FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 23, 2018 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders (lsaunders@nclc.org) or (202) 595-7852; Stephen Rouzer (srouzer@nclc.org) or (202) 595-7847

WASHINGTON – In reaction to a new Bulletin from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) that encourages banks to offer small-dollar loans, advocates at the National Consumer Law Center emphasized that banks must make affordable loans of 36% or less and stay away from rent-a-bank payday loans.

“The OCC bulletin appropriately emphasizes the importance of determining a borrower’s ability to repay, along with reasonable and transparent pricing and terms that do not result in costs disproportionate to the amount borrowed. But banks must go farther and limit the loans to 36% APR or less to avoid high-cost debt-trap lending,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center. “The 36% interest rate cap has a long history going back over 100 years, widespread public support, and increasing acceptance as the dividing line between predatory and mainstream small-dollar loans. Higher interest rates encourage misaligned incentives, with lenders profiting while consumers default.”

The bulletin advises national banks to use internal and external sources to assess creditworthiness and “sound underwriting for credit offered to consumers who have the ability to repay but who do not meet traditional standards.” “Assessing ability to repay by looking at both income and expenses is a cornerstone of responsible lending,” Saunders explained.

While the bulletin only applies to loans over 45 days in length that are outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s payday loan rules, Saunders noted: “The admonition to ‘avoid continuous cycles of debt and costs disproportionate to the amounts borrowed’ should be taken as condemnation of the costly bank payday loans that several national banks offered in the past and must continue to avoid.” Last fall, the OCC rescinded 2013 guidance about bank payday loans, aka “deposit advance products,” but numerous groups wrote an open letter to banks urging them not to re-enter that market.

Saunders praised the warning that the OCC “views unfavorably” banks that partner with payday lenders and other entities to help them evade state interest rate limits that apply to nonbank entities but not to banks. “Since 2003, national banks, which are regulated by the OCC, have stayed out of rent-a-bank lending, and this bulletin is a signal that it must stay that way,” Saunders explained. But high-cost lenders have been using rent-a-bank partnerships with FDIC-supervised banks to avoid state interest rate limits, and Saunders called on the FDIC to stop those abusive arrangements.

“We welcome banks into the small-dollar loan market as long as they offer affordable and responsible loans at 36% or less,” Saunders added. “With their existing infrastructure and knowledge of their customers, banks are well positioned to offer affordable small-dollar loans as a service to their customers that enhances a broader relationship.”

The OCC bulletin follows a letter earlier this month that several national civil rights, faith, and consumer groups wrote to the OCC and other federal regulators urging them to prevent high-cost, usurious loans by banks and credit unions in any form, short- or long-term and whether made directly or through partnerships with non-bank lenders.

Additional Resources:

• Report: Misaligned Incentives: Why High-Rate Installment Lenders Want Borrowers Who Will Default, 2016
• Guidelines for Affordable Small Dollar Loans, 2014
• Report: Why 36%? The History, Use, and Purpose of the 36% Interest Rate Cap, 2013
• Learn more about NCLC’s body of work on high-cost short-term loans.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 23, 2018 || Contacts: Alys Cohen (acohen@nclc.org) or (202) 595-7852; Stephen Rouzer (srouzer@nclc.org) or (202) 595-7847

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Senate’s bill, S. 2155, the “Bank Lobbyist Act,” stripping consumers of key protections Congress enacted after the recent financial crisis that devastated communities and crashed the market. The White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy in support of the bill. The new law rolls back a range of housing and other protections, leaving homeowners more exposed to lending abuses.

“We need a market that works for all borrowers, not a widening of the wealth and fairness gap,” said Alys Cohen, staff attorney in the Washington office of the National Consumer Law Center. “In the guise of relief for small banks, Congress has voted to make it easier to hide information on lending discrimination, to make unaffordable mortgage loans, and to expose rural homeowners to abusive and overpriced loans.”

