Search CFPB

On March 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a Request for Information (Request) seeking public comment on the business practices of data brokers and how they impact the daily lives of consumers. Specifically, the CFPB is interested in hearing details about the types of data that data brokers collect and sell, as well as the sources they rely upon. This data will be used to inform the CFPB’s planned rulemaking under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

As discussed here, the CFPB forecasted this development in its 2022 Fall Rulemaking Agenda where it cryptically stated it was “considering whether to amend Regulation V.”

The Request defines data brokers as “firms that collect, aggregate, sell, resell, license, or otherwise share consumers’ personal information with other parties.” Such personal information can include details of consumers’ credit card purchases, web browsing activities, genetic and health information, religious affiliation, financial records, and geolocation data. According to the CFPB, this data is then used for “purposes including marketing and advertising, building and refining proprietary algorithms, credit and insurance underwriting, consumer-authorized data porting, fraud detection, criminal background checks, identity verification, and people search databases.”

In the press release that accompanied the release of the Request, CFPB Director Chopra stated, “[m]odern data surveillance practices have allowed companies to hover over our digital lives and monetize our most sensitive data. Our inquiry will inform whether rules under the [FCRA] reflect these market realities.” Notably, the CFPB previews its legal position, stating that the FCRA broadly applies to “data brokers like credit reporting companies and background screening firms, as well as those who report information to these firms.”

On this basis, the CFPB is seeking information about:

  • The data broker industry.
    • What types of data do data brokers collect and what do they do with the data other than reselling or licensing it?
    • What sources do data brokers rely on to collect information? Specifically, what information does data brokers receive from financial institutions?
    • Which entities purchase data?
    • What controls are in place to ensure the accuracy of the data collected?
    • Can people avoid having their data collected?
    • What controls are in place to protect people’s data and safeguard their privacy?
  • The consumer experience.
    • Have consumers experienced harms or benefits from the data broker industry?
    • Have consumers ever attempted to view, correct, or remove data from a broker’s repository for privacy purposes?

The request will be published in the Federal Register and the public will have until June 13 to submit comments.

Our Take

The prevailing industry view is that not all the data uses enumerated by the CFPB in its Request are regulated by the FCRA. Accordingly, the agency may well encounter judicial resistance to its proposed amendment to Regulation V. For instance, as the Fifth Circuit stated in its decision denying a CFPB civil investigation demand in CFPB v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., “the CFPB does not have ‘unfettered authority to cast about for potential wrongdoing.'”

Any perceived overreaching could also add fuel to certain Republican members of Congress who recently set forth proposals to reform the agency, as discussed here.

We will continue to monitor these developments and the Request for comments.

On March 9, the U.S. House Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy Subcommittee held a hearing entitled “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB]: Ripe for Reform.” The memorandum released in advance stated the hearing would “examine the leadership structure, funding, budget, and operations of the CFPB and areas in which reforms are needed.” Predictably, during the hearings there was a partisan split on the proposed reforms, with Republican members attacking what they characterized as agency overreach in areas such as fee elimination and advocating drastic reforms up to total defunding, while Democratic members of the subcommittee largely supported the agency’s actions.

In his opening statement, Chairman Andy Barr (R) explained why, in his opinion, reforms were needed and introduced a bill to do just that:

“[T]he CFPB operates outside of the congressional appropriations process, receiving its funding through the Federal Reserve (Fed), which also operates outside of the appropriations process, through an opaque formula. This denies Congress the use of its most powerful oversight tool — the ‘power of the purse.’ My bill, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats Spending Act, or the TABS Act, gives Congress back the power of the purse and its oversight power, reins in the unaccountable CFPB, and subjects the agency to the traditional appropriations process.”

