InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Oklahoma amends SAFE Act licensing provisions
On April 29, Oklahoma enacted SB 1492 (the “Act”) which amends the Oklahoma Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act by, among other things, expanding the definition of “mortgage broker” to include servicing a residential mortgage, defining “servicing” to include holding servicing rights, as well as significantly adjusting fees and annual assessments for licensees. With respect to mortgage servicing, the law defines servicing as “the administration of a resident mortgage loan following the closing of such loan” and further states that an entity will be serviced if it “either holds the servicing rights, or engages in any activities determined to be servicing, including: (a) the collection of monthly mortgage payments; (b) the administration of escrow accounts; (c) the processing of borrower inquiries and requests; and (d) default management.” The definition of “mortgage lender” already includes an entity that “makes a residential mortgage loan or services a residential mortgage loan” and will be approved by HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae. The Act adds a new section allowing licensees to permit their employees and independent contractors to work at remote locations, subject to certain conditions regarding policies and procedures for customer contact information and data, maintenance of physical records, and prohibitions on in-person customer interactions, among other things. Finally, the Act will add or amend certain fees and their annual assessment determinations, including assessments based on loan volumes for originated loans and others for serviced loans during the assessment period. The Act will go into effect on November 1.
Florida enacts telemarketing exemption from credit counseling services law
On April 26, the Governor of Florida signed into law HB 1031 (the “Act”), which will amend Florida’s credit counseling services law to provide an exception for telemarketers and sellers that furnish “debt relief services” (as defined under the federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule: i.e., the TSR). Generally, the law places certain disclosure, financial reporting, and fee charging obligations on any person engaged in “debt management services” or “credit counseling services.” The amendment will provide those telemarketers or sellers that “provide any debt relief service” within the scope of the TSR will not be subject to the provisions of Florida’s credit counseling law as long as they do not receive from the debtor or disburse to a creditor any money or items of value. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
DFPI annual report highlights consumer protection efforts and upcoming regulations
On April 25, the California DFPI released its Annual Report of Activity under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), highlighting investigations, public actions, and consumer outreach efforts under the CCFPL. According to the report, the DFPI (i) experienced a 70 percent increase in CCFPL complaints, which predominantly involved crypto assets and debt collectors; (ii) opened 734 CCFPL-related investigations and issued 181 public CCFPL actions; (iii) launched the Crypto Scam Tracker and a new consumer complaints portal; and (iv) advanced two rules, including unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UUDAAP) protections for small businesses and new registration requirements (pending final approval by the Office of Administrative Law) for earned wage access, debt settlement services, debt relief services, and private postsecondary education financing products.
The report emphasized that the new regulations specified that optional payments, such as tips, collected by California Financing Law (CFL)-licensed lenders would be considered charges under the law. According to the DFPI, these updates will reinforce the CFL by blocking potential loopholes and ensuring compliance among CFL-licensed lenders. Once these regulations would be approved, DFPI will oversee these financial service providers. Upon adoption, DFPI says it will be a pioneer in defining “earned wage access” as loans and regulating income advance services and the treatment of tips as charges, all through regulatory measures rather than statutory enactment.
Virginia amends its foreclosure procedures and requires an affidavit
Recently, the Governor of Virginia signed HB 184 (the “Act”) which amended the foreclosure procedures and subordinate procedures. Specifically, the Act added a requirement that if the proposed sale was initiated due to a default in payment under a security instrument, then the subordinate mortgage lienholder must submit to the trustee an affidavit affirming that monthly statements were sent to the property owner detailing any interest, fees, or charges assessed. The amendments also provided that the subordinate mortgage lienholder must provide a copy of such affidavit to the person who would pay the instrument with written notice for a request for sale. That notice must advise the person to pay the instrument if the person believed that fees or interest were assessed in error. If the court would agree, then the person will be entitled to recover attorney fees and costs against the subordinated mortgage lienholder after the date of the foreclosure sale. The Act also added a provision that any purchaser at a foreclosure sale provide certification that the purchase will pay off any priority security instrument no later than 90 days from the date that the trustee's deed conveying the property would be recorded in the land records. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
Tennessee amends caller ID law
On April 22, Tennessee enacted HB 2504 (the “Act”), which amends the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 to specify that it is illegal for: (i) “[a] person, in connection with a telecommunications service or an interconnected VoIP service, to knowingly cause any caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information to a subscriber with the intent to defraud or cause harm to another person or to wrongfully obtain anything of value”; and (ii) “[a] person, on behalf of a debt collector or inbound telemarketer service, to knowingly cause any caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, including caller identification information that does not match the area code of the person or the debt collector or inbound telemarketer service the person is calling on behalf of, or that is not a toll-free phone number, to a subscriber with the intent to induce the subscriber to answer.”
The Act is effective on July 1.
Student loan servicer to pay DFPI $27, 500 for untimely response to information request
On April 24, the California DFPI entered into a consent order with a federal student loan servicer (respondent) that allegedly failed to provide the DFPI with timely access to requested borrower data. In late April of 2022, the U.S. Department of Education announced a one-time revision of income-driven repayments to address past inaccuracies. To take advantage of this adjustment, the Department of Education required borrowers to submit a loan consolidation application by April 30, 2024. The DFPI requested information from respondent on student loan borrowers for the purpose of completing outreach to impacted borrowers ahead of the loan consolidation application deadline. Respondent provided this information 17 days after the deadline set by the DFPI.
To resolve DFPI’s allegations, respondent agreed to pay a penalty in the amount of $27,500.