S. 2155 will enable home lending abuses such as:

• Engaging in race discrimination in mortgage lending without reporting key loan characteristics to regulators for oversight;
• Offering risky adjustable rate mortgages without proper affordability reviews;
• Steering manufactured home borrowers into overpriced loans;
• Making higher-priced mortgage loans to borrowers without an escrow account to shield against payment shock at tax time; and
• Lending in rural areas without a reasonable property valuation.

The bill contains some modest protections related to credit reporting, such as free credit freezes, but preempts state freeze laws that apply to insurance and employment usage and prevents states from adopting stronger measures. The bill also forces Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start over on a process to update their credit scoring models, wasting years of work and delaying an already overdue effort. This provision is seen as a boon to VantageScore, which is a joint venture of the credit bureaus, including Equifax.

S. 2155 also purports to help student loan borrowers “rehabilitate” their private student loans. But in fact, it would allow collectors to use unspecified credit benefits as bait to lure unwitting borrowers into reviving ancient uncollectable debts.

The bill would also increase systemic risk to the entire economy by deregulating 25 of the 38 largest banks in the United States. “Can memories in Congress be this short that we want to again risk devastation for millions of American families?” Cohen asked.

The bill now advances to the President, who is expected to sign it.

There is no full-proof method to stop unwanted robocalls, and real solutions require that the Federal Communications Commission use the laws effectively to regulate robocallers and require phone companies to authenticate all calls. Yet, the following tips can help consumers take some control.

1. File complaints with the Federal Communications Commission: Complaint data is the best tool federal agencies have to gauge the extent of the robocall epidemic. While filing a complaint may not prompt an immediate response, complaint data may prompt the FCC to take action. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is the only legal defense to robocalls and texts made without your consent, and the FCC is tasked with upholding and strengthening the TCPA’s rules and regulations. File a complaint HERE.

2. Add your number to the Do-Not-Call List: While the DNC list does not stop all robocalls, it is a valuable resource for removing your number from the call lists of companies that do not want to violate the law. Sources of robocalls that you do business with, such as banks or student loan servicers, and sources of scam calls that often have no regard for the law, will still get through. Add your number HERE.

3. Revoke consent: If you’re receiving robocalls from a bank, lender, or other company you do business with, they likely have your consent (hidden in the fine print) to robocall you. While they like having the option, it isn’t their right and you can revoke your consent at any time. Tell the caller you “revoke consent.” If the calls continue, contact customer service and tell them that you no do not consent to receive calls and that you want your number to be added to their “do not call” list. This won’t stop illegal scam calls but it will reduce the volume of robocalls you receive.

4. Don’t engage with the caller: Most autodialed robocalls include a prompt to press a key or give a voice command. DON’T! Pressing a key, even if the recording says it’s to remove your number from the list, tells the caller that your number is active and that you’ll likely answer future calls. Even worse, the voice commands can be recorded and used against you by scammers to represent consent to purchase products or services.

5. Don’t answer/block unknown numbers on your mobile device: Easier said than done, this will help avoid robocalls. But important calls can come from unknown numbers and most landline phones don’t have call-blocking features. Plus, listening to voicemails left by robocallers can be just as annoying, and costly (if you purchase phone service by the minute), so use this method as a last resort.

6. Install call-blocking apps: Various call-blocking apps, like YouMail and NoMoRobo, provide a free or low-cost service to mobile smartphone users that filter out identified scam robocalls and allow users to block specific numbers and report the calls. But typically these apps don’t help landline users.

Find more information at the National Consumer Law Center’s Robocalls and Telemarketing page.

Find an attorney that specializes in telemarketing and recorded calls (TCPA)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act allows employers to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses and bans on class actions in employment contracts. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. _____, slip op. at 2 (2018). The decision was a defeat for employee class actions, which will be closely scrutinized in the area of employment law for years to come. However, in dicta that should not be ignored, Justice Gorsuch also hinted at openness to re-examining the foundational administrative law doctrine of Chevron deference. Id. at 19-21. Currently under Chevron, courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law it administers when a statute leaves a gap or ambiguity for the agency to interpret. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). 

