Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) announced that Scott Bessent, the recently confirmed Treasury secretary, is now the acting director of the Bureau. The announcement comes after the Trump administration fired former Director Rohit Chopra over the weekend. 

Unlike the prior transition to a Trump administration, when then-Director Richard Cordray stayed on through most of the first year of President Trump’s term, the industry expected Director Chopra to be removed immediately due to a 2020 Supreme Court decision that held that the CFPB director may be removed at will by the President. President Biden removed Trump’s Senate-confirmed CFPB director, Kathy Kraninger, using that authority. However, Director Chopra continued to hold his job for almost two weeks after the inauguration. In our view, this delay was expected as the administration had to wait to remove Director Chopra until it had a Senate-confirmed individual who could be appointed to serve as the acting director under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The Trump administration presumably did not want to remove Director Chopra only to have one of his deputies serve as the acting director as the goal of installing Secretary Bessent as the acting director is to quickly shift the priorities of the Bureau.

Continue Reading Acting Director Installed at CFPB: What to Expect in the Months Ahead

On January 27, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Federal Trade Commission’s rule to curb certain practices in the automobile dealer industry was invalid on procedural grounds because the agency did not issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

On January 4, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published a final “Combating Auto Retail Scams Trade Regulation Rule,” or “CARS Rule.” The rule was scheduled to become effective on July 30, 2024. The FTC issued that rule after publishing a proposed rule for public comment in July 2022 and after a series of public roundtables with input from industry participants, consumers, and others.

The final rule provides that certain acts or practices of motor vehicle dealers are prohibited as unfair or deceptive, including misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle or of any add-on product or service (such as extended warranties, service and maintenance plans, payment programs, guaranteed automobile or asset protection (“GAP”) agreements, emergency road service, VIN etching and other theft protection devices, or undercoating). The final rule also would prohibit misrepresentations regarding many other aspects of purchasing or financing a vehicle, or the circumstances under which a vehicle may be repossessed.

The final rule also provides that it is a prohibited unfair or deceptive act or practice not to disclose in advertisements or consumer communications a vehicle’s full cash offering price (excluding only government charges), or not to disclose that an add-on product or service is voluntary (if true). When making any representations about the amount of monthly payments for vehicle financing, the final rule provides that the dealer must disclose the total amount the consumer will pay after making all payments, including the amount of any down payment or trade-in.

As to add-on products or services, the final rule provides that it is a prohibited unfair or deceptive act or practice for a dealer to charge for any such product or service that provides no benefit to the consumer, including certain nitrogen-filled tire-related products or services; products or services that are merely duplicative of otherwise applicable warranty coverage; or any item without the consumer’s express, informed consent.

The auto dealer and finance industries quickly objected to the rule, arguing in part that the FTC did not adequately consider the costs of the rule and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. The FTC then determined that it was in the interests of justice to stay the rule’s effective date to allow for judicial review.

The Fifth Circuit did not address the validity of the rule’s substantive provisions, or the FTC’s authority to declare those or other practices as unfair or deceptive. However, the court held that the final rule is invalid because the FTC did not issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) prior to issuing its proposed rule.

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Vacates the FTC’s CARS Shopping Rule

On January 15, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took three coordinated actions related to home equity contracts or investment transactions. Although none of the CFPB’s actions are binding, and may not reflect the new administration’s views, the CFPB seeks to educate consumers and hints at ways that regulators could address those those transactions moving forward.

Read about the CFPB’s stance on home equity contracts in Mayer Brown’s Legal Update.

What constitutes a “reasonable” ability-to-repay determination when making a mortgage loan? Since the CFPB’s Ability-to-Repay rules became effective in 2014, the clearest answer to that question is that making a qualified mortgage (“QM”) complies (or is presumed to comply) with those rules. However, mortgage lenders serving the non-QM market have few specifications for how they must meet that “reasonable” standard. A recent complaint the CFPB filed against a mortgage lender, alleging that the lender failed that standard, does not add much clarity – only that the agency believes the determination should not be based on “unreasonable,” “implausible,” or “unrealistic” analyses.

On January 6, 2025, the CFPB sued a company that offers manufactured home financing. The agency alleges that the company failed to comply with its obligations under the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z to make reasonable ability-to-repay determinations when offering those mortgage loans.

