Search auto data

On February 19, the CFPB proposed a rule that would suspend the requirement that creditors submit agreements for open-end consumer credit plans to the Bureau under section 1632(d) of the Truth in Lending Act and section 1026.58 of Regulation Z.  The temporary suspension would last one year, making it applicable to the next three quarterly submissions that were due in 2015 and the first quarterly submission due on January 31, 2015.

The purpose of this suspension is for the CFPB to develop “a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system” for issuers to submit credit card agreements to the CFPB in order to replace the current method of submission manually via email.  Under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, credit card issuers are required to post the latest agreements on their websites and to submit them to the CFPB for inclusion in a searchable central database.  In this proposed amendment to Regulation Z and the official interpretation, the Bureau said the existing process was too cumbersome for issuers and would thus be suspended while a new system is tested and put in place.

The proposed rule would not suspend the requirement for issuers to post credit card agreements publicly on their own websites.

Comments are due 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Federal Trade Commission has released a Staff Report addressing the “Internet of Things” – a phrase referring to everyday items that are able to connect to the internet and transmit data.  The Internet of Things includes over 25 billion connected devices worldwide, including fitness trackers, connected appliances, and more.  Estimates are that by 2020, between 50 and 75 billion connected devices will exist.

The Report is based on a November 2013 workshop that included industry participants and experts, and it includes staff recommendations about legislative and regulatory responses to the Internet of Things.

The Report highlights privacy and security concerns raised by connected devices, and recommends that businesses take steps to increase the security of their systems, minimize data collection, and increase transparency regarding data collection and use with consumers.

Businesses involved with the Internet of Things, including security, automation, communication, and entertainment companies, are encouraged to adopt strong privacy and security measures.  As a first step, companies in these industries should review the FTC’s concurrently released publication “Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things,” which advises companies to adopt security practices, such as encryption and authentication.

 

Join us at the American Conference Institute’s 22nd National Forum on Consumer Finance Class Actions & Litigation. Two full days of expert strategies for in-house and outside counsel on navigating class actions, litigation, and government enforcement actions in the consumer finance industry.

April 13 – 14, 2015; Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza – Los Angeles, CA

We are pleased to announce that Chad Fuller, partner at Troutman Sanders LLP, will speak on The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): The Latest Legal and Case Law Developments, Certification Issues Relating to TCPA Class Actions, What Lies Ahead, and Solutions for Helping Your Clients Stay Ahead of the Curve in the Face of Complex and Unclear Rules.

In addition to unparalleled networking opportunities, ACI’s 22nd Consumer Finance Class Actions & Litigation conference will provide attendees with the latest insights and expert advice from our exceptional faculty on new class action trends, emerging theories of liability, the latest enforcement actions and regulatory initiatives, and the most effective defense and settlement strategies. Sessions include:

  • Heightened CFPB Scrutiny of the Consumer Finance Industry
  • Update on “Disparate Impact” Theory of Discrimination in Lending Litigation and Enforcement; and The Latest Trends in Predatory and Abusive Lending Claims With a Focus on Discriminatory Pricing and Payday Lending
  • Navigating the Scope of the CFPB’s UDAAP Authority, and Preventing and Defending Against Potential UDAAP Violations and Litigation
  • The Latest Developments in Residential Mortgage Litigation: Defending Against Claims Arising From Loan Servicing, Loss Mitigation, Loan Modification, the New RESPA Rules, TILA Rescission, and More
  • Litigator “War Stories” — Preparing For and Avoiding CFPB Investigations, Managing Litigation and Handling Appeals: Personal Accounts, Practical Approaches and Lessons Learned From Litigators on the Front Line
  • Overcoming Class Action Settlement Hurdles — Guidance in Dealing with the Approval Process, Strategies to Achieve a Successful Outcome and Ethical Considerations in Settlement Negotiations
  • Insights from Speakers at Key Federal and State Agencies on the Latest Regulatory Initiatives, Enforcement Actions and Investigations; Attorney General Lawsuits Against Financial Services Companies and Coordination Efforts with the CFPB
  • The Borrower’s Perspective: Insights From the Plaintiffs’ Bar and Consumer Advocates
  • The Latest on Cybersecurity, Data Loss Prevention and Third-Party Risk Management Within the Financial Services Industry
  • Update on Debt Collection and Credit Reporting Litigation and Enforcement Actions: Effective Defense Strategies for New and Emerging Claims and Government Enforcement Actions Arising From the FDCPA and FCRA
  • The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): The Latest Legal and Case Law Developments, What Lies Ahead, and Solutions for Helping Your Clients Stay Ahead of the Curve in the Face of Complex and Unclear Rules
  • Enhanced Government Scrutiny of Student Loans and Auto Loans: Tackling the Rise in CFPB Enforcement and Litigation, Disparate Impact Claims and Fair Lending Issues, and Private Litigation

