The CFPB continued with a high level of activity in August. In this month’s article, we share some of our top “bites” of the month to help you stay up to date.

Bite 15: CFPB Receives Petition to Treat Housing Rental Leases as Credit

On August 12, 2024, a consumer advocacy group submitted a petition to the CFPB requesting rulemaking under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to define residential real estate leases as “credit” and landlords as “creditors” under the ECOA for two limited purposes. One is related to the adverse action requirement in Section 1691(d) of the ECOA. The other is to ban the inclusion of medical debt on consumer reports. The consumer advocacy group argued that extending the ECOA notice requirements to rental housing could help improve tenants’ chances to be approved for the next rental application by potentially exposing errors in credit screening reports or weaknesses that they can address ahead of time. Also, the consumer advocacy group argued that the logic for banning medical debt information from credit reports and underwriting carries over equally to the credit screening context. Finally, the consumer advocacy group argued that the CFPB has the authority to advance ECOA’s anti-discrimination objectives.

Bite 14: CFPB Responds to a Treasury Request for Information on AI

On August 14, 2024, the CFPB responded to the U.S. Treasury’s request for information on the use of artificial intelligence in the financial services sector. The CFPB emphasized that regulators have a legal mandate to ensure that existing rules are enforced for all technologies, including new technologies like artificial intelligence. The CFPB wrote that although “institutions sometimes behave as if there are exceptions to the federal consumer financial protection laws for new technologies, that is not the case.” The CFPB noted that artificial intelligence is just one aspect of the rapid adoption of new technologies in the financial services marketplace and that these technologies are “accompanied by new risks and challenges that the CFPB is keenly focused on.”

Bite 13: CFPB Plans to Issue FAQs on BNPL products

On August 16, 2024, the CFPB announced that it plans to issue frequently asked questions on Buy-Now-Pay-Later products, and that it won’t seek penalties for noncompliance with its recent interpretive rule on BNPL during a transition period.The CFPB had released what it called an “interpretive rule” saying that BNPL is subject to Regulation Z credit card rules back in May of 2024.In this latest announcement the CFPB indicated that for those BNPL providers working diligently and in good faith to move into compliance, it would not seek penalties for violations of the rules addressed in the interpretive rule.The CFPB also promised to provide FAQs in September to address how to transition into compliance.

Bite 12: CFPB Issues Report on School Lunch “Junk Fees”

On July 25, 2024, the CFPB issued a report on school lunch junk fees, highlighting concerns with transaction fees for low income families. Specifically, the CFPB issued a report on payment processing companies that help school districts process children’s school lunch payments. CFPB Director Chopra noted that some financial firms “harvest excessive fees from families who purchase school lunch.” The CFPB claimed that while more than 20 unique companies offer these services, just three market leaders serve most enrolled students. The CFPB noted concerns with parents and caregivers not being able to choose their payment platform and fee-free options not being meaningfully available. The CFPB also noted concern with fees being charged per transaction, meaning that fees may disproportionately burden lower-income families making frequent small payments compared to families who can afford to load a substantial amount onto the account at one time. The report is part of the CFPB’s broader effort to monitor payment processing.

Bite 11: CFPB Publishes Issue Spotlight on Solar Energy Transactions

On August 7, 2024, the CFPB published an issue spotlight addressing solar energy transactions, claiming the transactions have hidden markup fees and exaggerated savings claims. The CFPB’s report claims that solar lenders allegedly mislead homeowners about the terms and costs of their loans, misrepresent the energy savings, and add fees onto the loan balances. The report claims that fees often increase loan costs by 30% or more above the cash price and that providers misrepresent the impact of the federal tax credit for solar installation. The CFPB noted that the market for solar energy systems continues to rapidly grow and is now shifting toward less affluent communities. The CFPB identified four areas of risk, including: (i) hidden markup fees; (ii) misleading claims about what consumers will pay; (iii) ballooning monthly payments; and (iv) exaggerated savings claims. The CFPB also released a consumer advisory warning homeowners of allegedly “risky” practices in the solar lending market and sharing advice to borrowers who encounter illegal activity.

