What Happened?

On January 24, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a proposed rule that would prohibit covered financial institutions from imposing a nonsufficient funds (NSF) fee when consumers initiate transactions that are instantaneously or near instantaneously declined (the Proposed Rule). According to the CFPB, such fees are not based on the transaction amount or processing cost and take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s lack of understanding of the material risk, costs or conditions of the product or service. In the Preamble to the Proposed Rule, the CFPB recognizes that “currently covered financial institutions rarely charge NSF fees on covered transactions” and, thus, the “CFPB is proposing this rule primarily as a preventive measure.” With that said, the Proposed Rule is significant in that the Bureau also clarifies its approach to assessing abusive practices.

Why is it Important?

Background

In January 2022, the CFPB launched an initiative to reduce certain fees charged by banks and other companies under its jurisdiction, by issuing a Request for Information (Fee RFI) seeking public comment regarding fees that are not “subject to competitive processes that ensure fair pricing.” The CFPB continues to focus on these so-called “junk fees,” which the Bureau described in its Fee RFI, in part, as “fees that far exceed the marginal cost of the service they purport to cover, implying that companies are not just shifting costs to consumers, but rather, taking advantage of a captive relationship with the consumers to drive excess profits.” The Bureau’s attention is now on NSF fees.

The Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule may be narrow in scope, but much broader in potential impact. It would prohibit a “financial institution” from charging an NSF fee to a consumer who attempts to withdraw, debit, pay, or transfer funds from their “account” that is declined instantaneously or near instantaneously by the “financial institution.” For purposes of the Proposed Rule, the term “account” and “financial institution” are defined consistent with Regulation E. Thus, a financial institution includes a bank, savings association, credit union, or any other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer to provide electronic fund transfer services. An account is defined equally broad to include: (i) checking, savings, or other consumer asset account held by a financial institution (directly or indirectly), including certain club accounts, established primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and (ii) a prepaid account. An account would not include, among others, escrow accounts for real estate taxes or insurance or an occasional or incidental credit balance in a credit plan. It is also worth noting that, according to the CFPB, checks and ACH transactions are not covered by the rule unless they evolve in a way to be cleared instantaneously.

While the scope of the Proposed Rule is narrow, the Bureau’s interpretation of abusiveness as articulated in the Proposed Rule is not. By way of background, Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs) under Federal law in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The Proposed Rule finds that charging an NSF fee in instantaneously or near instantaneously declined transactions violates the “lack of understanding” prong of the abusiveness standard. Under the CFPB’s Policy Statement on Abusive Acts or Practices, the “lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service” concerns gaps in understanding affecting consumer decision making.

The Proposed Rule attempts to fine tune the “lack of understanding” analysis by distinguishing prior comments the Bureau made in its 2020 Payday Lending Rule, by clarifying that:

• “[L]ack of understanding under the abusiveness standard of UDAAP is not synonymous with reasonable avoidability under the unfairness standard.”
• Magnitude and risk of harm are distinct and should have no bearing on a “lack of understanding” analysis.
• A consumer’s lack of understanding should not be characterized as general or specific as such framework is unhelpful in determining whether consumers understand the material risks, costs or conditions of a financial product or service.

Under the Proposed Rule, the Bureau has preliminarily determined that the charging of such fee is abusive under Section 1031(d) of the CFPA as it would take “unreasonable advantage of consumers’ lack [of] understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions associated with their deposit accounts” and that “covered financial institutions that charge NSF fees on covered transactions would be benefiting from negative consumer outcomes that result from…a consumer’s lack of understanding.”

The Bureau summarily dismissed that such risks could be mitigated, as disclosure would be too costly, too unfeasible, and unlikely to eliminate the risk. Rather, “[d]rawing on its experience and expertise regarding consumer behavior, the CFPB believes that if a transaction entails material risks or costs and consumers derive minimum or no benefit from the transaction, it is generally reasonable to conclude that consumers who nonetheless went ahead with the transaction did not understand the material risks, costs or the conditions to those risks or costs.”

In other words, the CFPB appears to believe that no consumer would initiate a transaction knowing that they have insufficient funds and that a fee could be charged if their transaction is declined, despite the fact that (1) the vast majority of consumers have readily available access to their bank account balances, (2) such fees are generally disclosed to consumers, and (3) consumers contractually agree to pay such fees.

What Do You Need to Do?

While the Proposed Rule has limited application, the Bureau’s interpretation of the abusiveness standard could have far broader implications, as the Bureau could deem as abusive any fee which it determines provides little to no consumer benefit. For example, it is unclear what would stop the Bureau from prohibiting other fees as abusive, based on a determination that such fees provide little to no consumer benefit and that financial institutions are “benefiting from negative consumer outcomes that result from…a consumer’s lack of understanding,” given that the Bureau’s rationale appears to give little regard to consumer disclosures or contract law.

Therefore, given the potential downstream implications of the CFPB’s broad interpretation of abusiveness, companies subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction should carefully review the Proposed Rule and consider submitting a comment letter, even if the Proposed Rule itself would not directly apply to the company. The Proposed Rule’s comment period expires on March 25, 2024.

[View source.]