Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP)

A Friendly Reminder of the Importance of Robust Consumer Complaint Handling Processes

By ,

What Happened?

On February 27, 2024, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the Department) entered into a public consent order with a company that provides consumer financial services to California residents. The consent order alleges that between January 2020 and September 2022, the Department received complaints from consumers raising concerns about their accounts and customer service interactions with the company, which the Department forwarded to the company for investigation and response. The Department also investigated the company’s handling of those consumer complaints.

The Department found that the company’s complaint handling was deficient in that “occasional mistakes” that occurred in the Company’s responsiveness to consumer complaints were substantial enough to have violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The Department alleged that as between the company and the consumer, the company was in the better position to accurately evaluate the available information in most cases and to respond to consumers’ complaints in a timely manner and while the number of mistakes during the Department’s investigation period was relatively small in comparison to the overall number of consumer complaints received, the Department concluded that the mistakes were important to the affected consumers.

To resolve these allegations, the company agreed to (1) desist and refrain from violating the CCFPL through its complaint handling processes, (2) pay a penalty of $ 2.5 million, (3) enhance existing customer service procedures or processes, (4) establish, implement, enhance, and maintain testing policies, procedures, and standards reasonably designed to, at a minimum, ensure compliance with the law, and (5) report to the Department annually for two years on these standards. These standards require the company to:

  • Ensure customer service support 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
  • Ensure sufficient customer service support staffing;
  • Ensure sufficient customer service support training; and
  • Investigate and implement policies and procedures to maintain the accurate, prompt and proper handling of consumer complaints.

Why is it Important?

The CCFPL was enacted in September 2020 and grants the Department expanded authority over persons engaged in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service in California and their affiliated service providers. Notably, under the CCFPL, it is unlawful for a “covered person” or “service provider,” to do any of the following:

  • Engage, have engaged, or propose to engage in any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice (UDAAP) with respect to consumer financial products or services.
  • Offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in conformity with any consumer financial law or otherwise commit any act or omission in violation of a consumer financial law.
  • Fail or refuse, as required by a consumer financial law or any rule or order issued by the Department thereunder, to do any of the following:
    • Permit the Department access to or copying of records.
    • Establish or maintain records.
    • Make reports or provide information to the Department.

The CCFPL defines a “covered person” to mean, to the extent not preempted by federal law, any of the following:

  • Any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service to a resident of California.
  • Any affiliate of a person described above if the affiliate acts as a service provider to the person.
  • Any service provider to the extent that the person engages in the offering or provision of its own consumer financial product or service.

A “servicer provider” includes any person that provides a material service to a covered person in connection with the offering or provision by that covered person of a consumer financial product or service, including a person that either:

  • Participates in designing, operating, or maintaining the consumer financial product or service.
  • Processes transactions relating to the consumer financial product or service, other than unknowingly or incidentally transmitting or processing financial data in a manner that the data is undifferentiated from other types of data of the same form as the person transmits or processes.

The term “service provider” does not include a person solely by virtue of that person offering or providing to a covered person either a support service of a type provided to businesses generally or a similar ministerial service, or time or space for an advertisement for a consumer financial product or service through print, newspaper, or electronic media.

Notwithstanding the broad definition of “covered person,” the CCFPL contains numerous exemptions, including for banks; licensed escrow agents; licensees under the California Financing Law; licensed broker-dealers or investment advisers; licensees under the Residential Mortgage Lending Act; licensed check sellers, bill payers, or proraters; and licensed money transmitters, among others.

The Department is authorized to impose civil money penalties for any violation of the CCFPL, rule or final order, or condition imposed in writing by the Department in an amount not to exceed the greater of $5,000 for each day during which a violation or failure to pay continues, or $2,500 for each act or omission. Reckless violations are subject to increased penalties not to exceed the greater of $25,000 for each day during which the violation continues, or $10,000 for each act or omission. For knowing violations, the Department is authorized to assess penalties not to exceed the lesser of one percent of the person’s total assets, $1 million for each day during which the violation continues, or $25,000 for each act or omission.