Bite 10: CFPB Releases Circular on Intimidation of Whistleblowers

On July 24, 2024, the CFPB issued a circular analyzing the following issue: “Can requiring employees to sign broad confidentiality agreements violate Section 1057 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the provision protecting the rights of whistleblower employees, and undermine the CFPB’s ability to enforce the law?” According to the CFPB, some confidentiality agreements could lead an employee to reasonably believe that they would be sued or subject to other adverse actions if they disclosed information related to suspected violations of federal consumer law to government investigators. The circular notes that it would violate federal law for an employer to demand a confidentiality agreement during an internal investigation that warns employees not to discuss the relevant matters with any external parties and saying they may be subject to legal penalties for doing so. Finally, the CFPB noted that the circular builds on prior CFPB efforts to affirm whistleblower protections, such as the tool that the CFPB implemented in 2021 to streamline how tech employees can submit tips about potential violations of federal consumer financial laws.

Bite 9: CFPB Proposes an Interpretive Rule on Paycheck Advance Products

On July 17, 2024, the CFPB announced that it is proposing an interpretative rule on paycheck advance products; sometimes called “earned wage access” or “EWA.” In Director Chopra’s prepared remarks, he noted that many employers have started partnering with companies to provide paycheck advance services. According to the CFPB, some financial companies offering EWA impose significant fees. The CFPB also claims that it observed that direct-to-consumer paycheck advance product providers seek to convince borrowers to “tip” them, generating substantial revenue. The proposed interpretive rule claims that these transactions are loans under federal law and addresses the practice of tipping or charging for “expedited” access to proceeds. Comments on the proposed interpretive rule are due by August 30, 2024.

Bite 8: CFPB Issues an Advisory Opinion Addressing Contract-for-Deed Investors

On August 13, 2024, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion to address “contract for deed investors.”These transactions, also called “land contracts,” “installment land contracts,” “land sales contracts,” or “bonds for deed,” involve a seller agreeing to turn over a home’s deed only after the buyer completes a series of payments. According to the advisory opinion, federal home lending rules and laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act, cover contracts-for-deed deals. The CFPB says that these transactions can harm housing markets by causing or perpetuating substandard housing stock, inflated home prices, and less access to mainstream mortgage credit.

Bite 7: CFPB Finalizes Interagency Guidance on ROVs

On July 18, 2024, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and CFPB issued interagency guidance on reconsiderations of value (“ROVs”) of residential real estate transactions. ROVs are requests from a financial institution to an appraiser or other preparer of a valuation report to reassess the value of residential real estate. The guidance advises on policies and procedures that financial institutions may implement to permit consumers to provide information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified. The guidance offers examples of policies and procedures to help identify, address, and mitigate discrimination risk. The agencies largely finalized the guidance as initially proposed back in July 2023, with some edits based on the public comments received, including clarifying the guidance’s scope.

Bite 6: CFPB Joins Other Regulators in Proposing a Rule to Standardize Data

On August 2, 2024, the CFPB announced that it joined several other federal financial regulatory agencies to propose a rule to establish data standards to promote “interoperability” of financial regulatory data across the agencies. The proposal would establish data standards for identifiers of legal entities and other common identifiers. The other agencies that joined in the proposal include the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of the Treasury. Congress required the rule under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022. Comments on the proposed rule are due 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

Bite 5: CFPB Issues Final Rule on Automated Valuation Models

On July 17, 2024, the CFPB and five other agencies issued a final rule on automated valuation models. The agencies, including the OCC, FRB, FDIC, NCUA, and FHA indicated that the rule was designed to help ensure credibility and integrity of models used in valuations for certain housing mortgages. The rule requires adoption of compliance management systems to ensure a high level of confidence in estimates, protect against data manipulation, avoid conflicts of interest, randomly test and review the processes, and comply with nondiscrimination laws. The rule will become effective about 12 months after publication in the Federal Register.

