Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

UDAAP

HELOCs On the Rise: Is Your Servicing CMS Ready?

By ,

A&B ABstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) has moved to clarify its regulatory authority at a time when the economic climate is ripe for a resurgence in HELOC lending. In an amicus brief filed by the CFPB on November 30, 2022 (the “Amicus Brief”), the Bureau acknowledged that its Mortgage Servicing Rules, which, in 2013, amended Regulation X, RESPA’s implementing regulation, and Regulation Z, TILA’s implementing regulation, do not apply to home equity lines of credit (“HELOCs”).  This is consistent with the Bureau’s guidance in the preamble to the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules under RESPA, wherein the Bureau recognized that HELOCs have a different risk profile, and are serviced differently, than first-lien mortgage loans, and that many of the rules under Regulation X would be “irrelevant to HELOCs” and “would substantially overlap” with the longstanding protections under TILA and Regulation Z that apply to HELOCs.

During this past refinance boom, consumers refinanced mortgage loans at record rates. Moreover, according to a recent report by the Federal Reserve, consumers are sitting on nearly 30 trillion dollars in home equity.  HELOCs allow consumers the opportunity to extract equity from their homes without losing the low interest rate on their first-lien loan. Generally, a HELOC is a revolving line of credit that is secured by a subordinate mortgage on the borrower’s residence that typically has a draw period of 5 or 10 years.  At the end of the draw period, the outstanding loan payment converts to a repayment period of 5 to 25 years with interest and principal payments required that fully amortize the balance.

Issues to Consider in Servicing HELOCs

Servicing HELOCs raise unique issues given the open-end nature of the loan, the typical second lien position, and the different regulatory requirements.  HELOC servicers will need to ensure their compliance management systems (“CMS”) are robust enough to account for a potential uptick in HELOC lending. Among many other issues, servicers will want to ensure their operations comply with several regulatory requirements, including:

Offsets: In the Amicus Brief, the CFPB argues that HELOCs accessible by a credit card are subject to the provisions of TILA and Regulation Z that prohibit card issuers from using deposit account funds to offset indebtedness arising out of a credit card transaction.

Disclosures: Long before the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules, TILA and Regulation Z contained disclosures applicable to HELOCs. As a result, the provisions of the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules under Regulation Z governing periodic billing statements, adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) interest rate adjustment notices, and payment crediting provisions do not apply to HELOCs as these provisions are specifically limited to closed-end consumer credit transactions. However, the payoff statement requirements under Regulation Z are applicable both to HELOCs and closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by a dwelling. In addition to certain account-opening disclosures, a HELOC creditor (or its servicer) must make certain subsequent disclosures to the borrower, either annually (e.g., an annual statement) or upon the occurrence of a specific trigger event, such as the addition of a credit access device, a change in terms or change in billing cycle, or a notice to restrict credit. It is also worth noting that Regulation Z’s mortgage transfer notice (commonly referred to as the Section 404 notice) applicable when a loan is transferred, sold or assigned to a third party, applies to HELOCs. In contrast, RESPA’s servicing transfer notice does not apply to HELOCs.

Periodic Statements: TILA and Regulation Z contain a different set of periodic statement requirements, predating the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules, which are applicable to HELOCs. Under TILA, a servicer must comply with the open-end periodic statement requirements. That is true even if the HELOC has an open-end draw period followed by a closed-end repayment period, during which no further draws are permitted. Such statements can be complex given that principal repayment and interest accrual vary based on draws; there will be a conversion to scheduled amortization after the draw period ends; and balloon payments may be required at maturity, resulting in the need for servicing system adjustments.

Billing Error Resolution: Instead of having to comply with the Regulation X requirements for notices of error, HELOCs are subject to Regulation Z’s billing error resolution requirements.

Crediting of Payments: A creditor may credit a payment to the consumer’s account, including a HELOC, as of the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in a finance or other charge, or except as otherwise provided in 12 C.F.R. § 1026.10(a).