What Do You Need to Do?

It is always important to take consumer complaints seriously and to respond timely and accurately. Now is the time to review your company’s complaint management procedures to make sure they are robust. It is always important to mine your consumer complaints so that you can learn from them and correct errors timely to ensure mistakes don’t recur, and the Department’s latest settlement is a reminder that companies subject to the CCFPL also have a legal obligation to do so.

CFPB’s Proposed Insufficient Fund Fee Rule – Narrow in Scope with Potential for Greater Impact

By , ,

What Happened?

On January 24, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule that would prohibit covered financial institutions from imposing a nonsufficient funds (NSF) fee when consumers initiate transactions that are instantaneously or near instantaneously declined (the Proposed Rule). According to the CFPB, such fees are not based on the transaction amount or processing cost and take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s lack of understanding of the material risk, costs or conditions of the product or service. In the Preamble to the Proposed Rule, the CFPB recognizes that “currently covered financial institutions rarely charge NSF fees on covered transactions” and, thus, the “CFPB is proposing this rule primarily as a preventive measure.” With that said, the Proposed Rule is significant in that the Bureau also clarifies its approach to assessing abusive practices.

Why is it Important?

Background

In January 2022, the CFPB launched an initiative to reduce certain fees charged by banks and other companies under its jurisdiction, by issuing a Request for Information (Fee RFI) seeking public comment regarding fees that are not “subject to competitive processes that ensure fair pricing.” The CFPB continues to focus on these so-called “junk fees,” which the Bureau described in its Fee RFI, in part, as “fees that far exceed the marginal cost of the service they purport to cover, implying that companies are not just shifting costs to consumers, but rather, taking advantage of a captive relationship with the consumers to drive excess profits.” The Bureau’s attention is now on NSF fees.

The Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule may be narrow in scope, but much broader in potential impact. It would prohibit a “financial institution” from charging an NSF fee to a consumer who attempts to withdraw, debit, pay, or transfer funds from their “account” that is declined instantaneously or near instantaneously by the “financial institution.” For purposes of the Proposed Rule, the term “account” and “financial institution” are defined consistent with Regulation E. Thus, a financial institution includes a bank, savings association, credit union, or any other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer to provide electronic fund transfer services. An account is defined equally broad to include: (i) checking, savings, or other consumer asset account held by a financial institution (directly or indirectly), including certain club accounts, established primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and (ii) a prepaid account. An account would not include, among others, escrow accounts for real estate taxes or insurance or an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan. It is also worth noting that, according to the CFPB, checks and ACH transactions are not covered by the rule unless they evolve in a way to be cleared instantaneously.

While the scope of the Proposed Rule is narrow, the Bureau’s interpretation of abusiveness as articulated in the Proposed Rule is not. By way of background, Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs) under Federal law in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The Proposed Rule finds that charging an NSF fee in instantaneously or near instantaneously declined transactions violates the “lack of understanding” prong of the abusiveness standard. Under the CFPB’s Policy Statement on Abusive Acts or Practices, the “lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service” concerns gaps in understanding affecting consumer decision making.

The Proposed Rule attempts to fine tune the “lack of understanding” analysis by distinguishing prior comments the Bureau made in its 2020 Payday Lending Rule, by clarifying that:

  • “[L]ack of understanding under the abusiveness standard of UDAAP is not synonymous with reasonable avoidability under the unfairness standard.”
  • Magnitude and risk of harm are distinct and should have no bearing on a “lack of understanding” analysis.
  • A consumer’s lack of understanding should not be characterized as general or specific as such framework is unhelpful in determining whether consumers understand the material risks, costs or conditions of a financial product or service.

Under the Proposed Rule, the Bureau has preliminarily determined that the charging of such fee is abusive under Section 1031(d) of the CFPA as it would take “unreasonable advantage of consumers’ lack [of] understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions associated with their deposit accounts” and that “covered financial institutions that charge NSF fees on covered transactions would be benefiting from negative consumer outcomes that result from…a consumer’s lack of understanding.”

