What’s old is new again. 2021 will bring a new U.S. Administration and hopefully positive developments with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it also is likely to see further adverse economic impacts. Various financial models are predicting differing trajectories for potential recession and economic recovery. What we do know is that 2020 has resulted in sizeable income loss and employment interruption for many. In the face of all this challenge, the CFPB is likely to focus in 2021 on consumer loss mitigation process and transparency. Getting it right is paramount for lenders and servicers as 2021 customer contact volumes will increase with the potential sunset of COVID-19 relief measures.

Recently, the CFPB announced a consent decree with Seterus, Inc. and its successor-in-interest Kyanite Services, Inc. The clear priority is helping consumers avoid foreclosure, a risk we know will continue throughout 2021.  The lengthy consent decree covers loss mitigation conduct from 2014 through 2018, years in the past. But the violations asserted and the consent Decree conclusions preview 2021 priorities and hot buttons. Transparency and accountability are two themes that should serve consumer lenders and servicers well and mitigate regulatory and litigation risk.  Importantly, the Order highlights risks associated with process automation in servicing. In addition to laser focus on requirements and process, lenders and servicers may want to consider adopting customer experience approaches like ombudspeople or “secret shoppers” to get a real sense of how employees and systems are interacting with and serving customers.

On November 30, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) set forth procedures for the issuance of advisory opinions provided as interpretive rules to resolve regulatory uncertainty, effective immediately. Under this new advisory opinion schema, the CFPB concurrently released two advisory opinions: one on earned wage access products and one on private education loans.

Advisory Opinions

A request for an advisory opinion must include:

• Identity of the person or entity seeking the opinion, or the person or entity submitted a request on behalf of a third part (e.g., outside counsel, in which case clients need not be identified);
• Statement about the absence of investigation or litigation;
• All material facts about an actual fact or course of action that is (a) within the CFPB’s purview and (b) that the person or entity is engaged in or is planning to engage in;
• A description of the uncertainty or ambiguity, including (a) identification of the regulatory or statutory provision at issue; (c) a proposed interpretation of the law or regulation; and (d) an explanation of why that proposed interpretation is an appropriate resolution of the uncertainty or ambiguity;
• Identification of information that should be treated as confidential.

Each advisory opinion will be specific to the facts provided, which the CFPB will not generally investigate independently, making it important that the request include a clear description of any material facts. Where the advisory opinion permits for a safe harbor, as provided for in the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that fact will be explained in the advisory opinion. The scope and terms of an advisory opinion will be set out in the advisory opinion itself.

The CFPB will weigh multiple factors in determining whether to issue an advisory opinion on a specific topic, including issues that it has previously noted that are of significant importance or where clarification would provide significant benefit, and where the CFPB has not previously addressed a highlighted ambiguity. Conversely, the CFPB may decide an advisory opinion is not the appropriate tool for responding to an inquiry. In particular, issues where the CFPB is actively investigating or enforcing a related matter or a rulemaking is proposed or being planned.

Student Lending CFPB Enforcement:
Alleging Impermissible Debt Relief Service Advance Fees

Director Kraninger has outlined in various settings, the Bureau’s focus on protecting those often most vulnerable, including the elderly, military personnel and veterans, as well as students, sometimes collectively referred to special populations. Recently, the Bureau took aim at several businesses, which according to the CFPB’s complaint were exploiting students by charging impermissible advance fees in connection with purported debt relief services.  We should expect further activity in 2021 with the change of administration, potential extension of certain COVID-19 pandemic-related student lending forbearance orders, and other potential student lending protection efforts. 

The complaint asserts five causes of action under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6102(c), 6105(d) (“TCFAPA”); the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. pt. 310; and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a), 5564, 5565, in connection with the marketing and sale of debt relief services. According to the complaint, “Defendants Performance SLC, LLC and Performance Settlement, LLC, along with their owner and manager Defendant Daniel Crenshaw, are engaging in debt relief activities that have harmed consumers nationwide by charging illegal advance fees, failing to make required disclosures, and engaging in deceptive sales practices.”

