Categories
Business Growth Compliance Featured

Staying Ahead of the CFPB Arbitration Rule

Mark Rappaport President Simplicity Division EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Mark Rappaport
President
Simplicity Division
EFG Companies

When the CFPB was created, the Dodd-Frank law gave the CFPB authority to study mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements. Before the CFPB could do anything, they needed to conduct this study, report to Congress, and then propose whatever rule they deemed in the consumer’s best interest.

Last summer, the CFPB proposed a rule that would limit finance companies’ ability to use mandatory predispute arbitration agreements. Under the proposed rule, consumers would not be prohibited from participating in a class-action law suit. The CFPB also put a provision in the proposed rule that would require companies to report individual arbitration awards to the CFPB.

On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced its final version of the rule on arbitration. The final rule has almost all of the exact same provisions as the proposed version from last summer.  The rule specifically states that while finance companies may use arbitration agreements, they are prohibited from preventing consumers from engaging in a class action law suit.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 231 – 190 to revoke the rule, using authority under the Congressional Review Act. A similar resolution is on tap to be debated in the Senate in the coming weeks.

While the rule is currently under debate, lenders everywhere await very eagerly for the final outcome. In the auto finance industry, the rule could put both dealers and lenders at a greater risk for class-action law suits.

Categories
Compliance

CFPB Upheaval

Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had a busy first quarter defending itself. In the process of appealing the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia calling the CFPB “unconstitutionally structured,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 15 state Attorneys General joined the fray of government entities agreeing with the initial ruling.

The DOJ told the D.C. Circuit Court that the ruling should be upheld in its entirety, including the remedy to give President Trump full authority to remove the CFPB’s director at will. Just recently, the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) has joined the call to curb CFPB authority when they submitted a list of suggested regulatory reforms to the Trump administration. At the top of their list, was, of course, a halt to CFPB examinations and a moratorium on the use of disparate impact theory.

Lastly, in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but required plaintiffs to prove that a defendant’s policies could cause disparity. This ruling has significant implications for the CFPB in terms of how it determines disparate impact in auto finance.

Categories
Compliance

Online Reviews and Compliance

Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

Over the last few years, businesses everywhere have been working hard to establish a positive online presence beyond just their website. It’s become standard practice for lenders to be listed on websites like consumeraffairs.com, lendingtree.com, and bankrate.com. The reason behind these listings is to build trust online and develop a brand presence.

After all, it would be extremely difficult to find an industry that hasn’t been affected by the prevalence of consumers who conduct online research for products and services, including reviews, before making a decision. This tends to become more prevalent with services and purchases that could have long-term repercussions, including insurance, loans, credit cards, etc.

Now, you’re probably asking yourself, what does this have to do with compliance?

In this highly integrated world of online reviews and social media, it can be tempting for lenders to use cookie cutter, online review vendors to boost positive reviews while minimizing negative reviews. For example, one widely used tactic across all industries is to utilize contract provisions, including online terms and conditions, to penalize consumers for posting negative reviews or complaints. This specific tactic has been ruled as illegal under the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), which protects people’s ability to share in any forum their honest opinions about a business. Specifically, the CRFA makes it illegal for a company to use a contract provision that: