On January 13, 2021, the Bureau issued a guidance statement regarding the provision of financial products and services to consumers with limited English proficiency (the Statement). In the Statement, the Bureau defines a consumer with “limited English proficiency” or a “limited English proficient” (LEP) consumer as a person who has a limited ability to read,
On October 30, 2020, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a final rule, Regulation F, to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The final rule comes nearly 18 months after the proposed rule and more than four years after the CFPB first released an initial outline of debt collection proposals. The final rule…
Last week, a pair of fair housing organizations got their wish when a federal judge in Massachusetts granted their request for a preliminary injunction and stay of the effective date of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) new disparate impact rule (the “2020 Rule”), discussed in our recent fair lending newsletter. Plaintiffs Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and Housing Works, Inc. filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to vacate HUD’s 2020 Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), on the grounds that it is “contrary to law,” “arbitrary and capricious,” and that certain of its provisions violate the APA’s notice and comment requirements. The court only addressed the plaintiffs’ second argument—that the 2020 Rule is arbitrary and capricious—which it found was likely meritorious.
The court compared the disparate impact rule HUD had issued in 2013 (“2013 Rule”) to the 2020 Rule. Both versions of the rule state the general premise that liability may be established under the Fair Housing Act based on a practice’s discriminatory effect, if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent. But as the court noted, the 2020 Rule significantly altered the 2013 Rule’s standards. The court found that the changes HUD had made constituted a “massive overhaul” of HUD’s disparate impact standards, by introducing onerous pleading requirements on plaintiffs while simultaneously easing the burden on defendants and arming them with broad new defenses.…
Continue Reading More Uncertainty around the Future of the Disparate Impact Theory of Liability
Yesterday, we issued the inaugural edition of Mayer Brown’s Fair Lending Newsletter. Our goal in publishing this newsletter is to provide you with a quarterly resource covering the most notable fair-lending developments of the past three months. In this edition, we cover various topics, from the current state of fair lending at federal government agencies…
On Monday, October 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a policy statement on early termination of consent orders. Recognizing that there may be “exceptional circumstances” where it is appropriate to terminate a consent order before its expiration date, the policy statement explains the process by which an entity subject to a consent order can apply for early termination and the criteria that the Bureau will consider in assessing such an application.
As a threshold matter, the entity must (of course) have actually complied with the terms and conditions of the consent order. But certain persons and orders are de facto ineligible for early termination. If the consent order imposes a ban on participating in a certain industry or involves violations of an earlier Bureau order, for example, or when there has been any criminal action related to the violations in the order, then the order is excluded from the policy and cannot be terminated early. Additionally, because natural persons, unlike entities, cannot make the same demonstration about being in a “satisfactory” compliance position—and the Bureau believes it would be impractical to undertake a review of whether individuals are likely to comply with the law in the future—early termination is not an option for individuals who have settled with the Bureau.
Early termination under the policy is only going to be available for orders issued through the administrative process, …
Continue Reading Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Announces Policy on Early Termination of Consent Orders
On September 15, 2020, the CFPB published a detailed outline of proposed options it is considering to implement a rule under Section 1071 of the Dodd Frank Act. Ten years ago, Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require that financial institutions collect and report information concerning credit applications made by women- or minority-owned businesses and by small businesses. Although the CFPB was tasked with drafting rules to implement Section 1071, it did not take significant steps to meet that obligation until 2017, when it reported on some preliminary research, and then later in November 2019, when it held an information-gathering symposium.
As we previously noted, once Section 1071 is implemented, certain financial institutions will be required to collect information regarding the race, sex, and ethnicity of the principal owners of small businesses and women- and minority-owned businesses and submit this information to the CFPB, similar to what is currently required by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act for mortgage loans. The CFPB’s outline released this week proposes several potential options for developing the small business lending data collection rule and is a precursor to any future proposed rulemaking. At this stage, the CFPB is seeking feedback on the direction of the rule. Feedback and comments on the scope of the rule can be sent to 2020-SBREFAemail@example.com until December 14, 2020. The CFPB is also seeking feedback on the potential impacts on small business entities and has requested submission of such feedback by November 9, 2020.
Below, we summarize the key aspects of the Bureau’s outline and its proposals regarding the scope of the rule.…
Continue Reading CFPB Finally Makes Progress on Implementing Small Business Lending Data Collection Requirements
On July 30, 2020, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (“NCRC”) and several other consumer advocacy organizations filed suit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”), claiming that the Bureau’s recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) rulemaking violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The challenged rule increases the loan-volume reporting thresholds under Regulation C, which implements HMDA. Under the new rule, entities that originate fewer than 100 qualifying closed-end mortgage loans or fewer than 200 qualifying open-end lines of credit would not be required to collect and report data regarding their mortgage lending activities. The plaintiffs filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and are requesting that the court vacate the new rule and require the Bureau to return to the prior thresholds.
