Violated Regulation Z by charging a loan renewal fee to consumers who were refinancing delinquent loans and omitted such fee from the finance charge, resulting in inaccurate disclosure of the APR and finance charge. The CFPB found that a lack of detailed policies and procedures and training contributed to the Regulation Z violations. In response, the lender refunded the fee to the consumer explaining the reason for the refund and strengthened its policy and procedures and training program.
  • Violated record retention requirements of Regulation Z by failing to maintain evidence of compliance for two years. The CFPB found that the violation resulted in part from a lack of training and detailed policies and procedures on record retention.
  • Violated Regulation B by providing consumers with an adverse action notice that incorrectly stated the principal reason for taking an adverse action as a result of a coding error. In response, the lenders sent corrected adverse action notices to consumers and made changes to the system that generate the notices.

Student Loan Servicing

With a focus on unfair practices, the CFPB found that servicers engaged in an unfair act or practice caused by a data mapping errors during the transfer of private loans between servicing systems that resulted in inaccurate calculations of monthly payment amounts. As a result, borrowers may have made payments based on the inaccurate amounts, incurred late fees on such inaccurate amounts, or had inaccurate amounts debited from their account. In response to the examination findings, the CFPB required servicers to remediate affected consumers and implement new processes to eliminate data mapping errors.

 Takeaways

Highlighting debt collection, mortgage servicing, payday lending and student loan servicing, the Supervisory Observations in the Winter 2020 Supervisory Highlights showcase the importance of adequate policies and procedures, training, monitoring and auditing and system controls to avoid consumer harm and violation of consumer financial laws.  Although they cut across multiple industries, the CFPB’s findings highlight common themes – such as entities’ liability for violations that result from system errors or the assessment of unauthorized fees, and the need for careful monitoring in connection with servicing transfers.

 

CFPB Issues Policy Statement on Dodd-Frank “Abusiveness” Standard, But Important Uncertainties Remain

By ,

A&B ABstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) issued a Policy Statement to provide a framework for how it intends to apply the Dodd-Frank Act’s “abusiveness” standard going forward in its supervision and enforcement activities. While this framework attempts to provide clarity where the Dodd-Frank Act left uncertain what acts and practices would be considered “abusive,” the Policy Statement fails to address several key issues. In particular, the Policy Statement does not identify specific conduct that would be considered abusive—leaving public statements on such issues to enforcement matters and litigation.

Background to the Policy Statement

The Dodd-Frank Act (“the Act”) added a prohibition on “abusive” acts and practices to the established prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Over the years, the Federal Trade Commission’s policy statements, enforcement actions, and judicial precedents have defined the prohibitions on “unfair” and “deceptive.” The abusiveness standard is less developed. The Act grants the CFPB authority to declare an act or practice as “abusive” if the act or practice: (1) materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or (2) takes unreasonable advantage of (A) a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service; (B) the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service; or (C) the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer. This Policy Statement follows a symposium convened by the CFPB in 2019 where a panel of academics and regulatory and industry experts debated, among other issues, whether the CFPB should further define abusiveness.

Defining “Abusive” in Precedent

The CFPB and other agencies have seldomly alleged a standalone “abusive” claim; instead, such claims are generally paralleled by claims of “unfairness” and “deceptiveness.” When alleging abusive practices, the CFPB almost always alleged deceptive or unfair practices based on the same set of underlying facts. For example, in 2017 the CFPB alleged that a loan servicer routinely entered student loan borrowers into forbearance without adequately providing information to borrowers regarding possible income-based repayment plans. The CFPB argued that the servicer’s actions constituted both abusive practices and unfair practices under the Act, and the Court agreed.  While such decisions have provided some guidance on what constitutes an abusive practice under the Act, the courts, in reviewing such allegations, considered the statutory language but did not offer any guidance on what conduct might be construed as “abusive” but not construed as “unfair.”

The CFPB’s reticence to prosecute claims of abusive practices created a vacuum of interpretive guidance on how the abusiveness standard actually constrains businesses, beyond the black letter definition contained in the Act. For example, questions remained as to what act or practice would “materially interfere” with a consumer’s understanding of terms and conditions, or what exactly would constitute a financial service provider “taking unreasonable advantage” of a consumer seeking a product of service. These undefined terms left confusion and uncertainty for covered persons seeking to avoid violations. By contrast, the unfairness and deceptiveness standards (which were already in place before the Act’s introduction of an abusiveness standard) have been subject to decades of case law and agency interpretations, which have yielded clear guidance on what acts and practices are considered unfair or deceptive.