Bite 4: CFPB Takes Action Against Credit Repair Software Company

On August 8, 2024, the CFPB announced an action alleging that a credit repair software company and its CEO violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by charging fees before providing customers with a credit report showing the promised results. The company provided an “all-in-one solution” for people to start their own credit repair businesses. The CFPB alleged that the company provided substantial assistance to credit repair businesses and that the CEO was individually liable for the company’s violations because he controlled the company and participated in its acts of substantial assistance, and he knew or recklessly disregarded that they were taking place. The proposed order requires the company to pay a $1 million civil penalty and the CEO to pay a $2 million civil penalty. The company and its CEO agreed to stop providing assistance to any businesses that use telemarketing to sell credit repair services and charge advance fees. The company and its CEO also agreed to notify companies using its tools and services that they cannot charge illegal upfront fees and to monitor whether the company’s users are telemarketing and charging advance fees. Director Chopra stated that the CFPB would continue to hold individual executives accountable when they violate federal law.

Bite 3: Lease to Own Company Sues the CFPB in Texas, the CFPB Sues in Utah

On July 22, 2024, a lease to own company announced that it filed a lawsuit against the CFPB in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the CFPB does not have statutory authority to bring its threatened enforcement action against the company because its transactions are not credit, loans, or financing transactions. The lawsuit alleges that with “each passing day, Plaintiffs continue to suffer substantial harm from the CFPB’s ongoing and costly ultra vires investigation, which the CFPB recently escalated to a threat—and indeed explicit promise—of imminent litigation against” the company. The complaint also seeks a declaration that the CFPB is unconstitutional because it has not been funding from “earnings” of the Federal Reserve, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Four days later, on July 26, 2024, the CFPB announced that it filed a complaint in a federal court in Utah, alleging that the company’s leases were actually credit. The CFPB claimed that the company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices along with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The CFPB claims the company misled consumers about cost, made product returns difficult, and misled consumers about automatic payments.

Bite 2: CFPB Appeals District Court’s Decision in UDAAP Exam Manual Case

On August 8, 2024, the CFPB appealed an earlier decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which had vacated CFPB changes to its examination manual. Those amendments deemed discriminatory conduct to be an unfair practice. At that time, the District Court’s decision held that the changes were invalid because the CFPB’s funding structure was unconstitutional, and because the changes exceeded the CFPB’s UDAAP authority. After that decision, the Supreme Court upheld the CFPB’s funding structure as constitutional. In its appeal, the CFPB raised standing and procedural issues. The CFPB also argued that “the only natural reading” of United States Code Section 5531 “is that unfairness can encompass discriminatory acts.” The CFPB argued that Congress provided “clear congressional authorization to regulate in that manner.” The response is due on September 6, 2024.

Bite 1: CFPB Loses Argument that Lease-to-Own is Credit

On August 1, 2024, in an action involving a different lease-to-own company than the one mentioned above, the CFPB lost in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, on claims that leasing-to-own goods constitutes credit. Back in September of 2023, the CFPB had filed a lawsuit against the lease-to-own company alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The company moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it is not subject to the CFPA, TILA, or EFTA because its lease-to-own agreements did not extend “credit.” The court held that the company’s product leases did “not meet the statutory definition of credit because it did not give consumers any right to defer the payment of debt, incur debt and defer its payment, or purchase goods and services and defer payment therefor.” According to the decision, since the company’s product leases did not constitute credit, the lease-to-own agreements were not subject to the CFPA. The court did allow the CFPB to proceed with some claims, including claims that leasing of services may constitute credit.

Still hungry? Please join Hudson Cook for their next CFPB Bites of the Month. If you missed any of their prior Bites, including the webinar that covered the above topics, request a replay on the Hudson Cook website here. 

——————

This article is provided for informational purposes and is not intended nor should it be taken as legal advice.  The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors in their individual capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of the partners of Hudson Cook, LLP or clients they represent. 

CHANDLER, Ariz — National Credit Adjusters, a receivables acquisition and management firm headquartered in Hutchinson, KS with a satellite location in Chandler, AZ, was pleased to continue support of an annual water drive spearheaded by the team in the Chandler office. 

Due to the desert climate, Chandler, AZ has an average temperature of a sweltering 107 degrees in July, taking a toll on the unfortunate during the summer. Team members at the Chandler office worked together to collect cases of bottled water for the homeless during the hottest months of the year. 

