Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Subscribe to Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance via RSS

On October 24, the Biden-Harris administration announced amendments to the regulations implementing title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). According to the fact sheet, the amendments are intended to allow the Department of Education (ED) to better protect students from the negative effects of sudden college closures, restrict colleges from withholding course credits paid for with federal money from students’ transcripts, require colleges to clearly communicate how much financial aid students will receive, and provide a more streamlined process for states to approve postsecondary opportunities for students without a high school diploma or its equivalent. The amended regulations will take effect on July 1, 2024.

On October 30, President Biden issued a sweeping Executive Order calling on Congress to enact privacy laws and directing federal agencies to review existing rules and potentially explore new rulemakings governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) across various sectors of the U.S. economy. Among other things, the Executive Order will require AI system developers to submit safety test results to the federal government, establish standards for detecting AI-generated content to fight consumer fraud, and develop AI tools to identify and fix vulnerabilities in critical software. According to the White House fact sheet, the stated goal of the Executive Order is to “ensure that America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of [AI].” To that end, the Executive Order focuses on national security, privacy, discrimination and bias, healthcare safety, workplace surveillance, innovation, and global leadership.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Examinations has outlined its 2024 Examination Priorities, with a significant focus on cryptocurrency, emerging technology, and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws. This has important implications for financial services. Our Regulatory Oversight blog has the details; key highlights are below.

In a major victory for small business lenders, yesterday the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted motions filed by three groups of trade association intervenors to extend the court’s existing injunction against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) enforcement of its final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) to cover all small business lenders nationwide. A discussion of the preliminary injunction issued by that Texas federal court on July 31 can be found here. The injunction in Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB will dissolve if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit in Community Financial Services Association v CFPB (CFSA case), which found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional.

On October 24, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Wisconsin Department of Justice announced a settlement with Wisconsin auto dealer group Rhinelander Auto Center, Inc. (Rhinelander), its current and former owners, and general manager. The lawsuit was brought under the FTC Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

On October 24, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the agencies) finally issued their long-awaited final rule modernizing how they assess lenders’ compliance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was enacted in 1977 to address systemic inequities in access to credit and encourages banks to meet the credit needs of the entire community, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities, consistent with safety and soundness principles. The last meaningful, comprehensive revision to the CRA regulations occurred in 1995.

On October 19, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its highly anticipated notice of proposed rulemaking under Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The proposed Personal Financial Data Rights Rule would require depository and nondepository entities to make available to consumers and authorized third parties certain data relating to consumers’ accounts, establish obligations for third parties accessing a consumer’s data, and provide basic standards for data access. Notably, the proposed rule only provides for narrow exceptions, such as community banks and credit unions that have no digital interface with their customers. The CFPB is currently accepting comments on the proposed rule until December 29, 2023.

On October 19, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dismissed its claims against Ripple Labs, Inc. (Ripple) executives Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian Larsen for allegedly aiding and abetting Ripple’s violations of the Securities Act with respect to its “institutional sales” of XRP. The Southern District of New York had deemed “institutional sales” to be unregistered securities in its July summary judgment decision, however, at that time the court reserved judgment as to the aiding and abetting claims against the executives. The matter was set for trial in 2024.

In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reached two more settlements with lenders under its Combatting Redlining Initiative, which began in October 2021. On September 27, the DOJ announced that Washington Trust Company agreed to pay $9 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in redlining majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island. On October 19, the DOJ announced a separate $9 million agreement with Ameris Bank to resolve allegations that it engaged in redlining predominately Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Jacksonville, Florida. And, according to Attorney General Merrick Garland, this is just the beginning. “[T]he Justice Department currently has over two dozen active investigations into redlining, spanning neighborhoods across the country.”

Recently, the New Jersey appellate division held that a debt purchaser is not liable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJ Fraud Act) for failing to obtain a license under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJ Licensing Act). Although the decision is unpublished, it is still a welcome relief for purchasers of defaulted debt.