“No party to these cases has asked us to reconsider Chevron deference,” Justice Gorsuch’s opinion reads. “But even under Chevron’s terms, no deference is due.” Id. at 19.

Justice Gorsuch here alludes to his much-reported disdain for the Chevron doctrine, most notably his concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J. concurring), in which he called Chevron “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty,” which adds “prodigious new powers to an already titanic administrative state.”

President Trump promised a Justice “in the mold of” Justice Scalia during the run-up to Justice Gorsuch’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia on the bench. Though ideologically and jurisprudentially similar in many ways, Justice Gorsuch’s views on Chevron diverge sharply from Justice Scalia’s. Justice Scalia, no fan of the administrative state, lauded Chevron for its reliability. “Congress now knows that the ambiguities it creates . . . will be resolved . . . not by the courts but by a particular agency,” said Justice Scalia in a 1989 lecture. Antonin Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law, 1989 DUKE L.J. 511, 517 (1989).

However, it remains to be seen what would replace Chevron if Justice Gorsuch has his way. It would almost certainly mean less freedom for agency action. Without Chevron, courts may instead give Skidmore deference to all agency interpretations of law. Broad application of Skidmore deference would increase the role of courts in complex areas of regulation that demand technical expertise and would curtail an agency’s ability to adjust policy to changed circumstances. Skidmore deference gives respect to agency interpretations of law proportional to the “thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade.” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).

Regardless of the future of Chevron, Justice Gorsuch writes that the 2012 NLRB opinion is not owed Chevron deference for at least four reasons: (1) the NLRB was not solely interpreting the law that it administers, Epic Systems, 584 U.S. slip op. at 19; (2) it would be impermissible for the NLRB to “bootstrap” a new interpretation of the Arbitration Act into its interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, the statute it administers, id. at 20; (3) part of the rationale of Chevron is that the democratically elected executive branch can be held accountable by the voters, but here the executive branch “speaks from both sides of its mouth” by filing two briefs on opposite sides of the issue: one from the NLRB and the other from the Solicitor General’s office, id. at 20-21; (4) regardless, the traditional tools of statutory interpretation resolve the issue at Chevron Step One, so there is no ambiguity for the agency to resolve in the first place and therefore no deference is due, id. at 21.

Joey Longley is a 2L at Harvard Law School and a Legal Intern at the National Consumer Law Center. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 17, 2018 || Contacts: Lauren Saunders, lsaunders@nclc.org or (202) 595-7845; Jan Kruse, jkruse@nclc.org; (617) 542-8010

Advocates urge consumer bureau to preserve and enforce the rule, protect consumers against payday lending debt trap

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions—S.J. Res 56 and H.J. Res 122—to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or consumer bureau) payday and car title lending rule will not advance in Congress, as their legislative clock has expired. The CFPB rule, finalized in October, establishes basic consumer protections on these 300% or more interest loans, including the common sense standard that lenders should have to verify a borrower’s ability to repay before making the loan. Consumer and civil rights advocates are urging the consumer bureau to keep intact the rule, which is set to go into effect summer 2019, and to fulfill the bureau’s responsibility to enforce the law.

The CRA is a fast-track legislative tool that allows lawmakers to undo federal regulations years in the making without public hearings with a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate. If invoked, the CRA prohibits a federal agency—like the consumer bureau—from rolling out regulations substantially the same as those it reversed. Since neither chamber brought the payday rule resolutions to a vote during the limited time allotted for a CRA challenge, the important rule was not overturned.

As written, the payday lending rule will result in fewer families falling into financial ruin. At the heart of the rule is the common sense principle of ability to repay based on a borrower’s income and expenses—which means that lenders will be required to determine whether a loan is affordable to the borrower before making it. An affordable loan is one a borrower can reasonably be expected to pay back without re-borrowing or going without the basic necessities of life – like food or rent money. In a 2017 poll of likely voters, more than 70% of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats support this idea. The requirement helps to ensure that a borrower can repay without reborrowing and without defaulting on other expenses—that is, without getting caught in a debt trap.