The Bureau summarily dismissed that such risks could be mitigated, as disclosure would be too costly, too unfeasible, and unlikely to eliminate the risk. Rather, “[d]rawing on its experience and expertise regarding consumer behavior, the CFPB believes that if a transaction entails material risks or costs and consumers derive minimum or no benefit from the transaction, it is generally reasonable to conclude that consumers who nonetheless went ahead with the transaction did not understand the material risks, costs or the conditions to those risks or costs.”

In other words, the CFPB appears to believe that no consumer would initiate a transaction knowing that they have insufficient funds and that a fee could be charged if their transaction is declined, despite the fact that (1) the vast majority of consumers have readily available access to their bank account balances, (2) such fees are generally disclosed to consumers, and (3) consumers contractually agree to pay such fees.

What Do You Need to Do?

While the Proposed Rule has limited application, the Bureau’s interpretation of the abusiveness standard could have far broader implications, as the Bureau could deem as abusive any fee which it determines provides little to no consumer benefit. For example, it is unclear what would stop the Bureau from prohibiting other fees as abusive, based on a determination that such fees provide little to no consumer benefit and that financial institutions are “benefiting from negative consumer outcomes that result from…a consumer’s lack of understanding,” given that the Bureau’s rationale appears to give little regard to consumer disclosures or contract law.

Therefore, given the potential downstream implications of the CFPB’s broad interpretation of abusiveness, companies subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction should carefully review the Proposed Rule and consider submitting a comment letter, even if the Proposed Rule itself would not directly apply to the company. The Proposed Rule’s comment period expires on March 25, 2024.

 

CFPB Touts 2023 Greatest Hits and Casts a Line for Enforcement Hires

By , ,

What Happened?

Earlier this week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) released a blog post touting its 2023 successes in safeguarding “household financial stability” through the levying of fines and filing of lawsuits. The Bureau highlighted seven enforcement cases:

  • Protecting Servicemembers from Illegal High-Interest Loans and False Advertising: In February 2023, the CFPB ordered an auto title loan lender and several affiliated entities to pay a total of $15 million in penalties and consumer redress to resolve allegations that the entities violated the Military Lending Act. That same month, the CFPB permanently banned a California-based mortgage lender from the mortgage lending industry and imposed a $1 million penalty on the lender for repeatedly violating a 2015 consent order by, among other things, allegedly continuing to send advertisements to military families that led recipients to believe the company was affiliated with the U.S. government.
  • Taking Action for Illegally Charging Junk Fees, Withholding Credit Card Rewards, and Operating Fake Bank Accounts: In July 2023, the CFPB ordered a national bank to pay a more than $190 million in penalties and consumer redress to resolve allegations that the bank double dipped on insufficient funds fees imposed on customers, withheld reward bonuses promised to credit card customers, and misappropriated sensitive personal information to open accounts without customer knowledge or authorization. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) also found that the bank’s double-dipping on insufficient funds fees was illegal and ordered the bank to pay $60 million in penalties.
  • Intentional Illegal Discrimination Against Armenian Americans: In November 2023, the CFPB ordered a national bank to pay $25.9 million in fines and consumer redress for allegedly “intentionally and illegally discriminating against credit card applicants the bank identified as Armenian American.” 
  • Taking Action to Stop Loan Churning: In August 2023, the CFPB sued a high-cost installment loan lender and several of its wholly owned, state-licensed subsidiaries, for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act by “illegally churning loans to harvest hundreds of millions in loan costs and fees.”
  • Illegal Rental Background Check and Credit Reporting Practices: In October 2023, the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued a rental screening subsidiary of a national consumer credit reporting agency for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to take steps to ensure the rental background checks that landlords use to decide who gets housing were accurate and withholding from renters the names of third parties that were providing the inaccurate information. The resulting court order required the company to pay $15 million in penalties and make significant improvements to how it reports evictions. Separately, the CFPB ordered the national consumer reporting agency to pay $8 million in consumer redress and penalties for failing to timely place or remove security freezes and locks on consumer credit reports and for falsely telling certain consumers that their requests were processed.
  • Stopping unlawful junk advance fees for credit repair services: In August 2023, the CFPB entered into a settlement with a credit repair service conglomerate that imposed a $2.7 billion judgment and banned the companies from telemarketing credit repair services for 10 years.

