• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Consumer Finance ABstract

  • Home
  • Services
  • Contacts

FTC Seeks Comment on Proposed Changes to FCRA Rules for Motor Vehicle Dealers

September 4, 2020 By Ross Speier and Nanci Weissgold

State Capital building

A&B ABstract: The FTC is seeking public comment on proposed changes to five FCRA rules aimed at clarifying that these rules, as promulgated by the FTC, apply only to motor vehicle dealers, as equivalent rules promulgated by the CFPB will apply to other entities.

 

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has announced it is seeking public comment on proposed changes to existing rules implementing parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). According to the FTC, the proposed changes would clarify that five FCRA rules promulgated by the FTC apply only to motor vehicle dealers.

This clarification is needed because after the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) the FTC’s rulemaking authority under certain portions of the FCRA, the FTC rescinded several of its FCRA rules, which had been replaced by rules issued by the CFPB. However, the FTC retained rulemaking authority for other rules to the extent the rules apply to motor vehicle dealers (as defined in the Dodd-Frank Act) that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.

In particular, the rule changes (each of which are addressed in separate Notices of Proposed Rule Making) would apply to the following five rules:

  1. The Address Discrepancy Rule (16 CFR Part 641), which outlines the obligations of users of consumer reports when they receive a notice of address discrepancy from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (“CRA”);
  2. The Affiliate Marketing Rule (16 CFR Part 680), which gives consumers the right to restrict a person from using certain information obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations to the consumer;
  3. The Furnisher Rule (16 CFR Part 660), which requires entities that furnish information to CRAs to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers provided to a CRA;
  4. The Pre-screen Opt-Out Notice Rule (16 CFR Parts 642 and 698), which outlines requirements for those who use consumer report information to make unsolicited credit or insurance offers to consumers; and
  5. The Risk-Based Pricing Rule (16 CFR Part 640), which requires those who use information from a consumer report to offer less favorable terms to consumers to provide them with a notice about the use of such data.

Each of these FTC rules, as revised, will be limited in scope to apply only in relation to motor vehicle dealers, subject to certain exceptions, and those persons and entities originally covered by these rules who are not motor vehicle dealers remain subject to similar rulemakings promulgated by the CFPB. For example, with regard to the Pre-screen Opt-Out Notice Rule, the proposed amendment would replace the general term “person” with the term “motor vehicle dealers,” as defined, thus narrowing the scope of the rule to entities that are “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, excluding those dealers that directly extend credit to consumers and do not routinely assign the extensions of credit to an unaffiliated third party.” The proposed rule amendments also reinstate certain model notices that are otherwise identical to the CFPB’s model notices applicable to certain entities that are not motor vehicle dealers.

Additionally, the FTC is seeking comment on the effectiveness of these five rules including the following considerations:

  • whether there is a continuing need for specific provisions of each rule;
  • the benefits each rule has provided to consumers;
  • what modifications, if any, should be made to each rule to benefit consumers and businesses; and
  • what modifications, if any, should be made to each rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions.

Takeaways: These proposed amendments to the relevant FCRA rules will serve to clarify the distinction between the rules applicable to motor vehicle dealers – promulgated by the FTC ­– and rules applicable to other entities, which have been issued by the CFPB.  Comments on these issues must be submitted to the FTC within 75 days from the date the notices of proposed rulemaking are published in the Federal Register. Instructions on how to file comments will be included in the notices published in the Federal Register.

Filed Under: Auto Loans, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Consumer Loan, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Tagged With: #FCRA, Credit Reporting

About Ross Speier

Ross Speier is a senior associate in Alston & Bird’s Financial Services & Products Group. He focuses his practice on consumer financial services and banking regulation.

[Read Bio]

About Nanci Weissgold

Nanci Weissgold is a Chambers-ranked, American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers fellow who co-leads the firm’s consumer finance practice and maintains a national practice representing consumer financial services providers in a wide array of federal and state regulatory and supervisory matters. Her clients value her pragmatism preparing for and responding to CFPB, FHA, state, and other administrative actions.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

RECEIVE EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS WHEN NEW POSTS ARE ADDED.

A confirmation email has been sent to the email address provided.


Tags

#California #CCPA #CFPA #CFPB #COVID=19 #debtcollection #evaluations #FCRA #FDCPA #GSEs #Massachusetts #mortgageservicing #NYDFS #Part419 #Privacy #QMPatch #SupervisoryHighlights #validwhenmade Ability to Repay abusive ATR/QM CARES Act Case law Covid-19 Credit Reporting CSBS Cybersecurity data breach Debt Collection DOJ Eleventh Circuit FACTA Fair Lending Forbearance Foreclosure HUD Mortgage Servicing passive investors QM QM Patch Regulation F SCRA Servicing student loan servicing UDAAP

Secondary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Did the CFPB Have Authority to Issue its RFI Regarding Employer-Driven Debt?
  • Second Juneteenth Holiday Raises Tricky Compliance Issues
  • Maryland Regulator Puts Lenders and Servicers on Notice Regarding the Assessment of So-Called “Convenience Fees”
  • CFPB Continues Scrutiny of Algorithmic Technology
  • Client Advisory: One Person’s Junk Fee Is Another’s Treasure
Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.