Content of the Policy Statement

The Policy Statement acknowledges that “[u]ncertainty remains as to the scope and meaning of abusiveness,” which “creates challenges for covered persons in complying with the law,” and it sets forth a framework regarding how the CFPB will enforce the abusiveness standard. It does not, however, describe or provide examples of precisely what conduct the CFPB would deem abusive.

The Policy Statement describes three categories of principles that the CFPB intends to apply to its supervision and enforcement actions.  The CFPB has stated that the principles reflect the standards it has applied in prior actions.

  1. Benefits vs. Harms: “The Bureau intends to focus on citing conduct as abusive in supervision and challenging conduct as abusive in enforcement if the Bureau concludes that the harms to consumers from the conduct outweigh its benefits to consumers (including its effects on access to credit).” The Policy Statement notes that incorporating this principle “not only ensures that the Bureau is committed to using its scarce resources to address conduct that harms consumers, but also ensures that the Bureau’s supervisory and enforcement decisions are consistent across matters.
  2. No Dual Pleadings: The Bureau intends to avoid “dual pleading” of abusiveness along with unfairness or deception violations which arise from all or nearly all the same facts, and alleging “stand alone” abusiveness violations that “demonstrate clearly the nexus between cited facts and the Bureau’s legal analysis.” The Bureau believes that this approach to pleading will “provide more certainty to covered persons as to the metes and bounds of conduct the Bureau determines is abusive” and “facilitate the development of a body of jurisprudence as to the conduct courts conclude is abusive.”
  3. “Good Faith” Limits on Monetary Relief: “[T]he Bureau generally does not intend to seek certain monetary remedies for abusive acts or practices if the covered person made a good-faith effort to comply with the law based on a reasonable—albeit mistaken—interpretation of the abusiveness standard. However, if a covered person makes a good-faith but unsuccessful effort to comply with the abusiveness standard, the Bureau still intends to seek legal or equitable remedies, such as damages and restitution, to redress identifiable consumer injury.”

The Policy Statement in Context

The Policy Statement is not a CFPB rulemaking. Rather, the Policy Statement merely “constitutes a general statement of policy that is exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act” and is only “intended to provide information regarding the Bureau’s general plans to exercise its discretion.” It “does not impose any legal requirements on external parties, nor does it create or confer any substantive rights on external parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil Proceeding.” As such, while the Policy Statement is intended as a helpful guide to the Bureau’s enforcement philosophy with regard to the abusiveness standard, it is not law, and is subject to revision in the event of any change in the CFPB’s leadership, policies, or priorities.

The Policy Statement is not expected to affect ongoing litigation.  In remarks to the United States House of Representative Financial Oversight Committee on February 6, 2020, CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger stated that “At this point, we have not amended any filings in court and don’t intend to related to this specifically,” indicating that the CFPB doesn’t anticipate repleading any of its pending court enforcement actions in light of the Policy Statement.

Takeaways:

While the principles outlined in the Policy Statement provide an indication of how the CFPB will react to conduct it deems to be “abusive,” it falls short of providing clarity on it will deem abusive, thereby continuing the uncertainty regarding the abusive standard that has existed since its inception. Moreover, the principles set forth in the Policy Statement are themselves subject to uncertainty. For example, it is unclear what exactly constitutes consumer benefits or harms and how those factors are weighed to determine whether conduct is abusive; likewise, it is unclear what types of actions are sufficient to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with the law under a mistaken interpretation of the abusiveness standard.

Notably, however, the Policy Statement expressly left open “the possibility of engaging in a future rulemaking to further define the abusiveness standard,” which presumably may take the form of enforcement actions, CFPB advisories or other guidance, or updates to the CFPB examination manual.

Seventh Circuit Declines to Adopt FDCPA “Benign Language” Exception

By

A&B ABstract:

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Preston v. Midland Credit Mgmt. departs from other circuits that have considered whether there is a “benign language” exception under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The Seventh Circuit, ruled, as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) urged in an amicus brief, that the FDCPA does not contain a “benign language” exception.

FDCPA Section 1692(f)

Section 1692(f) of the FDCPA broadly prohibits a debt collector from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, and enumerates specific examples of prohibited conduct. Section 1692(f)(8) prohibits a debt collector from using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram. However, the section provides that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.

The “Benign Language” Exception

Although Section 1692(f)(8) does not include any exceptions to the prohibition discussed above, courts have found that certain types of “benign language” do not run afoul of the prohibition.  As recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit, the “benign language” exception allows words such as “personal and confidential,” “immediate reply requested,” and “forwarding and address correction requested,” and other innocuous language and corporate logos that do not identify the sender as a debt collector to appear on a debt collector’s envelope to a consumer.

Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit (in Goswami v. American Collections Enterprise, Inc.), believed that the text of section 1692(f)(8) was ambiguous and could be read two ways. In isolation, it could be read as barring “any markings on the outside of… [the] envelope other than the name and addresses of the parties. However, if it was read together with the prefatory language of section 1692f it could be read as “only prohibiting markings… that are unfair on unconscionable.” To resolve the ambiguity, the court created the “benign language” exception to allow for language on an envelope that “would not intimate that the contents of the envelope relate to collection of delinquent debts.”

Eighth Circuit

Similarly, the Eighth Circuit (in Strand v. Diversified Collection Service, Inc.) found that a literal reading of the statutory text would “create bizarre results.” Specifically, the Eighth Circuit found under Section 1692f(8) would “a debtor’s address and an envelope’s pre-printed postage would arguably be prohibited, as would any innocuous mark related to the post, such as ‘overnight mail’ and ‘forwarding address correction requested.’” The court examined the legislative history of the FDCPA and found that benign language or other corporate markings and logos on an envelope would not thwart the purpose of the FDCPA.  As a result, it opined that a “benign language” exception should exist for this type of language on a debt collector’s envelope.

Preston v. Midland Credit Management

Factual Allegations

In Preston, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s finding that the “benign language” exception applied to a collection letter the defendant sent the plaintiff. The collection letter was enclosed in an envelope bearing the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT.” The internal envelope was enclosed in a larger envelope with a glassine covering, so that the words on the internal envelope were visible to the recipient. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s use of the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” violated section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA.

CFPB Amicus Brief

The CFPB filed an amicus brief in Preston, petitioning the court to rule that there is no “benign language” exception to the FDCPA. The CFPB argued: (1) that the statutory text of the FDCPA was clear, and (2) there was no statutory ambiguity between the prefatory language of section 1692f and the explicit prohibition in section 1692f(8). The CFPB noted that the “benign language” exception was unnecessary because the FDCPA already provides that debt collectors may “make use of the mails” in communicating with a consumer. The CFPB argued that the FDCPA’s text allowing a debt collector “use of the mails” rendered the “benign language” exception moot, because the language and symbols the courts analyzed would all be allowed by the FDCPA as “use of the mails.”

Interpretation of Eighth and Fifth Circuit Case Law

In analyzing the plaintiff’s claims in Preston, the Seventh Circuit examined the opinions of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits in creating the “benign language” exception. Ultimately, the court declined to recognize any such “benign language” exception in the FDCPA.

The Seventh Circuit found that adhering to the plain wording of the statute would not prohibit the use of a debtor’s address on a debt collection letter, or of pre-printed postage. Rather, the court agreed with the CFPB, finding that because the FDCPA allows for debt collectors to communicate by “use of the mails,” it authorizes any language or symbol needed for communicating by mail to appear on an envelope, but not more. That is, “the use of the mails” provision permits the inclusion of language and symbols that are required to ensure the successful delivery of communications through the mail, but in Preston, the court found that that the inclusion of “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” was not required to ensure the successful delivery of the communication though the mail, and therefore was in violation of the FDCPA.

Takeaway

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Preston casts uncertainty on the status of the “benign language” exception. Although the Seventh Circuit addressed the printed language at issue in the Fifth and Eighth Circuit cases, the Seventh Circuit did not address the use of corporate logos that were not the debt collector’s name. Debt collectors that do business in the Seventh Circuit, comprising Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, should ensure that any letters sent to consumers do not contain any extraneous language that is not used in the ordinary course of sending mail.