The CFPB touted that in 2023 it secured over $3.5 billion in total fines and compensation from financial services “lawbreakers” in 2023.  The CFPB largely attributed these cases to the creation of a “team of technologists” working on emerging technologies to “enforce the law when emerging technologies harm consumers.”

Why is this Important?

The CFPB filed 29 enforcement actions in 2023 but selected the seven highlighted above, possibly signaling that junk fees, fair lending, servicemember protections, and credit reporting, among others, remain on the Bureau’s radar. We do not expect the CFPB to issue any sort of accounting covering enforcement cases which it dropped in 2023.

Interestingly, the CFPB also used this post to recruit new “cross-disciplinary” employees (both attorneys and non-attorneys) for its Office of Enforcement and reiterated that the Bureau is “significantly expanding [its] enforcement capacity in 2024 to build on [its] achievements so far.” The roles are located in the Bureau’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and its regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, New York and San Francisco.  The last of the associated employment information virtual sessions occurred on January 30, 2024.  Strangely, the CFPB only released this blog post the day before the last of these three sessions and it is not known how that late notice may impact application numbers.

What Do You Need to Do?

Given that the CFPB is telegraphing those issues that are top of mind for the Bureau as well as its emphasis on ramping up enforcement in 2024, now is a good time for companies to review their compliance management programs and make any necessary enhancements to policies, procedures, processes, and systems to ensure compliance with all applicable consumer financial laws and regulations. In particular, institutions should revisit their compliance monitoring programs to determine whether any updates are needed to minimize enforcement risk.

Affirmative Action in Lending: The Implications of the Harvard Decision on Financial Institutions

By ,

Early this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellow of Harvard College effectively ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that decisions made “on the basis of race” do nothing more than further “stereotypes that treat individuals as the product of their race, evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as citizens—according to a criterion barred to the Government by history and the Constitution.”

In particular, the Supreme Court reasoned that “when a university admits students ‘on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that [students] of a particular race, because of their race, think alike.’” Such stereotyping purportedly only causes “continued hurt and injury,” contrary as it is to the “core purpose” of the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reminded us that “ameliorating societal discrimination does not constitute a compelling interest that justifies race-based state action.”

In the context of lending, federal regulatory agencies expect and encourage financial institutions to explicitly consider race in their lending activities. While the Community Reinvestment Act has required banks to affirmatively consider the needs of low-to-moderate-income neighborhoods, regulatory enforcement actions over the last few years have required both bank and nonbank mortgage lenders to explicitly consider an applicant’s protected characteristics such as race and ethnicity—conduct plainly prohibited by fair lending laws.

Could the impact of the Supreme Court holding extend beyond education to lending and housing? Will the Harvard decision serve to undercut federal regulators’ legal theories for demonstrating redlining and present a challenge for special purpose credit programs that explicitly consider race or other protected characteristics?

Fair Lending Laws Prohibit Consideration of Race

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits a creditor from discriminating against any applicant, in any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract). Similarly, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against any person in making available a residential real-estate-related transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

In March 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) went as far as to update its Examination Manual to provide that unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAPs) “include discrimination” and signaled that the CFPB will examine whether companies are adequately “testing for” discrimination in their advertising, pricing, and other activities. When challenged by various trade organizations, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the CFPB’s update exceeded the agency’s authority under the Dodd–Frank Act. This decision is limited, however, and enjoins the CFPB from pursuing its theory against those financial institutions that are members of the trade association plaintiffs. It is also unclear if the verdict will be appealed by the CFPB.

Despite federal prohibitions, regulators such as the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) expect, and at times even require, lenders to affirmatively target their marketing and lending efforts to certain borrowers and communities based on race and/or ethnicity.