Even as they prepare for additional threats to the rule, organizations from around the country are lauding the defeat of the CRA resolutions as a victory for communities who came together in a coalition to fight against the payday lending debt trap. More than 1,000 advocacy groups in all 50 states have long been pushing to see this important rule come to fruition, which was developed over the course of more than five and a half years. [Key background points at the bottom.]

Representatives from the Stop the Debt Trap campaign released the following statements:

“Members of Congress were wise not to side with the predatory lenders charging 300% interest who were trying to overturn a common sense rule against deliberately unaffordable loans,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center. “The consumer bureau’s new leadership must also stand with American families, not predatory lenders, and should abandon announced plans to revisit the rule before it even goes into effect.”

“This is welcome news for people across the country and for constituents who reached out to their members of Congress urging them to support this important consumer protection. Payday loans trap people in a vicious cycle of debt with loans costing more than 300% annual interest. The debt trap is their business model, with 75% of loan fees going to people trapped in more than 10 loans a year. This often leads to overdraft fees, involuntary bank account closures, delayed medical care, and even bankruptcy,” said Yana Miles, Senior Legislative Counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending. “The consumer bureau should now focus on enforcing this rule as written and defend it against the payday lenders, who are desperately trying to block the rule from moving forward.”

“A coalition of over 1,000 community, consumer, civil rights, labor, faith-based, veteran, and other types of organizations in all fifty states can claim victory today after calling on the CFPB to issue these consumer protections, and congress to support them,” said José Alcoff, Payday Campaign Manager at Americans for Financial Reform. “Tens of thousands have stood up to payday lenders who have been preying on their communities, and fought to rein in these debt traps at the state and federal levels. The consumer bureau should now prepare to rigidly enforce these protections to show debt trap lenders that no one is above the law.”

“The CFPB’s rule cracking down on predatory payday lenders may have survived a repeal effort by Congress but the industry has been quietly laying the groundwork to secure White House intervention since President Trump was candidate Trump. They spent more than $620,000 to help elect him and more than $1.2 million on his inauguration. Since then, they’ve lobbied the White House, hired his former campaign manager, held their annual conference at one of his luxury golf resorts, begun actively investing in his reelection, and cheered as he selected Mick Mulvaney, an industry champion that has been showered with thousands in payday industry campaign cash, to lead the CFPB. They have every reason to think their investment will pay off despite today’s victory for consumers. Now is not the time for celebration – now is the time to double down and stand up to Trump, Mulvaney, and their predatory payday pals,” said Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress.

“This historic victory is the culmination of years of hard work by consumer advocates. Hundreds of thousands of consumers in Illinois have turned to payday loans, but our laws do not protect them from getting caught in a debt trap – a cycle of repeat borrowing that extends far beyond a single payday,” said Brent Adams, Senior Vice President of Policy and Communication for Woodstock Institute. Adams wrote the State’s first payday loan law in 2005, and regulated the industry as Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation from 2009-2012. Adams went on to say, “These new protections will require payday lenders to do what they should have been doing all along – determining whether the borrower can actually afford to pay back the loan without forgoing basic living expenses like rent, food, and electricity.”

“Payday loan sharks and their congressional chums tried overturn even the CFPB’s most basic protections against predatory lending, but every day people stood up and fought back,” said George Goehl, executive director of People’s Action Institute. “We won’t rest until our government builds and enforces consumer protections that put an end to predatory lending once and for all.”

“While payday lending is most aggressively pitched to communities of color, it is designed to fail consumers of all background. It claims to help people when they’re desperate, but the reality is that too many get stuck with more debt than they can handle. The CFPB rule is based on a principle that most people would agree is obvious: lenders should verify that borrowers can repay their loans. Congress has wisely chosen not to override this rule, so now the administration needs to enforce it,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

“The Consumer Bureau’s compromise-oriented payday lending regulation is a positive first step toward providing adequate protection for the American public,”said Christopher Peterson, Director of Financial Services at the Consumer Federation of America. “Now the Trump Administration needs to stay focused on implementing these rules.”

