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.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its 14th annual report to Congress in fulfillment of its requirements under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act. For the report, the CFPB reviewed information available on college websites on the financial products offered directly to students or jointly marketed to students with third-party providers. According to the CFPB, its research showed that college-sponsored financial products have higher fees and less favorable terms and conditions compared to typical market products.
On December 4, a federal district court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) finding that regulations adopted last year under California’s Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL) do not violate the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and are not preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Under the CFDL, providers are required to give certain disclosures similar to consumer transactions, such as the amount of funding the small business will receive, the APR, a payment amount (if applicable), the term, details related to prepayment policies, and (for products without a monthly payment) an average monthly cost.
Yesterday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued guidance to banks on managing the risks associated with “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) lending. Specifically, the bulletin addresses BNPL loans that are payable in four or fewer installments and carry no finance charges. The stated aim of the OCC’s guidance is to ensure that these loans are offered in a manner that is safe, sound, and compliant with applicable laws and regulations.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that identifies international convertible virtual currency mixing as a class of transactions of primary money laundering concern and seeks to increase transparency around virtual currency mixing to combat its use by illicit actors.
On October 9, a Florida state senator introduced SB 146, which would add a new section to the Florida Consumer Finance Act (CFA), attempting to curb evasion of the CFA. SB 146 would treat all payments incident to the loan as interest, even if voluntary, and would adopt both predominant economic interest and totality of the circumstance tests for true lender purposes. SB 146 follows other states’ attempts to address true lender issues, including legislation passed in Minnesota, discussed here, and Connecticut, discussed here.