Penalties & Injunctive Relief Requested

In its filing announcement the CFPB stated that “Consumers would pay between $1,000 and $1,450 in fees to PSLC for it to file paperwork with [the U.S. Department of Education], even though student loan borrowers can do this themselves for free.” The Bureau claims “that PSLC had some consumers pay this prohibited upfront fee through high-interest financing from a third party.”  The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the potential on-going violations of the TSR and the CFPA; consumer “monetary relief including but not limited to the refund of monies paid, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, and payment of damages;” imposition of civil money penalties against Defendants, and an award of costs to the Bureau. The complaint alleges that “[f]rom 2016 to 2019, PSLC enrolled more than 6,500 customers in multiple states” and that certain “Trust Plan Customers paid more than $4,300,000 in fees to PSLC” and other customers “paid more than $4,900,000 in loan principal and interest” on allegedly improper loans arising from Defendants’ activities.

The CFPB recently announced new publicly available tools to better leverage the Complaints Database and to spot trends and concentrations of consumer complaints. If you are a data nerd, or even if you are not, it might be prudent to familiarize yourself and your teams with these new tools, as they are likely to be utilized by the Bureau and others in a variety of contexts. The industry should assume State AG’s offices and State consumer agencies will access the data in connection with their activities, including any supervision and enforcement. It is likely that consumer protection advocacy groups will analyze and utilize the data in their work. Finally, it is possible that consumer class action litigators may attempt to incorporate data trends or specific topic concentrations into their cases. Even if your institution may not be experiencing a complaint spike, noting the fact that others are, could help your team proactively refine operations procedures and mitigate risk.

Director Kraninger had promised the enhanced resources and tools last year.  In the recent press release, she noted that “these powerful new capabilities allow users to gain deeper insight into changes in the location, type, and volume of complaints over time, which provides valuable context into consumers’ experiences in the financial marketplace.”

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) formally rescinded rules implemented under former CFPB Director Richard Cordray aimed at determining a consumer’s ability to repay small-dollar loans.  In 2017, then Director Cordray instituted mandatory underwriting provisions that would have required payday lenders to assess, as part of the underwriting process, whether borrowers could afford to repay their loans without reborrowing.  Upon review of these mandatory provisions, the CFPB did not find the requisite legal and statutory guidance to further enforce these underwriting standards. 

While small-dollar loans provide for increased consumer access to capital, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this renewed focus on small-dollar lending is a noticeable directional turn from the consumer lending advice of prior administrations.  Under the previous presidential administration, regulators were more cautious of banks’ lending in this space and worried about risks, such as high interest rates and perceived repayment risks, associated with lending small-dollar loans to consumers.[1]  In 2013, prudential regulators, including the OCC and the FDIC, went as far to release guidance that essentially discouraged banks from engaging in small-dollar lending activity altogether.[2]   

Regulators under the current administration have signaled that they are more open to reengaging banks in the practice of small-dollar lending, so as to meet the unmet short-term credit needs of the American consumer.[3]  In its press release concerning the repeal of these provisions, the Bureau stated that “rescinding the mandatory underwriting provisions of the 2017 rule ensures that consumers have access to credit and competition in states that have decided to allow their residents to use these small-dollar loan products, subject to state law limitations,” and noted that a subset of consumers might have a particular need for products such as payday loans as a result of the economic downturn brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is slightly less than a decade old, created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to enforce the nation’s consumer financial protection laws and ensure that consumer debt products are safe and transparent for the consumers who use them.  The Bureau has had only two directors, Richard Cordray and Kathleen Kraninger, with Mick Mulvaney as Acting Director in between.  SCOTUS’s recent ruling will give the president the right to fire the director at will, unless Congress acts to change CFPB to a commission structure (like the FTC).  The ruling is important but leaves a number of unanswered questions likely to spur further litigation and CFPB challenges.

