Banking

Subscribe to Banking via RSS

We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. With active federal and state legislatures, consumer financial services providers faced a challenging 2023. Courts across the country issued rulings that will have immediate and lasting impacts on the industry. Our team of more than 140 professionals has prepared this concise, yet thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2023, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.

On January 23, the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) released a letter outlining its supervisory priorities for the new year. While the organization acknowledged that the credit union system had remained largely stable during 2023, it observed growing signs of financial strain on balance sheets. Specifically, the “rise in interest rate and liquidity risks resulted in an increase in the number of composite CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 credit unions. Inflation and interest rates are affecting household budgets, which could lead to an increase in credit risk in future quarters.”

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to prohibit covered financial institutions from charging nonsufficient funds fees (NSF) for payment transactions that are instantaneously declined. The proposed rule would treat fees for transactions declined in real time to be unlawful under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently issued a report entitled Identity-Related Suspicious Activity: 2021 Threats and Trends highlighting threat patterns and trend information derived from financial institutions’ Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) filings for the calendar year 2021. Financial institutions are required to file suspicious activity reports no later than 30 calendar days after the initial detection of facts that could constitute suspicious activity.

On January 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to amend exemptions to Regulation Z so the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)/Regulation Z would apply to certain overdraft “credit” provided by insured financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, in furtherance of the Bureau’s crusade on “junk fees.” At a highlevel, the CFPB’s proposed rule would provide covered financial institutions with two options for offering overdraft “credit”: (1) a “courtesy” overdraft service with “breakeven” fees exempt from TILA/Regulation Z; or (2) a “covered overdraft credit” line/loan in connection with debit card or routing/account number transactions with “above breakeven” fees subject to TILA/Reg. Z. Under the proposal, an institution subject to the rule would have to provide full TILA disclosures and comply with other substantive TILA requirements for overdraft fees if they exceed costs or a low CFPB safe harbor amount.

On January 10, HB 254, entitled the True Lender Act, was introduced before the Maryland House of Delegates. The Act would amend the Maryland Commercial Law to add an article containing both predominant economic interest and totality of the circumstance tests to determine the “true lender” of a loan. A hearing on HB 254 is scheduled on January 23.

On January 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul unveiled her 2024 consumer protection agenda, which includes plans to regulate the “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) industry. Specifically, Governor Hochul plans to propose legislation to require BNPL providers to be licensed in the state and to authorize the New York State Department of Financial Services to propose and issue regulations for the industry. According to Governor Hochul, “New Yorkers are increasingly turning to [BNPL] loans as a low-cost alternative to traditional credit products to pay for everyday and big-ticket purchases. This legislation and regulations will establish strong industry protections around disclosure requirements, dispute resolution and credit reporting standards, late fee limits, consumer data privacy, and guidelines to curtail dark patterns and debt accumulation and overextension.”

Late last month, Councilmember Kenyan R. McDuffie introduced B 25-0609, entitled the Protecting Affordable Loans Amendment Act of 2023, that proposes to opt the District of Columbia out of sections 521-523 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA empower state banks, insured state and federal savings associations, and state credit unions to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting state law (i.e., “export” their home state’s interest-rate authority). But another section of DIDMCA (section 525), permits states to opt out of sections 521-523 via legislation. If the bill passes, the District will join Colorado, discussed here, Iowa and Puerto Rico as the only jurisdictions currently opting out.

A group of non-profit consumer advocacy organizations, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators filed two separate briefs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Second Circuit decision holding that New York’s escrow interest law is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) under the “ordinary legal principles of pre-emption.” Under the NBA, a state law is preempted if the law “prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers.”

On December 19th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a report highlighting consumers’ experiences with overdraft and nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees. The report found that roughly a quarter of consumers are still being charged these fees despite the CFPB’s hostility towards so called “junk fees,” which has led many banks and credit unions to eliminate such fees. The report further found that many consumers who were charged overdraft and NSF fees had access to an alternative asserted to be cheaper by the CFPB, such as available credit on a credit card.