Race-Based Decisions Are Encouraged and Even Required by Regulators

CFPB examiners often ask lenders to describe their affirmative, specialized efforts to target their lending to minority communities. If there have been no such explicit efforts by the institution, the CFPB penalizes these lenders for not explicitly considering race in their marketing and lending decisions. For example, in the CFPB’s redlining complaint against Townstone Financial, the CFPB alleged that “Townstone made no effort to market directly to African-Americans during the relevant period,” and that “Townstone has not specifically targeted any marketing toward African-Americans.”

What’s more, if enforcement culminates in a consent order, the CFPB and DOJ effectively impose race- based action by requiring lenders to fund loan subsidies or discounts that will be offered exclusively to consumers based on the predominant race or ethnicity of their neighborhood. In the CFPB/DOJ settlement with nonbank Trident Mortgage, the lender was required to set aside over $18 million toward offering residents of majority-minority neighborhoods “home mortgage loans on a more affordable basis than otherwise available.”

And in the more recent DOJ settlement with Washington Trust, the consent order required the lender to subsidize only those mortgage loans made to “qualified applicants,” defined in the settlement as consumers who either reside, or apply for a mortgage for a residential property located, in a majority-Black and Hispanic census tract. Such subsidies are a common feature of recent redlining settlements, which have been occurring with increased frequency since the DOJ announced its Combating Redlining Initiative in October 2021.

Not only do the CFPB and DOJ encourage, and in certain cases, even require, race-based lending in potential contravention of fair lending laws, but federal regulators also expect some degree of race-based hiring by lenders. This expectation is based on the stereotypical assumption that lenders need racial and ethnic minorities in their consumer-facing workforce to attract racial and ethnic minority loan applicants. In the Townstone complaint, for example, the CFPB chastised the lender for failing to “employ an African-American loan officer during the relevant period, even though it was aware that hiring a loan officer from a particular racial or ethnic group could increase the number of applications from members of that racial or ethnic group.”

Ultimately, all the recent redlining consent orders announced by the CFPB and DOJ impose at least some race-based requirement, which would seem to run afoul of fair lending laws and Supreme Court precedent.

Racial Quota-Based Metrics Used by Regulators

Further, when assessing whether a lender may have engaged in redlining against a particular racial or ethnic group, the CFPB and DOJ, as a matter of course, employ quota-based metrics to evaluate the “rates” or “percentages” of a lender’s activity in majority-minority geographic areas, specifically majority-minority census tracts (MMCTs). Then the regulators compare such rates or percentages of the lender’s loan applications or originations in MMCTs to those of other lenders. For example, in its complaint against Lakeland Bank, the DOJ focused on the alleged “disparity between the rate of applications generated by Lakeland and the rate generated by its peer lenders from majority-Black and Hispanic areas.” The agency criticized the bank’s “shortfalls in applications from individuals identifying as Black or Hispanic compared to the local demographics and aggregate HMDA averages.”

Undoubtedly, this approach utilizes nothing more than a quota-based metric, which the Supreme Court in Harvard squarely rejected. Indeed, the Supreme Court reasoned that race-based programs amount to little more than determining how “the breakdown of the [incoming] class compares to the prior year in terms of racial identities,” or comparing the racial makeup of the incoming class to the general population, to see whether some proportional goal or benchmark has been reached.

While the goal of meaningful representation and diversity is commendable, the Supreme Court emphasized that “outright racial balancing and quota systems remain patently unconstitutional.” And such a focus on racial quotas means that lenders could attempt to minimize or even eliminate their fair lending risk simply by decreasing their lending in majority-non-Hispanic-White neighborhoods—without ever increasing their loan applications or originations in majority-minority neighborhoods. Of course, this frustrates the essential purpose of ECOA and other fair lending laws.

Potential Constitutional Scrutiny of Race-Based Lending Efforts

If race-based state action, including the use of racial quotas, violates the Equal Protection Clause, it is possible that the race-based lending measures recently encouraged and even required by federal regulators may be constitutionally problematic. In addition to racially targeted loan subsidies and racially motivated loan officer hiring, regulators continue to encourage lenders to implement special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) to meet the credit needs of specific racial or ethnic groups. As the CFPB noted in its advisory opinion, “[b]y permitting the consideration of a prohibited basis such as race, national origin, or sex in connection with a special purpose credit program, Congress protected a broad array of programs ‘specifically designed to prefer members of economically disadvantaged classes’ and ‘to increase access to the credit market by persons previously foreclosed from it.’”