Restrictions on Servicing Fees: Regulation Z restricts certain new servicing fees that may be imposed, where such fees are not provided for in the contract, because the credit may not, by contract or otherwise, change any term except as provided in 12 C.F.R § 1026.40.  With the CFPB’s increased focus on fees, this provision may be an area of focus for the Bureau and state regulators.

Restriction on Changing the APR: The creditor may not, by contract or otherwise, change the APR of a HELOC unless such change is based on an index that is not under the creditor’s control and such index is available to the general public.  However, this requirement does not prohibit rate changes which are specifically set forth in the agreement, such as stepped-rate plans or preferred-rate provisions.

Terminating, Suspending or Reducing a Line of Credit: TILA and Regulation Z restrict the ability of the creditor to prohibit additional extensions of credit or reduce the credit limit applicable to an agreement under those circumstances set forth in 12 C.F.R § 1026.40.  Similarly, TILA and Regulation Z impose restrictions on when the creditor may terminate and accelerate the loan balance.

Rescission: Similar to closed-end loans, the consumer will have a right of rescission on a HELOC; however, the right extends beyond just the initial account opening. During the servicing of a HELOC, the consumer has a right of rescission whenever (i) credit is extended under the plan, or (ii) the credit limit is increased. But there is no right of rescission when credit extensions are made in accordance with the existing credit limit under the plan. If rescission applies, the notice and procedural requirements set forth in TILA and Regulation Z must be followed.

Default: Loss mitigation and default recovery actions may be limited by the firstien loan. That’s because default or acceleration of the first-lien loan immediately triggers loss mitigation and default recovery to protect the second-lien loan.  The protection of the second-lien loan may involve advancing monthly payments on the first-lien loan.  Foreclosure pursued against the first-lien loan will trigger second lien to participate and monitor for protection and recovery. Even though not applicable to HELOCs, some servicers may consider complying with loss mitigation provisions as guidelines or best practices.

ECOA and FCRA: Terminating, suspending, or reducing the credit limit on a HELOC based on declining property values could raise redlining risk, which is a form of illegal disparate treatment in which a lender provides unequal access to credit or unequal terms of credit because of a prohibited characteristic of the residents of the area in which the credit seeker resides or will reside or in which the residential property to be mortgaged is located. Thus, lenders and servicers should have policies and procedures in place to ensure that actions to reduce, terminate or suspend HELOCs are carried out in a non-discriminatory manner.  Relatedly, the CFPB’s authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices will similarly prohibit certain conduct in connection with the servicing of HELOCs that the CFPB may consider to be harmful to consumers.  It is also important to remember that ECOA requires that a creditor notify an applicant of action taken within 30 days after taking adverse action on an existing account, where the adverse action includes a termination of an account, an unfavorable change in the terms of an account, or a refusal to increase the amount of credit available to an applicant who has made an application for an increase.  Similar to ECOA, FCRA also requires the servicer to provide the consumer with an adverse action notice in certain circumstances.

State Law Considerations: And let’s not forget state law issues. While most of the CFPB’s Mortgage Servicing Rules do not apply to HELOCs, many state provisions may cover HELOCs.  As most HELOCs are subordinate-lien loans, second lien licensing law obligations arise. Also, sourcing, processing and funding draw requests could implicate loan originator and/or money transmitter licensing obligations. Also, at least one state prohibits a licensee from servicing a usurious loan.  For HELOCs, the issue is not only the initial rate but also the adjusted rate (assuming it is an ARM).  There may also be state-specific disclosure obligations, as well as restrictions on product terms (such as balloon payments or lien releases), fees, or credit line access devices, to name a few.

Takeaway

The servicing of HELOCs involve many of the same aspects as servicing first-lien residential mortgage loans.  However, because of the open-end credit line features and the typical second-lien position, there are several unique aspects to servicing HELOCs.  And, because there are no industry standard HELOC agreements, the terms of the HELOC (e.g., the length of draw and amortization periods, interest-only payment features, balloon, credit access, etc.) can vary greatly.  The economic climate is poised for a resurgence in home equity lending.  Now is the time to ensure your CMS is up to the task.