New rules on overdraft protections and fees are one of the top items on the CFPB regulatory agenda this year.  In its Fall 2014 Rulemaking Agenda, the CFPB noted that they were “continuing to research overdraft services and considering whether rules governing overdraft and related services are warranted and what such rules may be” and that “a possible rulemaking might include disclosures or address specific acts or practices.”  It is widely expected that the CFPB will propose new overdraft rules in early 2015.

In July 2014, the CFPB released a report that said that small debit card purchases lead to expensive overdraft fees.  According to CFPB Director Cordray, the report showed “that consumers who opt in to overdraft coverage put themselves at serious risk when they use their debit card.” “Despite recent regulatory and industry changes, overdrafts continue to impose heavy costs on consumers who have low account balances and no cushion for error. Overdraft fees should not be ‘gotchas’ when people use their debit cards,” Cordray stated in the accompanying press release.

According to one article in the Credit Union Times, the possible direction of new regulations for overdraft protection was indicated in a letter last fall from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to CFPB Director Richard Cordray, drawing on the agency’s report on overdraft fees.   In that letter, Congresswoman Maloney urged the CFPB to extend opt-in overdraft rules currently applying to ATM withdrawals and non-recurring point-of-sale transactions to include checks and ACH payments.  The article notes that many credit institutions extend automatic overdraft protection unless a customer opts out of it.

Maloney, the top House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, also urged the CFPB to adopt rules requiring overdraft fees to be “reasonable and proportional.” She noted that small overdrafts of $24 were charged a median overdraft fee of $34, yielding a 17,000% interest rate on an overdraft resolved within three days.

You can follow the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor for continued updates on this and other news stories.

On January 5, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it was creating a new complaint portal.  As shown on the FCC form for complaints, which can be found here (Word format) and here (.pdf), this portal is very much designed to capture complaints arising from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and, specifically, automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) use and telemarketing.

The FCC’s consumer database, known as the Consumer Help Center, allows the FCC to assist consumers with submission of complaints, to track complaints, to gather information from the consumer as necessary, to review the complaint, to serve the complaint on the company, and to ensure that the company responds within the required 30-day period.  The Consumer Help Center also makes publicly available specific complaint data, including:

  • Number of complaints by category (including telephone, television, and radio);
  • Number of TCPA complaints by category (including telemarketing, robocalls, and junk faxes); and
  • Number of complaints per state.

The new complaint portal is already developing results showing that half of all complaints involve robocalls and telemarketing calls (8,200 of 16,500 complaints).

The complaint portal appears to be modeled after what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already introduced and been using for the past few years.  Specifically, in June 2012, the CFPB launched its Consumer Complaint Database, which facilitates the submission of consumer complaints and places accountability on the company to respond.  Through the database, the CFPB can track whether a company’s response was timely, how the company responded, and whether the consumer disputed the response.  It also gives the CFPB (and the consumer plaintiffs’ bar) the ability to analyze the complaint data to identify trends, including particular business practices, which influences the CFPB’s regulatory and enforcement agenda.

The FCC’s complaint portal, however, will differ fundamentally from the Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Sentinel Network, which provides members of the network (only law enforcement authorities) with details of consumer complaints to the FTC regarding robocalls and telemarketing.  Sentinel, unlike the FCC’s Consumer Help Center, does not result in referrals of complaints to businesses for response as a matter of routine.

