Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

On September 8, 2023, a federal court struck down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) attempts to supervise institutions for so-called “unfairness discrimination.” The CFPB had previously announced the view that the statutory prohibition on unfairness encompasses a broad-based prohibition on discrimination in an update to its examination manual in March 2022, eliciting substantial objections

It has been more than five years since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has issued a consent order based on alleged violations of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).  On August 17, 2023, the CFPB announced a consent order with a non-bank mortgage lender and a consent order with a real estate brokerage company—totaling nearly $2 million in combined penalties—based on allegations that the mortgage company provided things of value and the real estate brokerage company received things of value in violation of Section 8 of RESPA.  Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the activities at issue in the consent orders are promotional events and marketing services agreements, two arrangements about which the CFPB provided guidance in its Frequently Asked Questions in October 2020. 

Continue Reading RESPA Enforcement is Back! The CFPB Takes Aim at Marketing and Promotional Activities

In the CFPB’s new Supervisory Highlights, the agency concludes that paying individual mortgage loan originators differently for loan products that are brokered out to another lender, as compared to loans that are originated in-house, is a violation of Regulation Z’s Loan Originator Compensation Rule.

The CFPB’s Highlights describe a lender that makes certain mortgage

Last Thursday, the CFPB announced in a blog post that it is considering revising its mortgage servicing rules.  This development follows a request for information from the CFPB last fall seeking public input on, among other things, streamlined loss mitigation options.  The CFPB’s current mortgage servicing rules were promulgated in the wake of the foreclosure crisis and took effect in 2014.  Among other things, the rules create a framework for default servicing under which servicers must evaluate loss mitigation applications according to a prescribed process with deadlines and notice requirements.  The COVID-19 pandemic put this loss mitigation framework to the test as the number of borrowers who had trouble paying their mortgages skyrocketed.

Continue Reading CFPB Announces Plans to Streamline Mortgage Servicing Rules

Please check out the latest edition of our UDAAP Round-Up — a periodic review of federal activities regarding the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAPs”) in the consumer financial services space. In this edition, we cover notable policy, enforcement, and supervisory developments from October 2022 through March 2023

Lead generation and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) compliance remain hot topics following the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) February 2023 advisory opinion regarding digital comparison shopping platforms.  In its March 2023 issue of Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) discusses certain examination observations and regulatory developments, including those related to FDIC-insured banks’ payments for leads under Section 8 of RESPA.  The Highlights indicate that, while fact specific, indicators of risk under RESPA in connection with lead generation arrangements include third parties that do one or more of the following activities:

Continue Reading The FDIC’s Observations on Lead Generation and RESPA Compliance

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has finalized its December 2022 preliminary determination that commercial finance disclosure laws recently enacted in California, New York, Utah and Virginia are not preempted by the federal Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB’s final determination confirms for a wide range of small business financers and brokers that they are

On March 30, 2023, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published its long-awaited final rule requiring lenders to collect and report data about their small business lending activities. The final rule implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was designed to effectuate fair lending laws with respect to women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses. The final rule was issued just one day before a court-mandated deadline for finalization, and more than 10 years after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.


Continue Reading CFPB Finalizes Long-Awaited Small Business Data Collection Rule

In explaining its view of the pleading standards in a disparate treatment discrimination case, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) shed light on its interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act’s (“TILA’s”) appraisal independence standards, providing that a lender is not required to rely on a biased appraisal.

The underlying case relates to a claim that an appraiser undervalued a home because of the homeowners’ race, and that the lender knew of the undervaluation. In mid-March, the CFPB and the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case, addressing the applicability of nondiscrimination principles in the property valuation context. In doing so, the agencies also addressed the federal requirements for appraiser independence.

TILA and its Regulation Z prohibit lenders or other covered persons from coercing, instructing, or inducing an appraiser to cause the appraised value to be based on any factor other than the appraiser’s independent judgment. They also prohibit lenders from suborning any mischaracterization of a property’s appraised value or materially altering a property valuation. A lender that reasonably believes an appraiser has materially violated ethical or professional requirements must report the appraiser to the appropriate state agency. In addition, to comply with Regulation Z’s conflict-of-interest requirements, mortgage lenders generally ensure that the appraiser reports to a person who is not part of the lenders’ loan production function, and that no person in that function is involved in selecting the appraiser. Agencies and investors may impose additional requirements or prohibitions addressing appraisal independence.

The regulations expressly permit a lender to ask the appraiser to consider additional information, provide further detail or explanation, or correct errors. However, lenders must walk a fine line – while they may ask for additional information, explanations, or corrections, they are understandably careful in questioning an appraiser’s conclusions and are limited in their ability to obtain a second appraisal. (For instance, Fannie Mae generally prohibits its lenders from obtaining a second appraisal without a reasonable and documented basis for believing that the first appraisal is flawed.)

Continue Reading CFPB Addresses the Fine Lines of Appraisal Independence

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 Servicing

Continue Reading CFPB Junk Fees Special Edition