Beyond the TABS Act, other reform bills discussed during the hearing included:

  • The CFPB Dual Mandate and Economic Analysis Act.
    • This bill would establish the Office of Economic Analysis in the CFPB to review all proposed and existing rules and regulations. Additionally, the purpose of the CFPB would be revised to include strengthening private sector participation in markets, without government interference or subsidies, to increase competition and enhance consumer choice.
  • The CFPB–IG Reform Act.
    • This bill would establish a separate Office of Inspector General for the CFPB.
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Commission Act.
    • This bill would remove the CFPB from being funded by the Fed, convert the CFPB into an independent commission, eliminate the positions of director and deputy director, and establish a five-person commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
  • Federal Reserve Loss Transparency Act.
    • This bill would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to prohibit the Fed from transferring money to fund the CFPB if the Federal Reserve Banks incur an operating loss, and amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Fed to follow US GAAP.

Beyond reforming the structure and funding of the agency, the CFPB’s war on fees, most recently discussed here, was a hotly contested topic. Subcommittee member Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) accused Director Chopra of using so-called “junk fees” as an excuse to expand his authority. “[T]he fact that we now call them junk fees doesn’t mean it’s real.” Maxine Waters (D), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, defended the agency’s actions in the area stating, “[t]he CFPB has made major progress in supporting consumers, combatting discrimination and junk fees, holding large financial institutions accountable for repeatedly harming consumers, and so much more.”

The proposed reform bills have virtually no chance of becoming law with Democrats currently in control of the Senate and the White House. We see the introduction of these bills as markers for future activity by the Republicans when the political conditions are more conducive. Although ordinarily that would need to await the Republicans taking control of the White House and both Chambers of Congress, if the Supreme Court holds that the CFPB should be subject to Congressional appropriations in the CFSA case, most recently discussed here, the Democrats will need the Republicans’ cooperation in order to fund the agency’s ongoing operations. The Republicans appear to be setting forth the conditions of that cooperation through the proposed legislation discussed at this hearing.

A recording of the Subcommittee hearing is available here.

On March 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights report, focusing once again on fees assessed in relation to bank account deposits, auto loan servicing, mortgage loan servicing, payday lending, and student loan servicing. As the Supervisory Highlights reveal, the CFPB continues to scrutinize and challenge fees across the consumer financial services industry, consistent with much of the industry’s experience in 2022 and the subject of the CFPB’s prior November report, discussed here. The CFPB’s most recent report focuses on findings made by CFPB Examiners during examinations conducted between July 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023.

Deposit Accounts:

  • Examiners determined that some institutions assessed overdraft fees by authorizing a debit that was made with a positive balance, but later charging an overdraft fee because of intervening transactions that were processed before the debit settled (known as authorize positive, settle negative (APSN) practices).
    • Examiners identified instances in which institutions assessed APSN overdraft fees using the consumer’s available balance or ledger balance for fee decisioning. According to the CFPB, consumers could not reasonably avoid the substantial injury, irrespective of account-opening disclosures. As a result, the institutions were directed to cease charging APSN overdraft fees and to conduct lookbacks and issue remediation.
    • The CFPB has previously issued guidance about APSN practices discussed here.
  • Examiners identified instances in which some institutions charged customers multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees for a single transaction against an insufficient balance in the consumer’s account, potentially as soon as the next day.
    • The CFPB acknowledged that the institutions are making appropriate restitution to consumers. CFPB examiners have reviewed NSF fee assessment at numerous institutions, and found that many institutions have decided to forego NSF fees altogether.
    • The CFPB’s guidance on NSF fees is similar to prior FDIC guidance.

Auto Loan Servicing:

  • Examiners asserted that some servicers charged late fees that exceeded the permissible amounts stated in borrowers’ contracts or charged late fees to consumers after vehicle repossessions and loan acceleration, even though a monthly payment was no longer due.
  • Examiners also asserted that some servicers charged inflated estimated repossession fees.
    • According to examiners, this resulted in some consumers potentially being dissuaded from recovering their vehicles because the servicers estimated the repossession fee would be $1,000 when it was actually much less.
  • Examiners identified payment processing fees being charged in amounts that exceeded servicers’ costs for processing payments.
    • According to examiners, approximately 90% of payments made by consumers incurred a pay-to-pay fee. The servicers received over half the amount of these fees from third-party payment processors as incentive payments, totaling millions of dollars for the servicers from the CFPB’s perspective.