The FCC’s new complaint portal will in effect apply pressure on companies to provide responses to consumers and, in turn, to the FCC.  Indeed, a major lesson from businesses’ experience with the CFPB’s process is that responsiveness to and resolution of complaints is essential to avoiding regulatory attention and action.  Companies within the ambit of the new portal will need to consider building processes and procedures in place to respond to complaints.

On January 16, the American Bankers Association (ABA) issued a letter opposing a proposal offered by the Department of Defense to amend the regulations that implement the Military Lending Act.  Although the ABA had already joined other trade associations in a December 18 joint comment letter criticizing this proposal, the organization submitted this latest letter in response to a December 29 study supporting the DOD proposal published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau entitled “The Extension of High-Cost Credit to Servicemembers and Their Families.”

As we reported in a post on December 31, this CFPB study highlighted the various ways lending institutions have allegedly been exploiting loopholes in the Military Lending Act to exact inflated fees from military personnel.  The study intentionally bolstered the referenced DOD proposal to broaden the scope of the Act to cover a larger swath of credit instruments, including deposit advance products (DAPs) as well as more types of payday, auto title, and installment loans.

In its latest letter, the ABA outlined what it regarded as the shortcomings of the CFPB study and its accompanying comment letter.  According to the ABA, these deficiencies included:

  • Using flawed statistical methods in concluding that military families were disproportionately exposed to DAPs;
  • Urging coverage of DAPs under the Act without addressing the merits of DAPs or otherwise judging their general usefulness;
  • Inappropriately advocating the broadening of the Act’s scope beyond DOD responsibility and resources;
  • Overlooking the impracticality of applying the military annual percentage rate to “mainstream” financial products; and
  • Ignoring concerns about the ability of DOD to handle the significant increase in inquiries into its database to verify military status that would result if its proposal were adopted.

The ABA maintains that, if the DOD amendments were passed, servicemembers and their families would lose access to “valuable mainstream products that will help them manage their finances as effectively as do members of the general population.”

One of the most controversial and significant federal regulatory initiatives in consumer finance is the view of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that credit discrimination can be proven by statistical disparities.

We previously reported here on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a disparate impact case in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities.  We also recently reported here on an analysis from the consulting firm Charles River Associates, which concluded that the CFPB’s proxy analysis was an unreliable method for demonstrating so-called disparate impact.  These developments come in the context of bi-partisan questions from Congress challenging the theory, methodology, and transparency of the CFPB.

Am. Ins. Ass’n v. HUD

There is also, however, recent evidence that challenges to disparate impact have gained some traction in the lower courts as well.  Last month, in Am. Ins. Ass’n v. HUD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155383 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2014), Judge Leon of the Federal District Court for Washington, D.C. struck down a HUD regulation applying a disparate impact theory to Fair Housing Act claims, and indicated that such claims instead must rely upon discriminatory intent.  Although the case did not address liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, upon which the CFPB and other regulators have sought to impose disparate impact on lenders, the language in that statute is similar to the Fair Housing Act.

Judge Leon rejected the defendants’ argument that the Fair Housing Act demonstrates Congress’s intent to recognize disparate impact, holding that Congress included no “effects-based” language specifically focusing on the result of a policy.  According to Judge Leon, Congress intentionally included statutory language to provide for disparate-impact liability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, among other statutes, but did not do so with the Fair Housing Act.  At times, Judge Leon’s opinion expressed a certain level of frustration at disparate impact theory, noting that the language of the Fair Housing Act left the Court

with no doubt that Congress intended the FHA to prohibit intentional discrimination only.  Put simply, Congress knows full well how to provide for disparate-impact liability, … and has made its intent to do so known in the past by including clear effects-based language when it so chooses … .  The fact that this type of effects-based language appears nowhere in the text of the FHA is, to say the least, an insurmountable obstacle to the defendants’ position regarding the plain meaning of the Fair Housing Act.