“UnidosUS, our Affiliate network and the Latino community have long supported efforts to curb the abusive lending practices that target our families and threaten their financial stability,” said Marisabel Torres, Senior Policy Analyst at UnidosUS. “The CFPB’s common sense payday rule was the result of tireless advocacy by people who had experienced first-hand the harmful effects of these products. Congress should work to defend and further strengthen consumer protections, instead of giving into the desires of Wall Street. The CFPB must enforce the rule and stand up to the payday industry.”

“It is encouraging to see Congress support the financial well-being of millions of consumers rather than allowing predatory lenders predatory lenders to continue with business as usual,” said Andrea Levere, President of Prosperity Now. “This victory, made possible by the advocacy of countless constituents and advocates, should serve as a strong signal to the CFPB that it must fully implement and enforce the rule it produced last year, including its ability to repay standard, as well as defend it against efforts that would weaken it.”

Background

• At the heart of the payday lending rule is the common sense principle that lenders check a borrower’s ability to repay before lending money. In a recent poll of likely voters, more than 70% of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats support this idea. This requirement ensures that loans are affordable, meaning a borrower can repay without reborrowing and without defaulting on other expenses.
• Currently, the debt trap is the cornerstone of the payday lending business model – three quarters of all payday loan fees are from borrowers with more than ten loans in the course of a year. The ability-to-pay requirement is a straightforward way to prevent this vicious cycle of debt and support lenders with legitimate business models.
• Payday lenders have anticipated possible crackdowns on their abusive practices and begun morphing their business plans toward other schemes in order to evade the law, such as offering predatory long-term loans. Despite important progress with today’s announcement, the struggle for financial fairness will continue.

For Immediate Release: May 14, 2018  ||  Contact: Anjali Cadambi, 503-984-4020

As the OCC soon clarifies its position on small dollar loans, it should ensure loans are reasonably priced and based on account holders’ income and expenses

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), U.S. PIRG, Missouri Faith Voices—a Federation of Faith in Action, Consumer Federation of America, UnidosUS, and NAACP sent a letter urging federal bank regulators to prevent high-cost loans by banks and credit unions—whether short-term, balloon payment payday loans (also known as “deposit advance” loans) or high-cost longer-term installment loans.

The letter came as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has announced it will soon clarify its position on installment lending. “While financial institutions should be encouraged to make low-cost, affordable small dollar loans, we reject calls for banks to make loans with rates as high as 99%,” the group wrote. In addition, the letter stated that replacing traditional underwriting with a payment-to-income ratio of 5% would result in unaffordable loans for many financially distressed borrowers.

The groups emphasized that loans made by banks should carry interest rates of 36% or less, consistent with the Military Lending Act and the laws of many states. They also urged all regulators to require banks to determine whether borrowers have the ability to repay their loans based on an assessment of the borrower’s income and expenses. Otherwise, banks may lend based on their ability to seize repayment directly from the customer’s next incoming deposit—meaning the bank is repaid but the customer is left without sufficient funds to meet other obligations and expenses.

The letter also urged regulators to keep unaffordable 200-300% short-term balloon-payment payday loans at bay. The OCC’s position on these “deposit advance” payday loans may be in flux. Last October, the OCC rescinded its 2013 guidance curbing those loans in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) announcement that it would put in place ability to repay standards for short-term payday and car-title loans. But the CFPB has since announced it will reconsider its payday loan rule, potentially opening the door for banks to return to toxic 300% payday loans.

Six banks—Wells Fargo, US Bank, Regions Bank, Fifth Third Bank, Bank of Oklahoma and GuarantyBank—were making 200-300% interest predatory payday loans to their own account holders until 2013, when a public outcry and risks to the banks’ safety and soundness led bank regulators to establish commonsense guidelines that curbed these unaffordable loans. The banks were siphoning $500 million annually from customers who were caught in a devastating debt trap structured just like storefront payday lending.

