Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  • May 9, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Deepak Gupta, founding principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; co-author of the ACS Issue Brief: Arbitration as Wealth Transfer

    Yesterday, at a field hearing in New Mexico, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed a watershed new rule to stop banks and lenders from using fine print to prevent consumers from banding together in court.

    Though most of us don’t even know it, we’ve all signed away our away our rights through forced arbitration clauses, which require consumers to bring any claims in a private, corporate justice system that is completely secret. The CFPB’s proposed rule would do two significant things to level the playing field: prohibit clauses that ban group lawsuits and require companies to disclose what happens in arbitration.

    To underscore what’s at stake, let’s recognize forced arbitration for what it really is: a mechanism that quietly transfers giant amounts of wealth from the poor to the rich. As Lina Khan and I explained in our recent ACS issue brief, Arbitration as Wealth Transfer, “the least appreciated effect of arbitration clauses is that companies use this fine print as a license to steal from American consumers.” That should be a cause for widespread alarm.

    Between 2008 and 2012, the CFPB found, 422 consumer financial class-action settlements garnered more than $2 billion in cash relief for consumers and more than $600 million in in-kind relief. And those numbers don’t capture the additional benefits of industry-changing injunctions and deterrence of future bad practices.

    By contrast, what do consumers get from arbitration? It should be no surprise that few consumers with low-value claims successfully advocate for themselves when forced to seek individual relief. But you might be surprised at how few. Of the hundreds of millions of consumers that interact with banks, credit cards, student loans, payday loans, debt collectors, and other companies regulated by the Bureau, how many do you think have won affirmative relief on small-dollar claims in arbitration? Well, the CFPB’s study found that in 2010 and 2011, for the nation’s leading arbitral forum, the number was just four. Not four million, not 400,000, not even 400. Just four.

  • April 11, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Brian Simmonds Marshall, Policy Counsel, Americans for Financial Reform

    The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to invigorate consumer financial protection by consolidating responsibility for those laws’ interpretation and enforcement in a single agency. Even before the CFPB opened its doors, industry forces set out to weaken it through bills that would change its single-director structure, among other means.

    They lost that fight in Congress – repeatedly. But now the CFPB’s opponents have been given a glimmer of hope by the three-judge panel deciding a mortgage firm’s appeal of a CFPB enforcement order. If those judges follow Supreme Court precedent, however, that hope will be short-lived and the challenge to the CFPB’s structure will fail, just as it has in two prior federal district court cases.

    The latest case involves a company, PHH, which has been ordered to pay $109 million in restitution for illegal kickbacks to mortgage insurers that caused PHH’s customers to pay extra. After a full hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and then the CFPB’s Director, PHH appealed the CFPB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Among a slew of arguments raised by the company, the court expressed particular interest in one. The three-judge panel, which will hear oral arguments on April 12, has asked the parties to focus on the constitutionality of statutory limits on the president’s authority to remove the sole head of an agency like the CFPB.

    By statute, the president may remove the CFPB Director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 12 U.S.C. § 549(c)(3). PHH argues that the Constitution requires an agency headed by a single officer to be removable by the president without cause. Fortunately, Supreme Court precedents defining the scope of the removal power foreclose that argument.

    The central flaw of PHH’s argument is that the Constitution is silent about whether an agency should be headed by a committee or a single officer. In fact, prior litigants have argued that multi-member heads of agencies are constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), embracing the view that agencies with a single head or a multi-member commission are constitutionally equivalent.

  • March 25, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Rebecca Leber writes at the New Republic that the Supreme Court could allow the EPA to save thousands of lives in Michigan v. EPA.

    At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick argues that the Supreme Court should never have granted cert. for the EPA case in the first place.

    In Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses the complicated free speech question of the Supreme Court case that considers whether Texas can exclude a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag.

    Leslie Gielow Jacobs also takes a look at Walker v. Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights and considers what to expect from the case.

    A new study from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has found that forced arbitration may harm consumers. 

  • April 15, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Despite the lofty rhetoric to the contrary, the Obama administration has failed to help the scores of Americans thrown out of their homes because of rampant foreclosure fraud. The administration instead chose to try to put a sheen of due diligence on a federal effort to get to the bottom of what David Dayen for Salon calls “the largest consumer fraud in the history of the United States.”

    With the nation’s economy still hobbled by high unemployment and a growing gap between the superwealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Treasury Department recently revealed a pathetic settlement with some of the shady bankers behind the criminal foreclosure schemes that fails to provide little if any help to the millions of victims of the tawdry financial machinations. Part of the problem, as Dayen reports, centers on the fact that the federal government allowed consultants hired by banks to conduct so-called independent reviews of millions of foreclosures. The consultants, Dayen continues, made millions and only completed a tiny portion of “independent reviews” requested by scores of aggrieved homeowners. When the Treasury settled with the bankers it announced the “vast majority" of borrowers  – 3.4 million -- will receive paltry sums, like $300 or less.

    But the Treasury Department’s Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) likely didn’t expect U.S. Senators to dig much into the obviously overblown and flawed review of the millions of foreclosure victims. And they likely were not expecting Elizabeth Warren, one of the nation’s most recognizable and passionate spokespersons on behalf of the middle class, to be holding a U.S. Senate seat and a committee position to zero in on their woefully or intentionally inept handling of the foreclosure crisis. 

    But last week, Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), former Harvard Law School Professor, longtime consumer rights advocate and driving force behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did just that. And it was not the first time the senator has used her platform to highlight the federal government’s bungling of the foreclosure crisis. Last week, as TPM’s Sahil Kapur reported Warren has in just a few months in the Senate “seized opportunities to highlight questionable banking practices an ostensibly lax regulatory response, a chamber frequently criticized for its coziness with Wall Street.”

    During a subcommittee hearing Warren, who as Dayen notes has “a grass-roots army of enthusiastic supporters” and “makes headlines crossing the street,” blasted the OCC regulators for “withholding information they said they possessed about improper foreclosures or other abusive financial practices from victims of those practices seeking recourse in court,” Kapur reported.

    The regulators told Warren they had not made a decision about what information they will make public about criminal foreclosures.

    “So you have made a decision to protect the banks but not a decision to tell the families who were illegally foreclosed against?” Warren asked the regulators.

  • February 4, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Shortly after Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced so-called filibuster reform, TPM reported that the chamber’s chief ringleader of obstruction, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) “bragged” about killing the serious reforms that would have undermined obstructionists’ ability to so effectively wield the tool.

    In this post not long before the “filibuster reform,” was announced I noted that it appeared Reid was prepared to suffer even more obstructionism. (TPM had reported that Reid was ready to forgo a simple-majority vote to make real changes to the filibuster that would require senators to actually mount and sustain a filibuster, instead of relying on an easy and stealthy manner of deploying the filibuster.)

    Then late last week, as reported by TPM’s Brian Beutler, McConnell and 40 of his Republican colleagues promised try again to block the confirmation of Richard Cordray to permanently head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “unless Democrats agree to pass legislation dramatically weakening the agency.”

    President Obama overcame the first Republican blockade of his choice to the head the CFPB via a recess appointment that will leave him on the job until the end of the year. A recent, though widely attacked, opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, found that Obama’s recess appointment of Cordray and three nominees to fill vacant seats on the five-member National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional. The Obama administration has signaled it will appeal the opinion, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney calling it “novel and unprecedented.”