Mortgage Loan Servicing:

  • Examiners identified instances of mortgage servicers charging the highest late fee amount allowed by relevant state laws, even when homeowners’ mortgage contracts capped late fee amounts below state maximums.
  • Examiners identified accounts where consumers were charged $10 to $50 fees for property inspection visits to addresses that were known to be incorrect and continued to pay inspectors to go to the known incorrect addresses.
  • According to examiners, some servicers included monthly private mortgage insurance (PMI) premiums that homeowners did not owe. These consumers did not have borrower-paid PMI on their accounts because the loans were originated with lender-paid PMI.
    • Relatedly, examiners claimed that servicers failed to terminate PMI when the principal balance of the mortgage reached 78% loan-to-value on a mortgage loan that was current.
  • Examiners asserted that some servicers charged homeowners late charges, fees, and penalties that should have been waived during forbearance periods or under certain loss mitigation options.

Payday and Title Lending:

  • Examiners identified accounts where borrowers were charged repossession fees that were not authorized by the underlying loan agreements.
  • Examiners identified instances where lenders repossessed vehicles despite having entered into new payment agreements with those borrowers.

Student Loan Servicing:

  • Examiners asserted that some servicers charged late fees and interest after payments were made on time.
    • For example, some servicers’ policies do not allow borrowers to pay by credit card. However, sometimes their customer representatives erroneously accepted credit card payments. The servicers then cancelled the payments, acted as if no payment had been made, and charged the borrowers late fees and additional interest.

Our Take:

In its report, the CFPB seems to be indicating that it is not just taking aim at what it considers excessive or surprise fees, but is instead taking on all fees in all instances. As is always the case with Supervisory Highlights, the underlying facts and circumstances remain largely unknown. As a result, it is difficult to assess if the findings are the result of violations of existing law or reflect more aggressive regulatory interpretations.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleague Consumer Financial Services Partner Lori Sommerfield as they discuss the implications of the recent Illinois federal court decision, dismissing the CFPB’s first-ever redlining case against Townstone Financial, Inc., which alleged that Townstone engaged in redlining practices by discouraging applications under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) through its marketing approach. The court found that ECOA does not extend to prospective applicants.

Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses CFPB’s First Redlining Case, Holding ECOA Doesn’t Extend to Prospective Applicants

On March 1, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an issue spotlight highlighting concerns about prepaid card programs for accessing public assistance benefits. In particular, the spotlight notes “specific recurring issues” related to cash assistance benefits including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and unemployment benefits that are provided on prepaid cards. The spotlight focuses on two areas that it claims limit recipients’ access to funds: fees and inadequate customer service. This spotlight follows on the heels of the CFPB’s submission of an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit on a similar issue, discussed here.

According to the CFPB, in 2020, prepaid card issuers administering public assistance benefits collected around $1.3 billion in fees. These include maintenance, balance inquiry, customer service, and ATM fees. The CFPB found that fees varied between state programs, even when the card issuer was the same. The CFPB finds these fees particularly troubling because even low-dollar fees can pose “outsized harm” to those who rely on public assistance benefits.

The CFPB also highlighted concerns that consumers have with customer service for benefit cards, including “inadequate protections against unauthorized transfers, high costs to replace a card, and insufficient or hypersensitive fraud filters that cause delays and account freezing.” The CFPB observed that if issues such as unauthorized charges are not resolved in a timely manner, recipients may wait weeks or months for access to their funds. The CFPB noted that “the often-acute needs of the populations who receive and rely on cash assistance” make it “critical that beneficiaries have full and timely access to these funds.”

Even with these two highlighted issues, the CFPB acknowledged the merit of prepaid benefit card programs. As the spotlight notes, card programs have advantages over other types of fund transfers, including that prepaid cards are more cost-effective for administrators than printing paper checks and recipients often have faster access compared to check-cashing.

