The California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) recently concluded that the point of sale consumer financing programs offered by Sezzle, Inc., and another, unnamed party constituted making loans for purposes of the California Financing Law (CFL). A number of payment providers and technology companies have been developing innovative payment options, including consumer financing options, that are facilitated by advances in technology and mobile connectivity. Some market participants have structured their products such that a license should generally not be required under state law. The CDBO’s actions, however, may require companies to revisit that analysis and consider their licensing obligations.
On December 3, 2019, the five federal banking agencies1 issued a joint statement (the “Joint Statement”) regarding the use of alternative data for credit underwriting. The Agencies highlighted potential benefits that may arise from the use of alternative data, including the ability to make faster and more accurate credit determinations and the potential to provide credit at a lower rate or to individuals or small businesses that would otherwise be unable to access it. While the Agencies issued approving language regarding the use of certain types of alternative data, they also cautioned that the use of alternative data may have consumer protection implications, including fair lending, prohibitions against unfair, deceptive or abuse acts or practices and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
On May 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). The Act is effective immediately except as otherwise stated in certain provisions.
The Act makes many significant modifications to the postcrisis financial regulatory framework, although it leaves the core of that framework intact.
One major consequence of the Act may be an increased potential for mergers, acquisitions and organic growth among regional and midsize banks, as well as community banks, because of provisions that increase the thresholds that must be met before various financial regulatory requirements apply.
On November 18, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued final amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) banning payment methods that the FTC believes are disproportionately used by scammers (the Final Rule). The Final Rule follows the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that the FTC published on July 9, 2013. While the Final Rule makes some modifications to the proposed amendments to the TSR that were included in the NPRM, the NPRM was not modified significantly and continues to ban remotely created payment orders (including remotely created checks), cash-to-cash money transfers and cash reload mechanisms in both inbound and outbound telemarketing.
In particular, the FTC rejected many industry comments on the grounds that the commenter did not provide examples or data to support its claims, highlighting the importance of hard evidence in making a case during the FTC’s rulemaking process. Moreover, although the American Bankers Association (ABA) argued that the proposed rule would be a direct and impermissible regulation of banks that exceeds the FTC’s authority, the FTC rejected the ABA’s position.
This Sidley Update briefly summarizes the key components of the Final Rule and the FTC’s analysis in support of its rulemaking.
Cybersecurity attacks have increasingly garnered significant attention this summer—and financial regulators are taking notice and taking action. Earlier in August, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced the indictment of nine players in a major hacking ring. The ring was designed to obtain corporate announcements prior to their public release, to give purchasers of the illegally obtained information an edge in securities trading. The attack combined old-school securities fraud with new-school cybercrime, and served as a reminder of financial markets’ potential vulnerabilities from the ingenuity of cybercriminals.