 

Joint Trade Associations Reject the CFPB’s “Discrimination-Unfairness” Theory

By

In a June 28 letter to Director Chopra and accompanying White Paper and press release, the ABA, CBA, ICBA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have called on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) to rescind recent revisions made to its UDAAP examination manual that had effectuated the CFPB’s controversial theory that alleged discriminatory conduct occurring outside the offering or provision of credit could be addressed using “unfairness” authority. The White Paper characterized the primary legal flaws in the CFPB’s action as follows:

  • The CFPB’s conflation of unfairness and discrimination ignores the text, structure, and legislative history of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act discusses “unfairness” and “discrimination” as two separate concepts and defines “unfairness” without mentioning discrimination. The Act’s legislative history refers to the Bureau’s antidiscrimination authority in the context of ECOA and HMDA, while referring to the Bureau’s UDAAP authority separately.
  • The CFPB’s view of “unfairness” is inconsistent with decades of understanding and usage of that term in the Federal Trade Commission Act and with the enactment of ECOA. Congress gave the CFPB the same “unfairness” authority that it gave to the Federal Trade Commission in 1938, which has never included discrimination. It makes no sense that Congress would have enacted ECOA in 1974 to address discrimination in credit transactions if it had already prohibited discrimination through the FTC’s unfairness authority. For the same reason, Congress could not have intended in 1938 for unfairness to “fill gaps” in civil rights laws that did not exist.
  • The CFPB’s view is contrary to Supreme Court precedent regarding disparate impact liability. The CFPB’s actions and statements indicate it conflates unfairness with disparate impact, or unintentional discrimination. The Supreme Court has recognized disparate impact as a theory of liability only when Congress uses certain “results-oriented” language in antidiscrimination laws, e.g., the Fair Housing Act. The Dodd Frank Act neither contains the requisite language, nor is it an antidiscrimination law.
  • The CFPB’s action is subject to review by courts because it constitutes final agency action – a legislative rule – that is invalid, both substantively and procedurally. The CFPB’s action carries the force and effect of law and imposes new substantive duties on supervised institutions. However, the Bureau did not follow Administrative Procedure Act requirements for notice-and-comment rulemaking. Additionally, the CFPB’s interpretation is not in accordance with law and exceeds the CFPB’s statutory authority. The CFPB’s action should be held unlawful and set aside.
  • The CFPB’s action is subject to Congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. A Member of Congress can request a GAO opinion on whether the CFPB’s actions are a rule, which can ultimately trigger Congressional review using the procedures established in the Congressional Review Act.

The White Paper concludes:

“Such sweeping changes that alter the legal duties of so many are the proper province of Congress, not of independent regulatory agencies, and the CFPB cannot ignore the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and Congressional Review Act. The CFPB may well wish to ‘fill gaps’ it perceives in federal antidiscrimination law. But Congress has simply not authorized the CFPB to fill those gaps. If the CFPB believes it requires additional authority to address alleged discriminatory conduct, it must obtain that authority from Congress, not take the law into its own hands. The associations and our members stand ready to work with Congress and the CFPB to ensure the just administration of the law.”

Take-away:

The position taken in the White Paper that the CFPB’s actions were contrary to law may be an indication that the trade groups intend to mount an APA legal challenge. Alternatively, the arguments made could in theory form a defense to any CFPB supervisory or enforcement action premised upon its new “discrimination-unfairness” theory. Financial institutions subject to CFPB examination would be well-advised to consider the arguments raised by the groups.

CFPB Issues Bulletin About Auto Repossession, Congressional Republicans Respond

By ,

A&B Abstract: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) recently released a Bulletin addressing the repossession of vehicles and alerting market participants to what it views as those market participants’ legal obligations under federal law governing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”).  That same day, the CFPB also published an inflammatory Press Release, claiming creditors were engaged in activities causing consumers to “wake up to see their car stolen.”  Shortly thereafter, a number of Republican Congressmembers responded to the Bulletin and Press Release with a Letter expressing concern that the Bureau’s post mischaracterized the activities of vehicle finance companies.  The Letter requested information and data supporting the CFPB’s contentions that the identified issues are occurring in the current marketplace.