Nebraska enacts a comprehensive data privacy law
On April 17 Nebraska enacted LB 1074 (the “Act”), establishing a comprehensive consumer data privacy law. The Act applies to a person that is not a small business (as determined under the federal Small Business Act) who conducts business in Nebraska or produces a product or service used by Nebraska consumers and who processes or sells personal data. The Act includes exemptions for certain classes of data, including data subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as well as for certain entities including state agencies, financial institutions and their affiliates, nonprofits, higher education institutions, and covered entities or business associates governed by the privacy, security, and breach notification rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Act grants consumers the right to (i) request information about whether their data is being processed; (ii) access their data; (iii) correct inaccuracies; (iv) delete their data; (v) obtain a portable copy of their data; and (vi) opt out of certain uses of their data, such as targeted advertising, sale, or “profiling in furtherance of a decision that produces a legal or similarly significant effect concerning the consumer.” Controllers, defined as persons that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data, must respond to authenticated consumer requests within 45 days and may extend the period once by another 45 days if necessary. If a request is denied, consumers must be informed of the reasons and instructed on how to appeal to the Attorney General. Controllers must offer a free response to two requests per year from each consumer but may charge a fee or refuse to act if requests are unfounded or excessive. Controllers also must establish an appeals process for consumers whose requests are denied, and inform the consumer of the outcome of their appeal within 60 days.
Rights afforded to consumers under the Act cannot be waived or limited by contract or agreement. Further, under the Act, controllers must provide consumers with a clear privacy notice including information similar to that required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
The Act is effective on January 1, 2025 and enforceable by the Attorney General and does not provide a private right of action.
Tennessee prevents lenders from discriminating against specific factors
On April 22, the Governor of Tennessee signed into law HB 2100 (the “Act”) which amended the state consumer protection codes to prevent financial institutions and insurers (collectively, institutions) from discriminating in the provision or denial of services based on certain enumerated factors. Specifically, institutions will not be allowed to discriminate based on, among others: (i) a person’s political opinions, speech, or affiliations; (ii) a person’s religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliations; (iii) any factor that is not a quantitative, impartial and risk-based standard; or (iv) a “social credit score” that is based on certain identified factors, including the lawful ownership of a firearm, engagement in fossil fuel-related business, support of the state or federal government’s efforts to combat illegal immigration, or a person’s failure to meet environmental, social governance, corporate board composition, social justice, or diversity, equity, and inclusion standards so long as the person is in compliance with applicable state or federal law. The Act provides that engaging in the prohibited forms of discrimination constitutes an unfair trade practice. The Act will go into effect on July 1.
New York AG settles with bank over EIPA violations
On April 17, the New York attorney general (AG) announced a settlement with a bank (respondent) to resolve allegations that respondent improperly froze customer accounts and paid out consumer funds to debt collectors, and failed to properly oversee its service providers engaging in similar activity, in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA). The EIPA requires that banks, among other things, “not restrain consumers’ use of statutorily exempt funds, such as social security benefits, veterans benefits, and disability insurance… in consumers’ bank accounts up to an amount set every three years by New York’s Department of Financial Services.” New York law also bars debt collectors from acquiring funds that include certain government benefits.
According to the settlement, respondent typically employs the assistance of specific third-party servicer providers to market and deliver banking products like debit cards, prepaid cards, payroll cards, or gift cards to consumers while respondent holds the funds loaded onto those cards. Servicer providers administer the program and interact with consumers, including by clearing transactions through a network processor approved by respondent, and generally handling transaction disputes and preparing account statements, while respondent oversees and monitors the program and the service provider while retaining full control of the funds. The AG claimed that respondents failed to ensure its servicer providers complied with the EIPA, and that on numerous occasions, servicer providers allegedly froze accounts holding exempt funds or accounts with balances below legal thresholds, then paid debt collectors with the frozen funds under the instruction of respondent.
According to the AG, respondent’s servicer providers also engaged in deceptive acts and practices by allegedly falsely labeling legal processes as “court orders” instead of documents from debt collectors. Respondents also allegedly provided false information that account freezes could not be lifted even when account balances were below legal thresholds, and falsely claiming only debt collectors could release the freeze. Additionally, servicer providers allegedly directed consumers to debt collectors who often sought deals to release account freezes for a portion of the account balance, despite the freezes being void and subject to the protected wage threshold.
Under the terms of the settlement, respondent will refund $79,664 plus interest to approximately 88 New Yorkers whose funds were wrongfully turned over to debt collectors and amend its policies and procedures. Respondent must also pay a civil money penalty of $627,000, and comply with ongoing monitoring and compliance requirements.
Maine amends processes regarding sale of foreclosed properties for nonpayment of taxes
On April 16, the Governor of Maine signed into law HP 1452 (the “Act”), which will amend the selling processes for foreclosed properties, specifically when a property is being foreclosed upon following a failure to pay taxes. The Act will provide that any money returned to the former owner of a property pursuant to a foreclosure sale due to nonpayment of taxes will be exempt from attachment to claims for a period of 12 months. The Act will also amend the form notice provided for impending foreclosure due to nonpayment of taxes to read “[i]f the tax lien forecloses, the municipality will own your property and may sell it and return excess sale proceeds to you.” Under the sale of foreclosed properties, the Act also added a definition of “tax-acquired property,” defined to mean any real property taken by a municipality for nonpayment of property taxes. The Act added requirements outlining the sale process, amending some payment and notice requirements and adding that a seller must provide a written accounting record of the amount of excess sale proceeds at the former owner’s request. Of interest, Section 4-A of the Act noted that if a real estate broker or agent failed to sell the property within a year, or the municipality failed to contract with a real estate broker or agent after three attempts, then the municipal officers may sell the property in any authorized manner and return the proceeds to the former owner. There are additional provisions adding requirements for receipts and notices, as well as on transfer of proceeds. The Act will go into effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourned, which will be on July 16.