On February 6, 2019, amidst strong opposition from representatives of consumer groups and some members of Congress, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a proposed rule to revise its controversial November 2017 small-dollar loan rule (2017 Rule). The proposed rule would effectively rescind the 2017 Rule’s requirement that lenders determine a borrower’s ability to repay prior to extending small-dollar and certain other types of covered loans. The proposed rule would not amend the payment provisions of the 2017 Rule, which include a requirement that lenders obtain a new authorization from a consumer to initiate a payment transfer from an account where there have been two consecutive failed attempts to withdraw funds from the same account. The CFPB also proposed to delay the compliance date for the 2017 Rule’s existing ability to repay provisions.
The CFPB’s 2017 Rule, promulgated under former Director Richard Cordray, became effective on January 16, 2018, with most provisions having a mandatory compliance date of August 19, 2019.
Proposed Changes to the Rule
The CFPB proposes to rescind the provisions in the 2017 Rule related to the required ability to pay assessment for covered short-term and longer-term balloon payment loans, and associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements (“Ability to Pay Provisions”). Specifically, the proposal would rescind the following:
As a result of the proposed rescission of these two sections, the CFPB also proposes to rescind the below provisions as they would no longer serve the purposes for which they were included in the 2017 Rule:
As noted above, the CFPB is not proposing to change any of the payment provisions of the 2017 Rule. However, the CFPB has indicated that it will separately examine certain issues, such as whether to exempt debit card payments from the payment provisions and other issues related to the rule that have been brought to its attention by industry participants, and may initiate a separate rulemaking upon review.
CFPB’s Rationale for the Rule Changes
The CFPB puts forth several reasons for rescinding the ability to repay provisions. According to the proposed rule, the CFPB believes that the 2017 Rule’s ability to repay provisions would have the effect of eliminating lenders, thereby decreasing consumer’s access to credit and competition in credit markets.
The CFPB notes that the evidence which supported the promulgation of the identification of unfair and abusive practice provisions of the 2017 Rule “is not sufficiently robust and reliable to support that determination, in light of the impact those provisions will have on the market for covered short-term and longer-term balloon-payment loans, and the ability of consumers to obtain such loans.” In addition, the CFPB noted that, had the evidence been sufficiently robust, the CFPB now believes that it used “problematic approaches … in applying the standards of unfairness and abusiveness.” The CFPB further noted that it has not become aware of any additional evidence that would lead it to conclude such a provision was warranted.
Finally, the CFPB also mentioned that it had received input from industry participants about the onerous nature of the 2017 Rule and the “broader effects” of certain provisions on covered loans.
Impact on Lenders
The proposed rescissions would substantially decrease the significant burdens on lenders that would be imposed by the existing ability to repay requirement. As noted, the 2017 Rule would require lenders to obtain extensive information about a consumer’s finances and use the information to project whether the consumer will be able to make payments for his or her existing payment obligations and the payments under the covered loan and still meet basic living expenses for a period of thirty days. The proposed rule may encourage lenders previously discouraged by the requirements under the 2017 Rule to engage in small-dollar, short-term loans.
Lenders would still be subject to the 2017 Rule’s payment provisions, which require a lender to obtain a new customer authorization to attempt to withdraw funds from a consumer’s account following two consecutive failed attempts to withdraw payments from that account. The provisions also require lenders to provide consumers with a written notice prior to a first attempt to withdraw payment from a checking, savings, or prepaid account and before subsequent attempts to withdraw payments if the payment amounts, dates, or payment channels differ from the first attempt.
Representatives of consumer groups and some Democratic members of Congress strongly oppose the proposed rule and have criticized CFPB Director Kraninger for proposing to roll back the Ability to Pay Provisions. Specifically, Senator Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, stated that “[b]y gutting key protections of the CFPB payday lending rule, Director Kraninger has sided with special interests at the expense of hardworking American families.” Furthermore, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, issued a statement “urg[ing] Director Kraninger to rescind this proposal and work on implementing a comprehensive federal framework -- including strong consumer safeguards, supervision, and robust enforcement -- to protect consumers from the cycle of debt.”
Comments on this proposed rule are due 90 days from publication in the Federal Register.
Proposed Effective Date Delay
The second proposed rule would delay the current August 2019 compliance date for the Ability to Pay Provisions of the existing small-dollar loan rule to November 19, 2020. According to the CFPB, this proposed rule was issued to prevent industry participants from incurring costs to comply with the 2017 Rule, portions of which may be amended or rescinded, and to account for certain implementation challenges raised by participants such as complying with state payday laws with compliance dates prior to August 2019.
Comments on this proposed rule are due 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.
Please contact us if you have any questions about the CFPB’s proposed rule.