Id. at *31 (internal citations omitted).  Moreover, the Court explained how, ironically, disparate impact claims would reshape underwriting for homeowners’ insurance from race-neutral to race-based decision making, which would violate other laws prohibiting such decisions:

In order to ensure that their facially neutral underwriting practices do not result in any disparate outcomes amongst protected groups, insurers would be required to turn a blind eye to established actuarial principles in favor of race-based insurance decisions. …  Indeed, insurers would have to use the newly-acquired data to adjust outcomes for individual insureds based solely on this data—i.e. adjusting (upward or downward) the premium charged to achieve parity of impact. …  To the contrary, it is utterly incomprehensible that Congress would intentionally provide for disparate-impact liability against insurers in the FHA, where doing so would require those same insurers to collect and evaluate race-based data, thereby engaging in conduct expressly proscribed by state law.

Id. at *39-40 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In reaching these conclusions, the Court in Am. Ins. Ass’n relied heavily upon the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), which the Court explained “represents a sea change in approach to the analysis of statutory provisions with respect to disparate-impact liability,” by, for the first time, holding that “an inquiry into the availability of disparate-impact liability turns on the presence, or absence, of effects-based language.”  Id. at *42-43.  The Court used Smith to distinguish decisions from eleven Circuit Courts of Appeals that permitted disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act.  The Court concluded its opinion with a stern rebuke of HUD for pursuing disparate-impact based rulemaking under the Fair Housing Act:

This is … yet another example of an Administrative Agency trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to sanction.  While doing so might have been more understandable—and less troubling—prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, in its aftermath it is nothing less than an artful misinterpretation of Congress’s intent that is, frankly, too clever by half.

Id. at *44.     

Christian v. Generation Mortgage Co. 

Earlier this year, another federal district court in Illinois rejected class certification of a disparate impact claim under different circumstances.  In Christian v. Generation Mortgage Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127767 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2014), the Court concluded that a statistical regression analysis would be irrelevant to a disparate impact claim based on pricing disparities under a discretionary pricing policy, because proof of a disparity could not prove the cause of the disparity.  Like the Court in Am. Ins. Ass’n, the Christian Court relied upon recent Supreme Court precedent – this time from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).  The Court explained specifically:

A policy of discretion affords brokers the opportunity to exercise their pricing discretion in a multitude of ways that are purely subjective.  Perhaps the broker deems one borrower to be a better source of future referrals and so extends a slightly better deal.  Another borrower may be a better negotiator, having obtained pre-loan counseling that is recommended by the FDIC.  Another borrower may have options available, such as selling his home, that make him more price sensitive.  Further, … factors that have nothing at all to do with the borrower may influence the exercise of the broker’s pricing discretion.  One broker’s economic situation may dictate an approach to pricing that is more, or less, aggressive; another’s pricing calculus may factor in the intrinsic rewards of helping people stay in their homes while others may be in it only for the money.  The potential distinctions in how individual brokers exercise their pricing discretion are endless, which explains why a regression analysis cannot control for them.  These sorts of factors cannot be ruled out as a factor in a pricing decision that is the product of individual discretion, so even if statistics prove that purely objective factors do not account for a disparate impact, it cannot be said that all such pricing decisions are the product of a common exercise of discretion by the brokers.

Id. at *24-26 (emphasis added).

Conclusion

Meanwhile, however, while challenges to the disparate impact theories appear to be gaining ground, there is no evidence that the CFPB is backing off its expansive view of disparate impact.  In response to Congressional pressure, the CFPB issued guidance documents, reported by us here, reaffirming its view that mere statistical disparities are sufficient to establish credit discrimination.

While two decisions do not add up to a defined trend, they are well-reasoned and may provide assistance to opponents of disparate impact liability as the Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs case works its way towards a possible decision.