Single Director Provisions and Constitutionality

Unlike many agencies, which are governed by multimember boards and commissions, the CFPB is governed by a single director, who is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term, and may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”  See 12 U.S.C. §§ 5491(c)(1),(3). This leadership structure and, by association, the constitutionality of the organization itself, was challenged in Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___, (2020) a case on appeal from the Ninth Circuit.  In 2017, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand (“CID”) to Seia Law LLC, a California law firm specializing in debt-related legal services.  In response to the CID, Seia Law asked the CFPB to set it aside on the grounds that the Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional insofar as its single director structure violated the separations of powers.  The District Court held for the CFPB and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 923 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2019).    

The Roberts Majority Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and per Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion (joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh), “the CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.”  See Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 11-30.  Article II provides the president with executive powers that empower him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  See U.S. Const. art. II.  Time and again, precedent has confirmed that such executive powers permit the president to both appoint and remove executive officials.  In advancing the argument of the Ninth Circuit, Paul Clement, whom the Supreme Court appointed to defend the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, looked to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), where the Supreme Court held that the structure of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) – consisting of five members who could be removed only for cause – did not violate Article II of the Constitution.  Since the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s, the Court has recognized two exceptions to the president’s power to remove those whom he appoints: 

“Congress could create for-cause removal protections for a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was not to exercise any executive power; [and] [sic.] exceptions for inferior officers, who have limited duties and lack policymaking or administrative authority, such as an independent counsel.”  See Amy Howe, Opinion analysis:  Court strikes down restrictions on removal of CFPB direction buy leaves bureau in place, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 29, 2020).

On June 16th, the CFPB issued a Compliance Aid Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) addressing the CARES Act changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and clarifying furnisher reporting obligations regarding consumers who have received payment assistance or forbearance. In public remarks in connection with Consumer Data Industry Association webinar released June 19, 2020 Director Kraninger highlighted the CFPB’s commitment to consumers:  “I do want to stress that we are telling struggling borrowers to reach out to their servicers to see what options are available to them. Under CFPB regulations, servicers are required to have policies and procedures in place to ensure the disclosure of the availability of CARES Act mortgage forbearance to consumers. If a consumer has an issue with their servicer, we encourage them to submit a complaint to us if the consumer can’t first resolve the matter with the servicer.” Here are few of the highlights in the FAQ that address issues which may prove the most challenging for lenders, services and furnishers and agencies.

FAQ #5 “Constructive Work” With Borrowers Encouraged.

“Even if accommodations are not required by the CARES Act or by other applicable law, the Bureau and other Federal and State agencies have encouraged financial institutions in prior guidance (the March 22, 2020 Federal Reserve Intragency Statement) to work constructively with borrowers who are or may be unable to meet their contractual payment obligations because of the effects of COVID-19.” This guidance goes to the spirit of the CARES Act to help consumers impacted by the pandemic, but also asks servicers use their best judgment in offering assistance beyond that required. Understanding borrower’s specific circumstances will be critical in assessing the reasonableness of efforts. Where personnel are applying judgment, having internal servicer guidelines for escalation to ensure uniformity and consistency may prove beneficial. Tracking and monitoring metrics and other characteristics of those loans and borrowers may also help ensure fairness.  

The devil is in the details.  The best intentioned new financial services rules and regulations can present challenges for compliance folks trying to implement the rules into their institutions’ existing systems and practices.  Requirements, which may seem simple in the abstract, sometimes create herculean challenges because of system limitations, programming challenges, or simple ambiguity when loaded into real world operations.  To hopefully overcome these compliance obstacles, on Thursday, June 18, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) began its trial phase of a pilot program offering advisory opinions aimed at “reduc[ing] ambiguity and increas[ing] regulatory certainty, support[ing] proactive consumer protection, and enhanc[ing] the timeliness of guidance.”  The CFPB first previewed this pilot program in March 2020 so that financial services providers could solicit provisional legal opinions on matters pertaining to the interpretation of the Bureau’s rules and laws.