Discussion of Bulletin:

On February 28, 2022, the CFPB published a compliance Bulletin and issued a Press Release expressing concerns over certain auto repossession activities.  While the Bulletin was generally neutral in tone, the Press Release accused creditors and servicers of stealing consumer’s vehicles.  Interestingly, both the Bulletin and Press Release also incorrectly stated that the collection of personal property storage fees by repossession agents was “illegal.”  While the CFPB has certainly taken the position that doing so constitutes an unfair practice under its UDAAP authority, the charging of such fees and the amounts allowed to be charged are expressly authorized under applicable state law where such activities have historically occurred.

Regardless of how one may feel about repossessions, the references in both documents various publications and findings dating back to 2016 provide insight into how the Bureau approached repossession investigations and examinations in the past, which is useful for industry to take into account.  The CFPB begins the Bulletin by noting the “extremely strong demand” and rising prices for used automobiles.  The Bureau then expresses concern that these market conditions could create incentives for more risky auto repossession practices which may violate the law.  By way of example, the Bulletin addresses findings from prior – and one might suggest quite dated – examinations and enforcement actions, where servicers are alleged to have acted improperly.

The types of activities identified by the CFPB, both in the Bulletin and Press Release as problematic were characterized as illegally seizing cars, sloppy record keeping, unreliable balance inquiries, and “ransoming” a consumer’s personal property that was in the vehicle at the time of repossession.    Conduct cited by the CPFB as improper includes the charging of fees before and after repossession, and specifically the collection of allegedly “illegal” personal property storage fees demanded by repossession agents before they would return that personal property to the borrower.  Noteworthy is the fact that this allegedly “illegal” conduct is expressly permitted under many state’s laws, though the amount that may be charged is typically limited by those same state laws.  The Bureau also raised the issue of conducting vehicle repossessions despite the presence of a bankruptcy stay and misrepresentations of the amount owed by the borrower leading to an underpayment and subsequent repossession.

In addressing issues of sloppy recordkeeping uncovered in examinations, the Bulletin focused on servicers who incorrectly coded consumers as delinquent leading to undue repossessions, referring back to certain 2017 and 2018 Supervisory Highlights – items published approximately 5 and 4 years ago respectively.  In other  instances cited in the Bulletin, servicers allegedly failed to cancel repossession orders for consumers that made payments to bring their account current, and repossession agents failed to confirm that a repossession order was still active prior to repossessing a vehicle.  Finally, the CFPB noted that it had found instances in which a borrower’s payments were not applied to the outstanding debt in the manner represented to consumers by the servicers, thereby causing some borrowers to be deemed further delinquent.

To avoid UDAAP violations, the Bulletin suggests that market participants should (1) review their policies regarding repossession, (2) communicate promptly with repossession service providers when a repossession is cancelled and monitor compliance with those orders, (3) exercise routine oversite by monitoring undue repossessions and auditing portfolios, and (4) act swiftly to correct any undue repossessions and reimburse consumers for associated costs.  The Bulletin also recommends entities should ensure consumers are not charged for unnecessary force-placed insurance.

Response from Congressional Republicans:

On March 10, 2022, eleven Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a Letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing their concerns with the inflammatory comments made in the Press Release and the dated nature of the information contained within the Bulletin.  The Letter starts by questioning the CFPB’s rhetoric, stating that it was a “gross mischaracterization” for the Bureau to equate repossession of a vehicle with theft.  Then the Letter points out that “there are over 2.2 million car repossessions” annually in the United States, and argues that the examples raised by the CFPB were not representative of the entire industry.  Next, the Letter requested that the Bureau provide data to support the contention that “high car prices increase risk of improper repossession by lenders, servicers, and investors.”  Lastly, the members of Congress touted the essential role that auto financing companies play in helping Americans get to or complete their work.