An $8 million settlement announced November 19, 2014, between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the nation’s largest “buy here pay here” auto dealer represents yet another warning coming out of Washington, D.C. that:

1. Compliance with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when businesses furnish credit information to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) is a top federal regulatory priority; and

2. The CFPB is creating and enforcing its own debt collection rules applicable to any creditor modeled after those specified for debt collectors under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

While this enforcement action is in the context of a “buy-here pay-here” car dealer operation – DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. (“DriveTime”) – the issues raised apply to any business that reports information to the CRAs or collects consumer debts. Moreover, this enforcement action comes hard on the heels of a $2.75 million settlement of alleged FCRA violations by an auto lender; other settlements against creditors for abusive collection activities; and bulletins issued by the CFPB reminding businesses of their obligations under the FCRA. In particular, the CFPB’s $2.75 million settlement in August 2014 with First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc. involved the alleged distortion of consumer credit records via flaws in the auto lender’s computer system that resulted in the inaccurate furnishing of information to the CRAs. The CFPB-First Investors consent order can be found here.

Here, DriveTime and its finance company affiliate not only agreed to pay an $8 million civil penalty, but also agreed to follow a comprehensive set of compliance requirements for its debt collection and credit reporting operations. In toto, the settlement subjects DriveTime’s debt collection and credit reporting operations to the close supervision of the CFPB for five years.

DriveTime’s specific practices deemed in violation of the FCRA include:

    • Having inadequate written policies governing DriveTime’s furnishing information to the CRAs. Even though written policies are required by Regulation V promulgated under the FCRA, DriveTime’s policies were only one and a half pages long, had not been updated for three years, and omitted any discussion of how to handle consumer disputes of credit information;
    • Reporting inaccurate current balance information on charged off accounts, the timing of repossessions, and the date of first delinquency. At least some of these problems were known to DriveTime and caused by problems converting data from DriveTime’s computer systems to that of a vendor engaged to handle credit reporting to the CRAs; and
    • Failing to properly respond to consumer disputes by investigating the disputes and correcting errors that were detected. DriveTime receives 22,000 disputes a year, which are handled by two employees.

In the settlement, DriveTime agreed to revamp its FCRA compliance procedures and policies in conjunction with a CFPB-approved consultant, to provide a comprehensive plan to the CFPB for improvements, and to report on implementation.

DriveTime’s specific debt-collection practices deemed by the CFPB to constitute unfair harassment of debtors focused on DriveTime’s failure to record and respect “do not call” or DNC requests, including:

    • Calling debtors at their workplace after receiving “do not call” or DNC requests from the debtors;
    • Repeatedly calling third-party references provided by debtors with their credit application, even after the references requested the calls to stop, and discussing the consumer’s debt with the references; and
    • Obtaining telephone numbers from third-party vendors, and repetitively dialing those numbers – even when the numbers were not associated with the debtor – resulting in complete strangers receiving multiple debt-collection calls from DriveTime.

In the settlement, DriveTime agreed to abide by DNC requests, and to take steps to avoid making repetitive calls to third-party references or disclosing the debt to the references. DriveTime also agreed to provide customers with information on how to make requests to limit calls to debtors and to improve its systems to prevent unwanted calls. These conduct agreements are analogous to requirements under the FDCPA that require debt collectors to respect DNC requests and to avoid disclosing to third parties the existence and status of a consumer’s debt. In other words, by way of this settlement, DriveTime is bring required to abide by standards of conduct – in collecting its own debts – analogous to those imposed on third-party debt collectors under the FDCPA, even though DriveTime is not directly subject to the FDCPA. DriveTime also agreed to revamp its debt-collection procedures, to hire a CFPB-approved consultant, to provide a comprehensive plan to the CFPB for improvements, and to report on implementation of this plan.

One other aspect of the settlement is notable. The CFPB has no specific direct supervisory authority over DriveTime, as opposed to large banks and mortgage lenders, among others. Nevertheless, even when the CFPB lacks supervisory authority, the CFPB has jurisdiction to enforce the Dodd-Frank Act’s general Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) protections against essentially any financial services company. Moreover, as part of the settlement, DriveTime agreed to subject itself to the supervisory authority of the CFPB, meaning that the CFPB will have the power to conduct on-site examinations at will.

