The fintech industry has justifiably greeted the OCC’s announcement of a national fintech charter with optimism. But one area where we have seen significant confusion is the possibility of the fintech charter being granted without deposit insurance, and the implications thereof.

Background.  On December 2, 2016, OCC Comptroller Thomas Curry announced that the OCC is planning to take applications from fintech companies wishing to obtain a special purpose national bank charter.  These banks would be national banks with the same privileges and obligations as traditional full-service national banks, but with specialized business plans and that may or may not choose to have deposit taking authority.

In his remarks, Comptroller Curry expressed his excitement about the great potential to expand financial inclusion and reach unbanked and underserved populations.  At the same time, clearly recognizing that there are some industry players that are worried about new sources of competition from fintech banks, or that these new banks might otherwise have unfair advantages, Curry took great pains to seek to alleviate those concerns in his remarks and in the OCC’s white paper on the proposal.

Curry acknowledged that it will be difficult for the agency to determine the requirements to charter a fintech bank because of the “diversity of approach” among fintech companies. He noted that, for example, a payments model would be different than a marketplace lending one. However, he said that the OCC is a “firm believer in tailored innovation” and has the existing framework to evaluate these issues in the chartering process.  Consistent with existing OCC regulation, the white paper states that a special purpose bank that conducts activities other than fiduciary activities must conduct at least one of the following three core banking functions: receiving deposits, paying checks, or lending money.

The CFPB has issued another enforcement action exceeding the half-billion dollar mark against a large bank for its add-on product offerings. Citibank and its subsidiaries were penalized for alleged deceptive marketing, unfair billing and deceptive debt collection involving its credit card add-on products and services. This marks the tenth public enforcement action that the CFPB has announced for practices associated with marketing or administering add-on products in its four-year history.

As part of the settlement Citi was ordered to pay $700 million in restitution to about 8.8 million consumers who were impacted by the add-on product offerings. The company also must pay the CFPB a $35 million civil penalty. Further, the Bank was required to end alleged unfair billing practices and submit a compliance plan to the CFPB before continuing to market any add-on products by telephone or point of sale, or attempting to retain add-on product customers by telephone.

In the 57-page order the CFPB refers to an add-on product as “any consumer financial product or service…offered to Cardholders as an optional addition to credit card accounts issued by [Citibank].” The CFPB put several of Citibank’s add-ons at issue, which were for consumer services such as such as debt cancellation or deferral products, credit monitoring or credit report retrieval services, and services to notify credit and debit card issuers when a consumer reports cards lost or stolen.

It is with great pleasure that we announce that we have launched a new blog on consumer banking compliance issues.  Authored by Bryan Cave Partner, John ReVeal, the ConsumerBankingBlog provides commentary and perspective on new and proposed consumer compliance regulations, regulatory enforcement actions and trends, and the shenanigans of banking regulators.  With John’s unique, unfiltered, opinions, we think you’ll find the ConsumerBankingBlog to be very different from your typical banking compliance site.

John’s goal for the ConsumerBankingBlog is to foster discussion – an open exchange of ideas between readers and John.  Comments are strongly encouraged… subject to the site’s Rules for Comments, of course.  (We’re still lawyers, after all.)

You might have seen it this March in the New York Times: an article about American troops having their vehicles repossessed by auto lenders while on active duty, and the troops being unable to fight repossession in court because of mandatory arbitration clauses  in their lending contracts.

The poignant story on vets and car repossession is just one piece in the ongoing discussion about what actions the CFPB will take regarding provisions in consumer contracts limiting the consumer to arbitration in the event of a future dispute, referred to as “pre-dispute arbitration clauses.” Under Section 1028 of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB was required to conduct a study on use of arbitration clauses in connection with offering consumer financial products and services. If, through study, the CFPB finds that prohibiting or limiting the clauses in agreements between market participants it regulates and consumers “is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers,” it can impose regulations to that effect. Further, Section 1414 of Dodd-Frank already prohibits pre-dispute arbitration clauses in mortgage contracts.

With the CFPB recently releasing its final, 728-page arbitration study finding that arbitration agreements “limit relief for consumers,” indications are that the CFPB will conduct some rulemaking to curtail, or at least significantly limit, them in the consumer financial product market, and likely over industry objections. The study, which began in April 2012 and was followed by a preliminary report released in December 2013 before the final report was published, involved analysis of data from consumer contracts and the courts regarding the resolution of consumer disputes.

As we begin 2015, it is worth noting the various federal regulations that will or might take effect. This article summarizes the key regulations that took effect late in 2014, that will take effect in 2015, and that have at least some potential of taking effect in 2015. We focus here on those regulations directly impacting consumer financial services.

Rules Taking Effect in 2015 (and Late 2014)

Integrated Disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z)

Perhaps the most significant new consumer regulations to take effect in 2015 are the integrated disclosure regulations under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (the Final Integrated Disclosure Rule). Released on November 20, 2013, by the CFPB, the Final Integrated Disclosure Rule will be effective on August 1, 2015. 78 Fed.Reg. 79730, December 31, 2013. For loan applications received prior to August 1, 2015, the existing Regulation X and Regulation Z rules would apply and, for loan applications received on or after August 1, 2015, the new disclosure requirements would apply.

The Final Integrated Disclosure Rule consolidated the RESPA and TILA initial disclosures, and the RESPA and TILA loan closing disclosures for most closed-end consumer mortgage transactions, resulting in a single Loan Estimate disclosure and a single Closing Disclosure. The new rules do not apply to home equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages, or loans secured by a mobile home or other dwelling that is not attached to real property.

Countless articles and seminars have provided details of the Final Integrated Disclosure Rule, and vendors have stepped into the breach to provide the forms and systems needed to create new disclosures. This article therefore does not address the new Integrated Disclosure Rules in detail. However, a proposal issued on October 10, 2014, (the “October Proposal”) should be noted.

Expect 2014 to be a banner year for enforcement actions under the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices law (UDAP) and the new Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts and Practices law (UDAAP).  While predicting regulatory trends can be difficult, we believe this to be a safe bet in light of the trends in 2013 and early indications in bank examinations already this year.

Below are some of the enforcement trends from last year and tips highlighting what can be done to reduce the risks of UDAP and UDAAP enforcement actions in 2014.

In 2013, the FDIC imposed civil money penalties against banks in 89 instances, 16 of which were for UDAP violations and many of those also required consumer restitution.  The only compliance area triggering more civil money penalties in 2013 was the Flood Disaster Protection Act, accounting for 27 of the 89 cases, which is roughly consistent with the percentages in that area since Katrina.