Today, January 16, 2018, officially marks the effective date of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s final rule targeting what it refers to as “payday debt traps” (the “Rule”). As outlined in our previous publications (found here and here), the Rule marks a significant change in the landscape for lenders offering short-term loans or longer-term loans with balloon payments, including payday and vehicle title loans. Looming large is the new requirement that lenders determine a borrower’s ability to repay prior to originating covered loans.
After paying for groceries with a credit card or debit card, the clerk hands the receipt to the customer. In addition to the last four digits of the card number, it contains the first digit. Or perhaps it contains the first six digits. Or maybe the expiration date. Is this a concrete injury that provides the customer standing to sue the grocery store?
That is the question federal courts have grappled with since the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in May 2016. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) regulates retailers’ conduct in printing card number information on customers’ receipts and provides a private right of action for alleged violations. But, as discussed below, a customer may not have standing to sue in federal court or even in certain state courts just because a violation may have occurred.
On November 16, Senate Banking Committee (“SBC”) Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced S. 2155, the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” long-awaited Senate legislation designed to foster economic growth and reduce regulatory burdens for small- and medium-sized financial institutions. A SBC section-by-section summary of the bill is available here. Earlier this year, the House passed on a party-line vote H.R. 10, the “Financial CHOICE Act of 2017” (the “FCA”), House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-TX) bill to comprehensively reform the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). S. 2155 is narrower in scope than the House bill and has to date garnered the support of nine Democratic Senators.
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review a ruling that courts, not arbitrators, determine the availability of classwide arbitration. Previous attempts by putative collective or class representatives to obtain certiorari on the issue were unsuccessful. See, e.g., Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., 61 F.3d 326, 330-35 (3d Cir. 2014) (“Opalinski I”) (For K&L Gates’ coverage on the denials of the prior petitions see here and here). The Court’s most recent decision in Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc. suggests that the Court still does not perceive sufficient disagreement, if any, among the federal courts of appeals on the issue. 677 F. App’x 738, 740 (3d Cir. 2017) (“Opalinski II”). As a result, the trend continues that the availability of classwide arbitration is a gateway issue for the courts.
The President signed this week the congressional joint resolution nullifying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) arbitration agreements rule. Following adoption by the House, the Senate, in a 50-50 split with the Vice President breaking the tie, voted last week to approve the resolution (noted in a previous post here). The CFPB can only reinstate the rule, or one that is similar, if Congress expressly authorizes it to do so in subsequent legislation.
Over the last several years, a number of U.S. state and federal government enforcement actions have challenged the viability of the bank partnership model that many marketplace lenders have used to fund consumer and small business loans. Specifically, regulators have argued that, in partnerships where the non-bank entity controls much of the funding process or the bank has little-to-no risk of loss, the non-bank entity is the “true lender.”
On October 26, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released a report entitled “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Asset Management and Insurance,” the third in a series of reports that President Trump’s Executive Order 13772 on Core Principles for Regulating the U.S. Financial System (the “Core Principles”) requires Treasury to issue about potential ways to legislatively and administratively reform the U.S. financial system, consistent with the Core Principles. Earlier this month, Treasury released its second such report, which outlined recommendations concerning the capital markets. Treasury’s first report on banks and credit unions was released in June 2017 (See K&L Gates Alert: Dodd-Frank Reform; What Comes Next?), and one additional report is expected to be released in the near future. Treasury’s recommendations are likely to inform the efforts currently underway in Congress to advance financial regulatory reform legislation. This alert highlights a number of notable recommendations contained in the asset management and insurance report, as well as the capital markets report.
To read the full alert, click here.
After weeks of speculation, the U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday night to join the House of Representatives in passing a Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) resolution to nullify the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) recent arbitration agreements rule. The Senate vote split 50-50, with two Republican senators—Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kennedy (LA)—voting against the resolution. The split vote set the stage for Vice President Mike Pence to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the resolution, which is now headed to President Trump’s desk for signature. In the hours after the vote, the President released a statement indicating his support for the resolution.
By Judith E. Rinearson, Rizwan Qayyum
The debate surrounding “screen-scraping” continues as Member States of the European Union are preparing for the impending Second Payment Services Directive (“PSD2”). Screen scraping is the practice in which third-party Payment Initiation Service Providers (“PISPs”) and Account Information Service Providers (“AISPs”) are granted access to bank accounts of a client utilising their credentials to perform a service. As heralded in our discussion in July identifying the problem, the European Banking Authority (“EBA”) maintained their stance of outlawing the practice in the final draft Regulatory Technical Standards (“RTS”) on secure communication and Strong Customer Authentication (“SCA”). Consistent industry pressure has led the European Commission (“EC”) to request of the EBA to permit AISPs and PISPs to utilise screen scraping as a “fallback option”.