“It was another very successful water drive in Chandler this year. We were able to donate 76 cases of water—38 by the employees and matched by the company. The water was donated to the local Chandler Salvation Army just a couple miles from the site. The hydration center is open from 7am – 7pm to shelter the homeless from the 110+ degree weather.

When we dropped off the water, we had several people in the homeless program themselves volunteer to help us unload the water. It was a heartwarming day that all employees in the Chandler site should be proud of. Thank you, Mr. Smith and Tyler, for matching the Chandler donations.” – Karl Krum, Director of Operations, Chandler.

National Credit Adjusters is proud to be actively involved in the communities where its team members live and work and is encouraged by the enthusiasm and dedication of the Chandler office team. It’s a privilege to have the opportunity to support this initiative each year and make an impact in a positive way. 

Salvation Army – Chandler Corps

The Salvation Army in Chandler, AZ provides a variety of services to those in need, including emergency shelter for individuals and families during extreme weather conditions. From providing programs for kids to serving the elderly to assisting adults in overcoming challenges such as addiction and poverty, the Salvation Army is committed to “doing the most good.” The Salvation Army assists approximately 25 million Americans annually as an evangelical outreach to “fight with love.” 

About National Credit Adjusters

Founded in 2002, National Credit Adjusters (NCA) is a private company dedicated to acquiring and managing delinquent consumer installment loans, lines of credit and credit card accounts. Through continuous research, automation, analytics, and process evaluation, NCA remains at the forefront of industry standards. Emphasizing strong performance and compliance, the company prioritizes ongoing employee development and quality training. Whether purchasing, servicing, or selling debt, NCA conducts all business with unwavering respect and fairness. For comprehensive information on their operations and to explore their commitment to ethical practices and industry leadership, visit ncaks.com.

The CFPB was heavy in the news last week, and our weekly recap reflects that. Let’s dive in. 

On Tuesday, we reported how a group of community, civil rights, consumer, and advocacy organizations urged both presidential candidates to support the CFPB’s efforts to combat “junk fees.” In a letter to Vice President Harris and former President Trump, they called for continued regulation of credit card, overdraft, and non-sufficient funds fees, which disproportionately affect lower-wage workers, people of color, and small businesses. The letter emphasized that these fees drive consumers into debt cycles and push them toward predatory financial services. The groups advocated for an economic agenda that prioritizes consumer financial stability and supports the CFPB’s regulatory role. 

On Wednesday, we shared an interview from the podcast FCRA Focus. Kim Phan hosted Michelle Macartney from Bridgeforce and Stefanie Jackman from Troutman Pepper to discuss the intersection of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and debt collection. The conversation centered on recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rulemaking focused on medical debt, as well as broader issues of credit reporting and compliance. Michelle shared her conflicted views on the impact of removing medical debt from credit reports, acknowledging the challenges but also the necessity of maintaining legitimate debt reporting. Stefanie raised concerns about data-driven decisions by the CFPB and potential long-term consequences for other types of debt reporting. The episode also explored challenges furnishers face with disputes, bankruptcy reporting, and maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. 

Finally, on Thursday, we provided some additional updates from the CFPB. In its recent report to Congress on the FDCPA, it called for hospitals, insurance companies, and debt collectors to improve communication efforts to prevent the illegal collection of medical debts that have already been paid or covered by charity care programs. The report highlights issues such as insufficient details provided to consumers about debts, aggressive collection tactics, and the growing trend of healthcare providers promoting medical payment products with unfavorable terms. Additionally, the CFPB emphasized concerns over rental debt collection practices, including improper fees and price-fixing. The report stresses the need for more effective investigations into disputed debts, noting that better communication and substantiation of debts upfront could reduce consumer complaints and improve industry compliance. 

As always, we thank you for reading the weekly recap to stay on top of this ever-changing industry! For a breakdown of the week of September 2nd, click here. 

Have a question about how your company should react to the news above? We have a group for that! The weekly peer call hosted by insideARM’s Research Assistant is the perfect place to ask a question and get advice from industry colleagues who are facing the same challenges you are. Not sure if it is for you? Try it on for size with our 1-month free trial. Click here to learn more!