Going forward, the CFPB stressed that it intends to monitor public-benefit prepaid card programs and take action when appropriate to protect consumers. The CFPB also indicated that it plans to collaborate with federal and state agencies that administer public benefits programs in an effort to increase competition and efficiency in the delivery of benefits.

Why it matters: Vendors offering benefit card programs should be conscious of their fees, customer service effectiveness, and the security of the funds accessible through their cards. We expect the CFPB to continue to pay attention to issues affecting recipients of public benefits through prepaid cards.

As we reported here, late last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) signaled that it planned to increase scrutiny of the Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) industry and issued its first report about BNPL. Yesterday, the CFPB issued a report exploring the financial profiles of BNPL borrowers. According to the CFPB, on average, BNPL borrowers were much more likely to be highly indebted, revolve on their credit cards, have delinquencies in traditional credit products, have lower credit scores, and use high-interest financial services such as payday, pawn, and overdraft compared to non-BNPL borrowers. However, many of these differences pre-dated borrowers’ BNPL use and the increased availability of BNPL products might offer a less expensive borrowing option for many of these users.

BNPL products are a form of credit that allows a consumer to split a retail transaction into smaller, interest-free installments and repay over time. The typical BNPL structure divides a $50 to $1,000 purchase into four equal installments. While BNPL credit is generally interest free, providers make money by charging fees to both sellers and consumers who don’t pay on time. Launched in the mid-2010s as an alternative form of short-term credit for online retail purchases, BNPL loan usage increased ten-fold during the pandemic. Offerings marketed as BNPL have since grown to include a varied range of credit products, but for purposes of this report, BNPL refers exclusively to zero-interest, pay-in-four (or fewer) installment point of sale loans — the same product parameters that were the focus of the CFPB’s December 2021 BNPL market monitoring orders and subsequent September 2022 report.

For this report, the CFPB used consumer responses to the 2022 Making Ends Meet survey as well as an anonymized sample of credit bureau records. Among other takeaways from the report, the CFPB found:

  • On average, 17% of consumers borrowed using BNPL at least once in the prior year. Black, Hispanic and female consumers and those with household income between $20,001-50,000 were significantly more likely to use BNPL products compared to white, non-Hispanic and male consumers, or those with household income below $20,000.
  • BNPL borrowers have lower average credit scores than consumers who did not borrow using BNPL. They were also 11 percentage points more likely to have a delinquency of at least 30 days on their consumer report.
  • Users of BNPL products exhibit measures of financial distress that are significantly higher than non-users. For example, BNPL borrowers have higher credit card debt and utilization rates, a higher likelihood of having an overdraft, a higher likelihood of revolving on at least one credit card (meaning that they carried over a credit card balance from one billing cycle to the next), and higher utilization rates of alternative financial services that charge high interest rates.

However, the report concluded by noting that the majority of BNPL users have access to traditional credit. In fact, for users with revolving credit card debt where the interest rate starts immediately, credit cards purchases are much more expensive. Zero-interest BNPL loans appear to be a less expensive borrowing option, not the only option for the majority of users.

In the CFPB press release announcing yesterday’s report, Director Chopra’s remarks unmistakably signal his intent to regulate BNPL with the same rigor that he has applied to more traditional products: “Since Buy Now, Pay Later is like other forms of credit, we are working to ensure that borrowers have similar protections and that companies play by similar rules.”

On February 28, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) jointly issued a Request for Information, seeking public comment on how background screening affects individuals seeking rental housing in the United States. Specifically, the Request seeks information on the use of consumer reports and credit scores, criminal and eviction records, and algorithms in the tenant screening process.

This is just the latest action from the FTC and CFPB on the issue of tenant screening. As discussed here, on November 15, the CFPB issued two reports, highlighting what it perceived to be forms of errors that frequently occur in tenant background checks and the impact the CFPB believed those errors could have on potential renters. As a result of the reports, the CFPB pledged to work closely with the FTC to take action on those issues.