Joining other agencies, like HUD who have had a no action letter procedure in place for years, the CFPB pilot will focus on four stated priorities:  (1) “Consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions”; (2) “Identify outdated, unnecessary or unduly burdensome regulations in order to reduce regulatory burdens”; (3) “Consistency in enforcement of Federal consumer financial law in order to promote fair competition”; and (4) “Ensuring markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”

As the pilot program is new and untested, the CFPB will pick which company questions to answer based on a review of the various petitions, granting priority to those questions that are novel and whose answers might benefit those in the greater consumer financial services community.  The Bureau has said it will consider questions such as those arising during CFPB exams and those that have not otherwise been authoritatively addressed.  In this regard, the CFPB noted the following factors that will drive its prioritization of requests:

• The request’s alignment with the CFPB’s statutory objectives;
• The scope of the impact on consumers if the CFPB is to provide an answer or interpretation;
• In the event where two regulators share concurrent jurisdiction over a specific consumer protection measure, whether the CFPB’s advisory opinion will impact the manner in which the other regulator regulates the same measure; and
• The impact the advisory opinion would have on the CFPB’s existing resources and personnel.

On June 4, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued proposed rules and changes to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to address the anticipated sunset of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) at the end of 2021.  Some market lenders currently rely on the LIBOR as an index for calculating rates for open-end and closed-end credit products.  The CFPB’s proposed rules and changes shed some light on what creditors might expect when the LIBOR is discontinued, and also include a compilation of frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) to help prepare creditors for the eventual transition.

In its proposed rule, the CFPB contemplates several amendments to Regulation Z, which implements TILA, for both open-end and closed-end credit products to address the discontinuation of the LIBOR.  Select amendments include:    

• To ensure that credit card issuers and HELOC creditors choose acceptable replacement indices for the LIBOR, the CFPB has proposed a detailed roadmap to outline specifically how these creditors may replace the LIBOR before it becomes unavailable.  Under these guidelines, credit card issuers and HELOC creditors must select a replacement index where the annual percentage rate (“APR”) for the new index is calculated similarly to the LIBOR index.  The CFPB stated that the prime rate published in The Wall Street Journal as well as certain Secured Overnight Financing Rates will be considered suitable replacements as well. 
• Regulation Z requires lenders to disclose certain terms to borrowers of open-end credit products.  Under the proposed rule, Regulation Z would require creditors to provide further disclosures, including change-in-terms notices to inform borrowers as to which new interest rate their credit product will transition.   
• The CFPB also proposes adding an exception from the rate reevaluation provisions applicable to credit card accounts.  Under current regulations, when a card issuer increases a rate on a credit account, the creditor must reevaluate the rate increase every six months until such time the rate is then reduced.  Per the CFPB’s proposal, a credit card issuer would be exempt from these requirements for increases that occur as a result of replacing the LIBOR index.         

The Ninth Circuit held, in a matter of first impression, that a trust created by an individual for tax and estate tax planning purposes does not lose all state and federal consumer disclosure protections when it seeks to finance repairs to a personal residence for the trust beneficiary, rather than for the trustee herself; instead, the loan transaction remains a “consumer credit transaction” under TILA, RESPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gillian, Trustee of Lou Easter Ross Revocable Trust v. Levine, — F.3d — (9^th Cir. 2020), 2020 WL 1861977 (4/14/2020).

Acting in her capacity as trustee of a trust created by her dead sister, the plaintiff obtained a loan to make repairs to a personal residence occupied by her sister’s daughter.  The district court held, on a motion to dismiss, that because the plaintiff borrower did not intend to live in the house, the loan was not a consumer credit transaction, which TILA defines as a loan extended to a natural person “primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Both TILA and RESPA are inapplicable to “credit transactions involving extensions of credit primarily for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes.” The Rosenthal Act similarly applies to debt “due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction,” which it defines identically to TILA.