Guidance to Businesses:

The issuance of such a Bulletin, and even the Press Release itself, suggests the CFPB will be heavily scrutinizing repossession activity during future examinations.  These documents further suggest the potential for future enforcement actions where servicers have failed to meet the standards expected of them by the CFPB.  Auto loan servicers should review their policies and procedures to ensure repossession practices comply with all applicable laws and that procedures are in place to identify and prevent unwarranted repossessions.

CFPB Issues Warning to Mortgage Servicing Industry

By ,

A&B ABstract: On April 1, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued a Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance (the “Bulletin”) on the Bureau’s supervision and enforcement priorities with regard to housing insecurity in light of heightened risks to consumers needing loss mitigation assistance once COVID-19 foreclosure moratoriums and forbearances end.  The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers to begin taking appropriate steps now to prevent “a wave of avoidable foreclosures” once borrowers begin exiting COVID-19 forbearance plans later this Fall, and also highlights the areas on which the CFPB will focus in assessing a mortgage servicer’s compliance with applicable consumer financial laws and regulations.

The Bulletin

The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers of the Bureau’s “commit[ment] to using its authorities, including its authority under Regulation X mortgage servicing requirements and under the Consumer Financial Protection Act” to ensure borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic “receive the benefits of critical legal protections and that avoidable foreclosures are avoided.”

Specifically, the Bureau highlighted two populations of borrowers as being at heightened risk of referral to foreclosure following the expiration of the foreclosure moratoriums if they do not resolve their delinquency or enter into a loss mitigation option, namely, borrowers in a COVID-19-related forbearance and delinquent borrowers who are not in forbearance programs.

As consumers near the end of their forbearance plans, the CFPB expects “an extraordinarily high volume of loans needing loss mitigation assistance at relatively the same time.” The Bureau specifically expressed its concern that some borrowers may not receive effective communication from their servicers and that some borrowers may be at an increased risk of not having their loss mitigation applications adequately processed. To that end, the Bureau plans to monitor servicer engagement with borrowers “at all stages in the process” and prioritize its oversight of mortgage servicers in deploying its enforcement and supervision resources over the next year.

Servicers are expected to plan for the anticipated increase in loans exiting forbearance programs and related loss mitigation applications, as well as applications from borrowers who are delinquent but not in forbearance. Specifically, the Bureau expects servicers to devote sufficient resources and staff to ensure they are able to clearly communicate with affected borrowers and effectively manage borrower requests for assistance in order to reduce foreclosures. To that end, the Bureau intends to assess servicers’ overall effectiveness in assisting consumers to manage loss mitigation, and other relevant factors, in using its discretion to address potential violations of Federal consumer financial law.

In light of the foregoing, the Bureau plans to focus its attention on how well servicers are:

  • Being proactive. Servicers should contact borrowers in forbearance before the end of the forbearance period, so they have time to apply for help.
  • Working with borrowers. Servicers should work to ensure borrowers have all necessary information and should help borrowers in obtaining documents and other information needed to evaluate the borrowers for assistance.
  • Addressing language access. The CFPB will look carefully at how servicers manage communications with borrowers with limited English proficiency (LEP) and maintain compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other laws. It is worth noting that the Bureau issued a notice in January 2021 encouraging financial institutions to better serve LEP borrowers in a language other than English and providing key considerations and guidelines.
  • Evaluating income fairly. Where servicers use income in determining eligibility for loss mitigation options, servicers should evaluate borrowers’ income from public assistance, child-support, alimony or other sources in accordance with the ECOA’s anti-discrimination protections.
  • Handling inquiries promptly. The CFPB will closely examine servicer conduct where hold times are longer than industry averages.
  • Preventing avoidable foreclosures. The CFPB will expect servicers to comply with foreclosure restrictions in Regulation X and other federal and state restrictions in order to ensure that all homeowners have an opportunity to save their homes before foreclosure is initiated.

Takeaway

As more and more borrowers begin to near the end of their COVID-19-related forbearance plans, and as applicable foreclosure moratoriums near their anticipated expiration dates, mortgage servicers should consider evaluating their mortgage servicing operations, including applicable policies, procedures, controls, staffing and other resources, to ensure impacted loans are handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state servicing laws and regulations.

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.