The CFPB’s Ability-to-Repay rules provide that mortgage lenders may either make QMs (which have relatively strict underwriting and pricing parameters), or lenders may opt for more underwriting flexibility so long as they consider the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio (“DTI”) or residual income, credit history, and other enumerated factors. Beyond that, the requirements for non-QM lending expressly do not mandate specific underwriting standards – they “do not specify how much income is needed to support a particular level of debt or how credit history should be weighed against other factors.”

In the CFPB’s recent lawsuit, the agency accuses a lender of using a residual income model based in some instances on an estimated amount of monthly expenses, and that the estimated expense model was unreasonable. The agency also asserts that the lender did not appropriately consider the borrowers’ lack of assets, the degree to which the borrowers had debts in collection, or the borrowers’ family size. The agency’s complaint also appears to indicate that rates of delinquencies and defaults were evidence that the lender’s ability-to-repay determinations were unreasonable, and that the lender “ignored clear and obvious red flags.”

While the CFPB implies that the lender should have known that certain borrowers could not reasonably repay their loans, and that the lender’s underwriting principles were therefore inadequate, the CFPB has offered little firm guidance on boundaries for non-QMs. In 2016, the CFPB objected to the use of internet-based income estimates, even though the lenders were primarily relying on the borrowers’ assets, and not their income, to determine repayment ability. In 2017, the CFPB objected to lenders’ consideration of the size of the borrowers’ down payment as an asset for purposes of the required repayment determination. Then, in the course of the agency’s reconsideration of its Ability-to-Repay rules and its QM parameters, the agency addressed reliance on bank statements, commenting that reliance on unidentified deposits into a consumer’s account, without confirmation that the funds constitute income, does not comply with the regulation’s verification requirements. Beyond those admonishments, however, the CFPB has not provided specific guidance for complying with the Ability-to-Repay rules for non-QMs.

As the CFPB raced toward today’s change in administration, the recent lawsuit against the manufactured home lender could fall into the regulation-by-enforcement critique. Based solely on the complaint, we know only that the CFPB found that unreasonable analyses may not lead to reasonable ability-to-repay determinations. Of course, the new administration will decide whether or not to continue pursuing the action.

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving no-action letters a second chance. On January 8, 2025, the CFPB issued a policy statement setting forth new procedures for companies to request supervisory and enforcement relief through no-action letters. The policy statement was issued at the same time as a related policy statement setting forth procedures for companies to seek approvals under the CFPB’s Compliance Assistance Sandbox, which would permit companies to rely on certain statutory safe harbor provisions. Both policy statements reestablish programs that had been established in 2019 and rescinded in 2022, following what the CFPB determined were potential abuses and other challenges in connection with the programs. The new policy statements incorporate updates that the CFPB indicates are intended to address those issues and to otherwise improve the effectiveness of the related programs.

For more information, see this Mayer Brown Legal Update.

On January 10, 2025, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”) issued formal guidance asserting that assignees of residential mortgage loans—including certain “passive trusts” that acquire or obtain assignments of residential mortgage loans in Maryland—must become licensed in Maryland prior to April 10, 2025 unless the assignee is expressly exempt under Maryland law. The guidance, which expands on an April 2024 court ruling that an existing assignee of a home equity line of credit was required to obtain a license as a prerequisite to having legal authority to bring a foreclosure action in Maryland court, raises significant questions regarding how the OFR will apply this new licensing requirement, how assignees of residential mortgage loans will respond to the new guidance, and whether and to what extent this guidance will impact the secondary market for Maryland residential mortgage loans.

Maryland’s existing licensing laws do not expressly require a license to purchase closed and funded residential mortgage loans. In April 2024, a decision by the Appellate Court of Maryland, Maryland’s intermediate appeals court, held that the licensing requirement under Maryland’s Credit Grantor provisions that applies to persons who “make” certain open-end home equity lines of credit loans with interest rates and charges exceeding Maryland’s statutory usury limit must be read in a manner that applies to subsequent assignees of such a loan.  The Appellate Court held in Estate of Brown v. Ward that those provisions require assignees of home equity lines of credit made pursuant to the Credit Grantor provisions to hold (1) a Maryland mortgage lender license, and (2) a Maryland Installment Loan license in order to have the legal right to initiate a foreclosure action on the loan, unless the assignee is exempt from licensing. Even though the express statutory language in the Credit Grantor provisions limits the scope of the licensing requirement to a person “making” loans, which arguably is limited to the originating lender that closes and funds the loan, the Appellate Court concluded that because Maryland case law observes “the principle that an assignee ‘succeeds to the same rights and obligations under the loan agreement as its assignor[,]’” an assignee of a loan made subject to the Credit Grantor provisions is subject to any licensing requirements that applied to the originating lender. Thus, the court held that an assignee (including the statutory trust at issue) was required to obtain both an Installment Loan license and a Mortgage Lender license in order to have legal authority to bring a foreclosure action on a loan made subject to the Credit Grantor provisions.