While SPCPs are explicitly permitted by the language of ECOA and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, as an exception to the statute’s mandate against considering a credit applicant’s protected characteristics, it is uncertain whether these provisions, if challenged, would survive constitutional scrutiny by the current Supreme Court.

Takeaways for Lenders

For the time being, lenders that offer SPCPs based on a protected characteristic should ensure that their written plans continue to meet the requirements of Section 1002.8(a)(3). As always, the justifications for lending decisions that could disproportionately affect consumers based on their race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic should be well documented and justified by legitimate business needs. And if faced with a fair lending investigation or potential enforcement action, lenders should consider presenting to regulators any alternate data findings or conclusions that demonstrate the institution’s record of lending in MMCTs rather than focusing on the rates or percentages of other lenders in the geographic area.

Oh Snap! CFPB Sues Fintech Company under CFPA and TILA

By

A&B Abstract:

On July 19, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued a Utah-based fintech company and several of its affiliates (the Company) for allegedly deceiving consumers and obscuring the terms of its financing agreements in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and other federal regulations.

The Allegations

The Company provides lease-to-own financing, through which consumers finance purchases from merchants though the Company’s “Purchase Agreements,” and, in turn, make payments back to the Company.  The Company allegedly provides the merchants with advertisement materials and involves them heavily in the application and contracting process.

According to the CFPB, the Company’s advertising and servicing efforts were deceptive.  As part of its marketing efforts, the Company allegedly provided its merchant partners with display advertisements that featured the phrase “100 Day Cash Payoff” without further explanation of the terms of financing.  Consumers who received financing from the Company reasonably believed they had entered into a 100-day financing agreement, where their automatically scheduled payments would fulfill their payment obligations after 100 days.  But, in fact, consumers had to affirmatively exercise the 100-day early payment discount option, and if they missed the deadline pay significantly more than the “cash” price under the terms of their Purchase Agreements.  Additionally, as part of its servicing efforts, the Company allegedly threatened consumers with collection actions that it does not bring.

From the CFPB’s perspective, these efforts constituted deceptive acts or practices under the CFPA.  The marketing efforts were deceptive because the Company’s use of this featured phrase was a (1) representation or practice; (2) material to consumers’ decision to take out financing; and (3) was likely to mislead reasonable consumers as to the nature of the financing agreement, while the servicing efforts were deceptive because the Company threatened actions it does not take.

The CFPB also alleges that the Company’s application and contracting process was abusive.  The Company allegedly designed and implemented a Merchant Portal application and contracting process that frequently resulted in merchants signing and submitting Purchase Agreements on behalf of consumers without the consumer’s prior review of the agreement.  Further, the Company relied on merchants to explain the terms of the agreements but provided them with no written guidance for doing so.  And as part of the process, the Company required consumers to pay a processing fee before receiving a summary of the terms of their agreement and before seeing or signing their final agreement.

Altogether, the CFPB views these acts and practices as abusive under the CFPA because they “materially interfered” with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreements.

Lastly, the CFPB alleges that the Company’s Purchase Agreements did not meet TILA and its implementing Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.  On this point, the CFPB is careful in alleging that the Purchase Agreements are not typical rent-to-own agreements to which TILA does not apply.  Rather, the CFPB alleges they are actually “credit sales” because the agreements permitted consumers to terminate only at the conclusion of an automatically renewing 60-day term, and only if consumers were current on their payment obligations through the end of that term.

Takeaways

This suit serves as a good reminder to every lending program to: (i) have counsel carefully vet all advertisements to ensure that they are not inadvertently deceptive or misleading to consumers; (ii) ensure that the mechanics of its application process facilitate rather than interfere with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions; and (iii) consult with counsel regarding whether their agreements are subject to TILA and Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.