Finally, we also note that the CFPB has included “buy-here pay-here” auto dealers in its September proposal for regulating larger participants in the nonbank auto finance market. The proposal can be found here. In sum, businesses that think that they are beyond the reach of the CFPB because they are not within its supervisory authority are mistaken and must gauge their compliance efforts accordingly.

On September 25, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a Project Catalyst research pilot to examine the effectiveness of early intervention credit counseling for consumers who are at risk of default on their credit card debt.  The project is aimed at exploring ways to help consumers better manage their credit card debt and avoid default.  “Many people who are having trouble paying their credit card debt could benefit from the help of credit counselors, who can help them create more practical budgets and more manageable schedules to repay debt,” according to the CFPB’s press release.

Barclaycard (Barclays Bank Delaware) and Clarifi (Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Delaware Valley) have partnered on the pilot program.  Barclaycard will offer cardholders who may need help with managing their credit card debt the opportunity to get help from Clarifi.  Cardholders can then choose to enroll in Clarifi’s credit counseling services at no cost to them.  As part of the initiative, Barclaycard and Clarifi have agreed to share insights from their trial project with the CFPB.  This information will be de-identified, and according to the CFPB, appropriate precautions will be taken to ensure that individual consumers cannot be identified through the data.

A recent survey on consumer finances from the Federal Reserve Board shows that the percentage of families with credit card debt declined from 2010 to 2013, ACA International reported.  Median and mean balances for families with credit card debt declined 18 percent and 25 percent, respectively, and the amount of families that pay their complete credit card balances every month has increased.  According to the S&P Experian Consumer Credit Default Indices, national credit default rates increased in August.  Automobile and home sales are on the rise, which indicates more borrowing and may be the cause of the default rate increases.  The CFPB’s research pilot will explore whether certain early intervention strategies can improve consumers’ financial outcomes.  This research may also help inform whether similar strategies could be effective for consumers facing default on other products such as home, auto, or other loans.

“Managing credit card debt can be stressful for consumers and will affect their ability to access credit in the future,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray.  “This project can help us better understand what works and does not work to improve life for consumers in the marketplace.”

 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, under fire from both industry and Congressional constituencies for using unexplained statistical methodologies to reach conclusions that auto lenders have engaged in unlawful credit discrimination, issued a report on September 17 that provided details of its methodologies and argued for their validity.

The CFPB and other federal regulators have generally taken the position that a lender can be shown to have engaged in unlawful discrimination against protected groups through use of a statistical analysis.  The legal theory behind this approach is controversial, as the CFPB takes the position that a lender can be shown to have discriminated on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender based simply on an after-the-fact statistical analysis, without there being any proof whatsoever that the lender intended to discriminate.

Compounding the controversy is that the statistical methods used by the CFPB and other regulators are, at best, imperfect.  As noted by the CFPB in its report, most auto lenders are prohibited by law from collecting demographic data on borrowers.  Therefore, the CFPB’s statistical analysis depends on various attempts to identify the gender, ethnicity, or race of a consumer based on “proxy” data.  According to the report, the “proxy” data used by the CFPB include the consumer’s first name and address.  In the report, the CFPB touts its “proxy” approach as providing a high degree of “correlation” or accuracy in identifying the demographic characteristics of a consumer, ranging from a “correlation” of as little as 0.06 for “American Indians/Alaska Natives” to 0.83 for “Asian/Pacific Islanders.”  However, none of these “correlations” are “perfect” according to the CFPB, meaning that the CFPB itself admits that its approach does not come close to 100 percent accuracy.

As noted in two previous blog entries in March and July, the CFPB has been under fire for failing to explain its statistical approach, even though it was using its unexplained approach to support accusations of credit discrimination that have extracted, so far, more than $100 million in penalties and consumer “remuneration” from auto lenders.  The release of the report may quell accusations that the CFPB has been breaching its own promises of transparency in this area.  However, the report is unlikely to settle the more fundamental controversy over the basic legal foundation of the CFPB’s approach – that a company can be proven to have discriminated based on statistics alone.  Finally, the many critics of the methodology are unlikely to be satisfied by the report, given the admitted substantial shortcomings of the CFPB’s proxy methodology.