The Ward decision was limited to home equity lines of credit that were specifically made pursuant to the Credit Grantor provisions and did not address whether a statutory trust, or any other assignee, would be required to obtain a license to acquire a loan that was not made pursuant to the Credit Grantor provisions (although the court did express skepticism about the reasoning of certain federal court decisions that held that out-of-state statutory trusts were not subject to licensing requirements under Maryland’s Mortgage Lender Law). Since the parties did not appear to raise that argument, the Ward decision also did not address whether the court’s conclusion would have been different if the national bank that acted as trustee for the trust in Ward—and which, as a national bank, is exempt from licensing under Maryland law—was the party that acquired and held the loans in its capacity as trustee for the trust. 

On January 10, the OFR issued guidance to “clarify” its position on the application of Maryland’s licensing laws to assignees of residential mortgage loans in light of Ward. Despite previously taking the position that a license was not required to purchase closed and funded residential mortgage loans (and issuing regulations consistent with that position), the OFR’s new guidance adopts the court’s reasoning in Ward that an assignee “succeeds to the same rights and obligations as the assignor,” including licensing requirements that applied to the originating lender. The guidance expands the holding in Ward and asserts that any assignee of residential mortgage loans, including “mortgage trusts,” are required to obtain a license under the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law to “acquire or obtain assignments of any mortgage loans,” regardless of lien position. The Mortgage Lender Law exempts, among other entities, federally-chartered banks, Maryland state banks, and insurance companies that are authorized to do business in Maryland, although state banks that are chartered by a state other than Maryland are only exempt if the bank maintains a branch in Maryland. 

Continue Reading Maryland Guidance Applies Licensing Requirements to Assignees of Residential Mortgage Loans

Maryland regulations governing “shared appreciation agreements” become effective November 25, 2024.  After the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation proposed regulations governing required disclosures for shared appreciation agreements in July 2024, the regulations were finalized on October 30, 2024, with no substantive revisions.

As a reminder, a “shared appreciation agreement” is defined for purposes of Maryland’s Credit Grantor mortgage laws as “a writing evidencing a transaction or any option, future, or any other derivative between a person and a consumer where the consumer receives money or any other item of value in exchange for an interest or future interest in a dwelling or residential real estate, or a future obligation to repay a sum on the occurrence of an event such as: (1) the transfer of ownership; (2) a repayment maturity date; (3) the death of the consumer; or (4) any other event contemplated by the writing.”

Below is a summary of the final regulations governing shared appreciation agreements. 

Continue Reading New Disclosure and Other Requirements for Shared Appreciation Agreements Take Effect in Maryland

On October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) marked a significant milestone in the shift towards open banking in the United States with the finalization of its rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights. As we discussed in our Legal Update on the October 2023 proposed rule, the final rule provides the long-awaited implementation of Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, and establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework to provide consumers—and their authorized third parties—with rights to receive structured, consistent and timely access to consumers’ personal financial data held by financial institutions and other financial services providers.

The 594-page final rule is intended to allow consumers to access and share data held by banks, credit unions, credit card issuers, digital wallets, payment apps and other financial service providers, with the goal of improving customer choice and increasing competition, while strengthening consumer protections by imposing limitations on authorized third parties’ collection, use and retention of consumers’ data. Financial institutions subject to the final rule could face a variety of compliance, operational and technical challenges as they build out the infrastructure necessary to comply with the final rule. For the largest financial institutions, which include depository institutions with total assets in excess of $250 billion and non-depository institutions that generated at least $10 billion in total receipts in either calendar year 2023 or calendar year 2024, compliance is required by April 1, 2026, with compliance by smaller covered institutions required in phases beginning April 1, 2027, through April 1, 2030.

Continue Reading CFPB Issues Long-Awaited Open Banking Rule; Lawsuit Immediately Filed

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