HMDA requires mortgage lenders that originate a minimum number of mortgage loans to collect, report, and disclose certain information related to their mortgage origination and purchase activities. The law’s primary purpose is to provide the public with information on lending practices, including whether lenders are meeting the housing needs of certain communities or potentially engaging in discriminatory practices. HMDA data is a critical tool for plaintiffs and regulators assessing disparate impact claims. The appropriate framework for bringing disparate impact claims has been the subject of recent controversy, with key industry stakeholders asking the Department of Housing and Urban Development to hold off on finalizing its 2019 Proposed Disparate Impact Rule. Regardless of the specifics of the disparate impact legal framework, HMDA data remains a critical component for bringing (and defending) disparate impact claims in mortgage lending. …
Continue Reading NCRC Files Suit Against CFPB over HMDA Reporting Thresholds
On July 28, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) published a request for information (RFI) on opportunities for the Bureau to clarify the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s (ECOA) implementing regulation, Regulation B, in a way that prevents credit discrimination and promotes credit access and innovation. The Bureau seeks feedback on a diverse set of topics, though the request is not limited to the below topics. Commenters are encouraged to address any aspects of ensuring fair access to credit and promoting innovation.
Arguably the most controversial topic in the RFI is the Bureau’s request for feedback on the appropriate framework for assessing disparate impact claims under ECOA. In 2019, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed disparate impact rule that purports to align HUD’s 2013 disparate impact rule with the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., a landmark Fair Housing Act case. HUD’s proposed rule has been the subject of significant controversy, with consumer advocacy groups arguing that it goes beyond the Supreme Court’s decision and that the heightened pleading standards outlined in the proposed rule would impermissibly extinguish the viability of disparate impact claims in the future. And recently, several of the largest banks and non-bank mortgage lenders, along with several trade associations, have asked HUD to hold off on finalizing the rule and bring key stakeholders together to discuss the disparate impact framework. Nevertheless, HUD has indicated that it plans to move forward with the implementation of the rule. If the CFPB outlines a framework for assessing disparate impact claims under ECOA that is different than the framework HUD ultimately implements, this could lead to significant uncertainty for the mortgage industry, because it is subject to both ECOA and the Fair Housing Act.
The RFI also seeks comments on whether and how the Bureau should clarify its interpretation of ECOA and Regulation B to facilitate innovation in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), such as by modifying adverse action notice requirements in connection with credit underwriting decisions based in part on models using AI or ML. This request comes just weeks after the CFPB published a blog post addressing how adverse action notice requirements under ECOA and Regulation B apply to AI-driven credit decisions. The blog post suggests that the existing official commentary to the Regulation B allows for some flexibility in how creditors explain decisions to applicants. But the CFPB is interested in understanding how creditors are determining the “principal reasons” for a denial, and how to best convey those reasons. Accordingly, in the blog post, the CFPB encouraged institutions to use its regulatory sandbox, trial disclosure program, and no-action letter process to explore creative ways of informing consumers of the reasons for denial when using complex AI/ML algorithms. The RFI is an opportunity for entities to suggest other ways for the Bureau to clarify its interpretation of ECOA.…
Continue Reading CFPB Seeks Input on Fair Lending Laws and Interpretations to Help Foster Innovation and Prevent Credit Discrimination
Earlier this week the CFPB released an interim final rule that allows mortgage servicers flexibility to offer additional short-term loss mitigation options to borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The mortgage servicing rules include many requirements for the servicing of mortgage loans in default, including limitations on the types of loss mitigation that may be offered in certain instances. The unique challenges facing servicers and borrowers in the wake of the pandemic, as well as the unique loss mitigation options being announced by federal housing agencies designed to assist borrowers negatively impacted by COVID-19 that do not fit neatly into the CFPB’s existing servicing requirements, have prompted the CFPB to amend those rules to provide servicers with additional flexibility. …
Continue Reading CFPB Provides Relief to Servicers Offering Loss Mitigation in Wake of Pandemic
On Thursday, June 18, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) announced a new pilot program to issue advisory opinions (“Pilot AO Program”) on areas of regulatory or statutory uncertainty. The CFPB simultaneously issued a proposed procedural rule on a permanent advisory opinion program (“AO Program”). The Bureau intends to issue advisory opinions (“AOs”) to address ambiguities in legal requirements that are not suited to be addressed through other Bureau programs such as the Regulatory Inquiries Function and Compliance Aids. The proposed AO Program comes more than two years after industry participants requested such a program in response to the Bureau’s March 2018 Request for Information Regarding Bureau Guidance and Implementation Support.
The proposed AO Program is similar to those offered by other state and federal regulators and, if implemented properly, could provide much needed certainty for regulated entities and consumers alike. The AO Program is intended to address areas of regulatory and statutory uncertainty and provide publicly available guidance for similarly situated parties and affected persons. AOs will be issued as interpretive rules under the Administrative Procedures Act, published in the Federal Register, and signed by the Director of the CFPB. Where information submitted to the Bureau is information the requestor would not normally make public, however, the Bureau will treat it as confidential to the extent applicable under its confidentiality regulations. The CFPB will summarize the material facts of the request, and the AOs will apply to situations that conform to those facts. The AO will also indicate where a safe harbor may apply, such as those under certain consumer financial protection laws. The AO Program is not intended for situations that would require a regulatory change or to create bright-line rules where the regulation or statute is intended to require a fact-intensive analysis.
The AO Program will focus on four of the Bureau’s five statutory objectives under 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)—namely, that: (1) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (2) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; (3) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and (4) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
Notably, the Bureau will not use the AO Program to address the statutory objective that “consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination,” stating that “other regulatory tools are often more suitable for addressing” these issues.