Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

Colorado Privacy Act Becomes Third Comprehensive State Privacy Act in the United States

By ,

The Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) became law when Governor Jared Polis signed the bill on July 7, 2021. The CPA is the third general state privacy law in the United States, following the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). Although the CPA does not provide an express private right of action, businesses that violate the Act may face liability for deceptive acts (and a civil penalty of $20,000 per violation), enforced by the Colorado attorney general and/or Colorado state district attorneys.

In a Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Advisory, our Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Team highlights some of the similarities and differences between Colorado’s new consumer privacy law and its older siblings in California and Virginia.

Colorado Becomes the Third State to Adopt a General Privacy Law

By

On July 7, Colorado became the third state behind California and Virginia to adopt a comprehensive privacy law when Governor Jared Polis signed the Colorado Privacy Act into law. The CPA contains many similarities to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). But there are several key differences, including with respect to the scope of certain of the consumer privacy rights and the contract terms required in agreements with processors. Like CPRA but unlike the VCDPA, the statute mandates a formal rulemaking process. Notably, the law does not contain a private right of action, but a violation of the CPA is considered a deceptive trade practice and may result in a fine of $20,000 per violation. The CPA takes effect July 1, 2023.

Please contact our Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Team with any questions or for further guidance.

Highlights of Washington Department of Financial Institutions’ Recent Mortgage Industry Webinar

By

A&B ABstract: In a webinar earlier this month, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions provided updates on licensing, rulemaking, and recent examination findings.

On June 2, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) held a webinar covering mortgage industry updates in the state.  Among the topics discussed were:

Licensing Updates

Between May 2020 and May 2021, the DFI has seen a substantial increase in licensing activities involving issuances and renewals for both mortgage loan originators and companies, including MLO temporary authority to operate.

Rulemaking Updates

On June 15, the DFI will hold an industry stakeholders meeting to consider amending the rules under the Consumer Loan Act (“CLA,” WAC 208-620) and the Mortgage Broker Practices Act (“MBPA,” WAC 620-660) to allow MLOs to work from home without licensing the residence as a branch office.  The proposed rules will implement enacted Senate Bill 5077 (2021 Wash. Sess. Laws 15), which takes effect on July 25.

Examination Updates

During the first quarter of 2021, the DFI conducted examinations for the review period of October 2020 through April 2021.  Commonly identified violations included:

For mortgage loan servicing:
  • Failure to file accurate annual assessments;
  • Failure to suppress adverse credit reporting for CARES Act forbearances, most often during the initial months of forbearance;
  • Failure to maintain records (typically involving subservicers);
  • Inaccurate adjustable rate change information (i.e., incorrect margin or index); and
  • Inaccurate consolidated annual reports.
For mortgage loan origination, under the CLA:
  • Failure to update surety bond amounts as required by WAC 208-620-320;
  • Failure to date residential mortgage loan applications (initial and revised) as required by WAC 208-620-550(18);
  • Failure to have day-to-day operations managers licensed as an MLO; and
  • Failure to have a written supervisory plan in place.
For mortgage loan origination, under the MBPA:
  • With respect to quarterly mortgage condition reports (“MCRs”), failure to timely file and/or failure to file accurate MCRs;
  • Failure to develop and implement an adequate Anti-Money Laundering program;
  • Failure to provide updated lock-in agreements when lock terms change;
  • Failure to include a link to the company’s NMLS consumer access website on all internet advertisements; and
  • Advertising violations, namely using disallowed phrases (such as “best” or “lowest” when describing rates, fees, and programs) or advertising “no closing costs” or that something is “free”.

Takeaways

The webinar suggests that the pandemic has created both a surge in license applications and renewals, as well as increases in the volume of mortgage loans, for Washington licensees.

The examination findings serve as a reminder to Washington State licensees to be mindful of their own compliance management and quality control processes, in order to ensure that they are conducting business activities in compliance with all statutes and regulations (to include the CLA and MBPA).

NYDFS Reports Major Cybersecurity Settlement

By ,

In early March, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced a settlement involving a $1.5M penalty and mandatory remediation in response to a mortgage lender’s alleged failure to report a cyber breach, and other alleged cybersecurity failures. This enforcement action marks the second public enforcement action under 23 NYCRR Part 500 (the “Cybersecurity Regulation”) (see our post on the prior action here).

It is noteworthy that the settlement follows a routine safety and soundness exam by the regulator which included a review of security issues under the Cybersecurity Regulation.  This settlement provides an example of both the alleged failure to have reported a security incident and the potential that any such failure will later be detected by the NYDFS in routine examinations.

The consent order noted two major cybersecurity failings on the part of the licensee, Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Residential Mortgage”), according to the NYDFS:

  • Failure to Adequately Investigate and Respond to a Cybersecurity Event. The consent order recounts a successful phishing attack that resulted in a “cyber intruder” accessing an employee’s email account. Residential Mortgage’s IT staff determined that improper access had occurred and quickly took steps to prevent further unauthorized access. However, the consent order faults Residential Mortgage for failing to conduct any further investigation to determine (1) whether the compromised inbox “contained private consumer data,” (2) “which consumers were impacted,” and then (3) “apply the applicable state notice requirements triggered by the breach.” The consent order notes that, following the NYDFS’s examination and investigation of the Cybersecurity Event, Residential Mortgage did determine that it was obligated to notify individuals under various state laws based on a review of all data elements “that could have been accessed” during the intrusion. According to the consent order, Residential Mortgage subsequently made notifications to individuals as required by those laws.
  • Lack of “Comprehensive Cybersecurity Risk Assessment.” The consent order states that Residential Mortgage “was missing a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment.” Such risk assessments are required under the Cybersecurity Regulation to periodically evaluate vulnerabilities and inform operation of the cybersecurity program.

In addition to assessing a $1.5M civil penalty, the settlement provisions require Residential Mortgage to make the following submissions to the NYDFS within 90 days:

  • “a comprehensive written Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan;”
  • a comprehensive risk assessment;
  • “Policies, procedures and controls” relating to monitoring user activity and detecting unauthorized access or use of personal or confidential information; and
  • “Cybersecurity awareness training for all personnel, updated to reflect risks identified by Residential Mortgage in its Cybersecurity Risk Assessment.”

Residential Mortgage also agreed to “fully cooperate” with the NYDFS “regarding all terms of this Consent Order,” and the NYDFS reserved all rights to take further action in the event of noncompliance. The consent order notes Residential Mortgage’s “commendable cooperation” with the investigation and remediation efforts, including “devoting significant financial and other resources to enhance its cybersecurity program.”

New Virginia Privacy Law Promises Big Impacts

By ,

Virginia became the second state after California to pass a comprehensive privacy law when the governor signed the Consumer Data Protection Act, which contains many elements found in the California Consumer Privacy Act and other proposed privacy frameworks, as well as a number of new requirements for businesses.

In a client advisory, our Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Team pinpoints critical steps companies should take to ensure compliance.

  • How is it different from California’s CCPA and the EU’s GDPR?
  • What is its scope and how will it be enforced?
  • How extensive are consumers’ opt-out and other rights?