Auto Lending

Subscribe to Auto Lending

For the most recent edition of Supervisory Highlights, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau focused on examiners’ findings in the auto finance sector. Several of these practices were identified by the CFPB in prior Supervisory Highlights. Many of the CFPB’s concerns relate to trends in the marketing, sales, financing, and refunds related to add-on products like optional vehicle- or payment-protection, and to consumers’ difficulty in cancelling those products or receiving refunds. The Federal Trade Commission and state regulators also have prioritized these areas, and several states have recently passed legislation addressing add-on products (including refunds, cancellation and notification). In several of the findings, the CFPB noted that the failures related to inadequate oversight of service providers, reflecting another recurring theme in CFPB’s compliance management expectations.

The CFPB has framed many of these targeted practices as unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”), which is consistent with certain of the agency’s recent consent orders or suits related to auto servicing practices.

In response to the findings, the CFPB generally demanded ceasing the allegedly noncompliant practices, developing policies and procedures to ensure compliance going forward, and in some cases refunding amounts to consumers.

Motor vehicle dealers, auto finance companies, servicers and secondary market purchasers of auto loans should take note of these highlighted practices when evaluating their policies and procedures.Continue Reading CFPB Supervisory Highlights Target Certain Auto Lending and Servicing Practices

In response to the significant ambiguities raised by New Hampshire’s recent amendments to its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act — not to mention their immediate effectiveness and draconian liability provisions — the state’s Banking Department has issued several nuggets of guidance.

Recently, the Department sought to address the pressing question of whether persons involved in various financing transactions and securitizations involving motor vehicle retail installment contracts must now obtain a license. As of August 26, 2024, the Department’s web site states that securitization trusts that are established for the purpose of pooling retail installment contracts and reconstituting them into securities are not required to obtain a sales finance company license in the state. While the Department stated further that the licensing requirement will typically be fulfilled by the servicer or other entity responsible for servicing the contracts in the securitization trust, it did not expressly address the licensing obligations applicable in other types of financing transactions or to other types of special purpose entities. We expect that a similar licensing exemption would apply to those transactions and entities, because the servicer would need to be licensed or an exempt entity.Continue Reading New Hampshire Banking Department Clarifies Licensing for Motor Vehicle Financing

On August 2, 2024, New Hampshire enacted legislation that significantly revises its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, effective July 1, 2024.

Unfortunately, that effective date is not a typographical error. The New Hampshire Banking Department apparently tried during the legislative process to extend the effective date until January 1, 2025, but that extension did not make it into the enacted bill. While the bill was enacted with an effective date of July 1, 2024, the Department attempts at least to provide assurances that the bill became effective upon signing, and not retroactively. Still, the effective date of the amendments is just one of the topics requiring clarification.Continue Reading New Hampshire Significantly Amends its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment and Sales Finance Company Act

Mayer Brown has published a new edition of Licensing Link, a periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.

In this issue, we…

Mayer Brown has published a new edition of Licensing Link, a periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.

In this issue, we…

Mayer Brown is publishing its first edition of Licensing Link, a new periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.

In this…

The CFPB marketed its latest set of supervisory highlights as the “Junk Fees Special Edition.” The splashy headline is consistent with the agency’s recent focus on fees that it asserts are hidden from the competitive process. In speeches, press releases, and blog posts (and now a single proposed rule), the CFPB has stressed its growing concern with “junk” fees. The CFPB even created a section of its web site solely devoted to press releases on “junk” fees.

Gleaning compliance guidance from Supervisory Highlights is not always straightforward, as they do not provide full details. However, in this Special Edition, the CFPB notes that it has characterized the following types of fees and practices as junk:

Deposit Accounts

  • Overdraft Fees – specifically, those charged when the consumer had a sufficient balance when the financial institution authorized the transaction, but not at the time of settlement.
  • Multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees for the Same Transaction.

Auto/Title Financing

  • Late Fees that Exceed the Credit Contract or After Acceleration/Repossession.
  • Estimated Repossession Fees that Greatly Exceed Average Costs – even if the excess was refunded.
  • Payment Processing Fees – specifically, those that exceed processing costs, when free payment options are only available for checks or ACH transfers.
  • Fees to Retrieve Personal Property from Repossessed Vehicles – the CFPB said such fees were “unexpected” and unfair.
  • Premature Repossession and Related Fees – charging late fees and repossessing vehicles before title loan payments became due.

Mortgage Loan ServicingContinue Reading CFPB Junk Fees Special Edition

In February, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) amended its interpretation of the Military Lending Act (“MLA”). The amendment should make it easier for many lenders to provide guaranteed asset protection (“GAP”) insurance or other credit insurance in connection with auto loans to covered servicemembers or their dependents.

MLA and “Q&A #2”

The MLA prohibits creditors…

Earlier this month, the Bureau released its Summer 2019 edition of Supervisory Highlights.  This is the second edition issued under Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger, who was confirmed to a five-year term in December 2018.  The report covers examinations that were generally completed between December 2018 and March 2019 and, as such, is the first edition of Supervisory Highlights to cover examination activities that occurred during Kraninger’s tenure as Director.  This edition is much the same as previous editions, but unlike many past versions, it does not address any mortgage servicing-related findings.  Instead the report focuses on, among other things, UDAAPs (including, notably, an abusiveness finding), furnishing of consumer report information, and technical regulatory violations.  The report also details supervision program developments.

Remarkably, there is no mention of any public enforcement action resulting from supervisory examination work.  It is standard practice for the Bureau to use these reports to tout both public and nonpublic remedial actions that stemmed from examinations—but here we don’t see that, and it is not clear whether that is because none of the enforcement actions the Bureau has taken as of late actually came out of supervisory exams or if they chose not to highlight remedial actions for some other reason. 
Continue Reading CFPB’s Latest Supervisory Highlights Focuses on UDAAPs, Furnishing, and Technical Regulatory Requirements

Earlier this week, the Bureau released the Winter 2019 edition of Supervisory Highlights.  This marks the first edition issued under the CFPB’s new Director, Kathy Kraninger, who was confirmed to a five-year term in December.  The report describes observations from examinations that were generally completed between June and November 2018 and summarizes recent publicly-released enforcement actions and guidance.

Like the sole edition of Supervisory Highlights issued under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s tenure, this edition emphasizes that “it is important to keep in mind that institutions are subject only to the requirements of relevant laws and regulations,” and that the purpose of disseminating Supervisory Highlights is to “help institutions better understand” how the Bureau examines them for compliance—statements that signal a shift in how the Bureau approaches its supervisory role.
Continue Reading First Supervisory Highlights Under Director Kraninger Reflects Focus on Corrective Action and Prevention of Harm