According to the press release that accompanied the release of the Request, the “CFPB has received thousands of complaints about tenant background checks and heard many stories of people being rejected from housing because someone else’s negative information, like a criminal record or eviction, incorrectly appeared in their report. Other complaints have highlighted how difficult it can be to have tenant screening companies fix errors. Finally, people tell us they can’t find out what information factors into the ‘risk scores’ used to deny them rental housing.”

On this basis, the agencies seek information about:

  • Tenant Screening Generally.
    • How are landlords and property managers currently setting criteria and using background screening products to assess prospective tenants? To what extent are they informing prospective tenants about their criteria?
    • To what extent do landlords and property managers address barriers for prospective tenants with limited English proficiency or disabilities?
    • Do tenant screening practices have unique impacts on certain groups or communities, such as Black, Indigenous, and people of color; the LGBTQI+ community; military service members; immigrants; public housing voucher recipients; or renters with disabilities?
  • Criminal and Eviction Records in Tenant Screening.
    • How do landlords and property managers obtain this information? Do they ask prospective tenants about their backgrounds or purchase background reports?
    • How accurate are these records and how useful or relevant are they in assessing whether a particular individual is more likely to have a negative housing outcome?
  • Using Algorithms in Tenant Screening.
    • How are consumer reporting agencies using algorithms to match credit, criminal, and eviction records to consumers for inclusion on credit and tenant screening reports, and making predictions about prospective tenants?
    • Where is the data obtained for use in these algorithms?
    • What steps are being taken to ensure that algorithms that make recommendations about prospective tenants are not discriminating based on race, sex, disability, or other protected class?
    • To what extent do consumer reporting agencies allow tenants to dispute the recommendation produced by an algorithm? To what extent do landlords or property managers re-assess housing applications following a tenant’s dispute or correction of scoring criteria or underlying data?

The deadline for comments is May 30.

The FTC and CFPB have also taken aim at tenant screening issues through enforcement actions. As discussed here, in March 2022, TransUnion received a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB alleging that the company and its tenant and employment screening business TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. failed to: “(i) follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of information in consumer reports and (ii) disclose to consumers the sources of such information.” On July 27, 2022, the CFPB advised TransUnion that it had obtained authority to pursue a joint enforcement action with the FTC. TransUnion is now in active settlement discussions with the federal regulators.

Troutman Pepper will continue to monitor developments involving the FTC and CFPB related to tenant screening and will provide further updates as they become available.

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) petition for certiorari in Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd. (CFSA) v. CFPB, a case that could decide once and for all whether the funding mechanism for the Bureau is constitutional. The order list does not specify which justices voted to take the case or their reasons for doing so. Notably, the CFSA’s cross-petition was denied, and there is no indication that the Court has agreed to the CFPB’s request to hear the case on an expedited basis during the current term.

As discussed here, on October 19, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit based its decision on the fact that, among other things, the CFPB does not receive its funding from annual congressional appropriations like most executive agencies, but instead, receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve based on a request by the CFPB’s Director.

In response, on November 15, as discussed here, the CFPB filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting not only that the Court hear the case, but also that the Court decide the case on an expedited basis during the current term.

On January 13, 2023, the CFSA filed its opposition to the CFPB’s petition as well as its own cross-petition for a writ of certiorari on two antecedent questions, discussed here. In its cross-petition, the CFSA argued the Court should address two questions before even considering the Appropriations Clause issue. These being whether: 1) the CFPB Director was unconstitutionally shielded from removal at the time the rule was promulgated; and 2) issuing the Payday Lending Rule exceeded the CFPB’s authority. As stated earlier, the Supreme Court denied the CFSA’s cross-petition, meaning that only the Appropriations Clause issue will be before the court.

Our Take

We expected the Supreme Court to grant review of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, both because of the importance of the issue and because of the Court’s interest in separations of powers cases. But because it appears that the Court will not hear the case until next term, there will continue to be uncertainty related to the CFPB’s status and its ability to undertake activities such as enforcement investigations and rulemaking projects. The CFSA decision will remain binding precedent in the Fifth Circuit, and it seems likely that courts in other circuits may be presented with the issue as well, while the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue is pending.

On February 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced that it has issued orders to nine of the largest auto lenders requesting information about their auto lending portfolios. According to the CFPB, the nine targeted lenders represent a cross-section of the auto finance market and the data collected in response to these orders will help the CFPB build a data set that provides them with insight into lending channels and loan performance. Notably, the CFPB stated that these collection efforts will inform potential future data collection orders.

These requests are not unexpected, as the CFPB first announced its intention to collect such data in November 2022 and has proceeded to collect public comments regarding the same over the past few months.

The CFPB issued these requests under its authority to monitor the auto finance market under 12 U.S.C. § 5511(c)(3) and not as a supervisory order or civil investigative demand. However, the CFPB expressly reserved the right to use the information gathered for any purpose permitted by law. The data requests are extensive and request information about originations, servicing, and repossessions over the past five years. The stated purpose for the requests is to help the CFPB better understand trends, changes in the marketplace, and how the components of auto loan transactions have changed over time.

The CFPB identified three areas where it believes the requested data will increase visibility into the market:

  • Lending Channels
    • The data requests require lenders to identify whether each loan is direct or indirect.
  • Data
    • According to the CFPB, thorough auto lending analyses are “nearly impossible” due to variations in existing data and the difficulty in creating a comprehensive data set from existing sources.
  • Repossessions
    • Specifically, the CFPB requests information on the circumstances leading up to a repossession, and the impact of a repossession on the borrower and lender. The Bureau indicated it is interested in the potential correlation between delinquency and geography, credit score, and income.
    • The data requests also seek information about the kinds of technology used during repossession, such as GPS tracking and starter-interrupt devices.

We see a significant focus not only on repossessions in these requests, but also on “ability to repay” issues and the sale of ancillary products, both of which were featured issues in a recent enforcement action filed by the CFPB. These requests seem to indicate that auto finance will remain a front and center area of interest for the CFPB. Troutman Pepper will continue to monitor important developments involving the CFPB and the proposed data collection and will provide further updates as they become available.

On February 9, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted its annual letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) summarizing its activities enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. This letter is included in the CFPB’s annual report to Congress on the ECOA. A copy of the summary was also provided to the Federal Reserve Board.

The FTC is responsible for ECOA and Regulation B enforcement for financial service providers that are not banks, thrifts, or federal credit unions. In its summary, the FTC described its work on ECOA-related issues, including enforcement actions, research, and policy development such as:

  • Initiating two cases against auto dealership groups alleging the dealerships violated ECOA by discriminating against Black (and in one case Latino) consumers by charging higher interest rates and illegal “junk fees.”
    • See prior discussion of one of those cases here.
  • Issuing a report to Congress titled “Combatting Online Harms Through Innovation,” warning about using artificial intelligence to combat online problems, noting concerns that these tools can have inherent potential for inaccuracy, bias, and discrimination, and can harm marginalized communities.
  • Co-Hosting the Fifteenth Annual FTC Microeconomics Conference, which included a discussion on designing dealer compensation in the auto loan market. The segment addressed, among other things, how the discretionary mark-up of interest rates can vary systematically by protected characteristics such as gender and race, and it also referenced the ECOA protections.
  • Working as a liaison to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel (ABA LAMP). During ABA LAMP trainings and meetings, the FTC addressed issues related to military consumers’ rights pertaining to the anti-discrimination provisions in the ECOA and Regulation B.
  • Participating as a member of the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, a joint undertaking with the CFPB, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the federal banking agencies, which shares information and discusses policy issues.
  • Participating as a member of the Interagency Fair Lending Methodologies Working Group, with the CFPB, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, DOJ, HUD, and the federal banking agencies, to coordinate and share information on analytical methodologies used in the enforcement and supervision of compliance with fair lending laws, including ECOA.
  • Providing guidance for consumers emphasizing that creditors may not consider during the application process or when making a credit decision, things such as a consumers’ race or sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.