The letter underscores the need for the OCC to reinstate its deposit advance guidance; the FDIC to retain its deposit advance guidance; the Federal Reserve to issue guidance mirroring the OCC’s and FDIC’s; and the CFPB to retain its payday loan rule’s general applicability to short-term bank deposit advance loans.

In addition, the letter urges regulators to prevent banks from engaging in rent-a-bank arrangements with nonbanks, which facilitate nonbank lenders’ ability to rely on banks’ preemption privileges to circumvent state usury laws.

The group of organizations sent their letter to the OCC, National Credit Union Administration, CFPB, FDIC, Federal Reserve System, and the Office of Management and Budget.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 9, 2018 || Contacts: Persis Yu (pyu@nclc.org) or Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org); (617) 542-8010

Boston – In an announcement today that he is closing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Office of Students and Young Consumers, Interim Director Mick Mulvaney has eliminated a key watchdog that has been working to protect 44 million student loan borrowers from rampant abuses by servicers, debt collectors, and predatory lenders.

“Congress charged the consumer bureau with protecting student borrowers from abusive financial lenders who break the law,” said Persis Yu, staff attorney and director of the National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. “The $1.5 trillion-dollar student loan industry needs a tough cop on the beat. Mr. Mulvaney’s action is a naked ploy to silence an effective team looking out for student loan borrowers.”

Under the leadership of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman and his predecessor Rohit Chopra, the Office of Students and Young Consumers has uncovered systemic abuses in student loan servicing, prompting important reforms to the industry. In particular, the Office uncovered problems with the U.S. Department of Education’s implementation of income-driven repayment plans, eventually leading to a lawsuit against student loan servicer Navient for practices that caused borrowers to pay thousands of additional dollars on their federal student loans and added years to their repayment.

“The Office of Students and Young Consumers was instrumental in ensuring that basic consumer protections were a part of the framework to improve student loan servicing practices, promote borrower success, and minimize defaults. It also played a critical role in raising questions about federal loan repayment programs that simply did not work for many low-income borrowers,” said Yu. “The Office of Financial Education is unlikely to be able to play this role.”

“Student loan borrowers need much more than financial education; they need to know that someone at the federal government is putting their interests over big businesses and Wall Street profits,” said Yu. “Mr. Mulvaney’s decision to shutter the consumer bureau’s Office of Students and Young Consumers greatly increases the risk that millions of borrowers, especially those with the least means, will be targeted by emboldened financial wrongdoers. The likely result will trap them into paying unnecessary additional debt for decades.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 8, 2018|| Contact: Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org); (617) 542-8010

Boston – The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to repeal guidance issued in 2013 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help auto finance companies avoid racial and ethnic discrimination by holding them accountable to fair lending laws. “It’s outrageous that Congress voted to claw back this five-year old guidance intended to ensure our auto loan markets are free of racial discrimination,” said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the National Consumer Law Center. The auto finance market unfortunately has a demonstrated history of charging people of color more for their loans than the prices paid by white people with the same creditworthiness.”

The Consumer Bureau guidance was struck down using the fast-track Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows a simple majority vote with limited debate to override public protections. While the CRA gives Congress a narrow window of 60 legislative days to veto new regulations, Congress used a loophole to target the years-old guidance. In April, 64 groups sent a letter to members of the Senate opposing the use of the CRA in this dangerous manner. The CRA resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY). The Senate passed an identical resolution in April. The resolution now moves to President Trump, who is expected to sign it.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age. Auto finance companies that make their loans available through auto dealers have been found to have violated the ECOA by allowing dealers to increase the loan rates of borrowers of color more than for white borrowers for reasons unrelated to creditworthiness.

In the 1990s, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), along with co-counsel, successfully attacked racial discrimination in lending cases through class-action lawsuits against major auto finance companies and banks. In every state, expert analysis – endorsed by courts – found that dealers charged African-Americans more for loans than those taken out by white borrowers of similar creditworthiness. Additionally, when the rates of African-American and compatible white borrowers were both marked up, the African-American borrowers paid significantly more. NCLC’s experts also found statistically significant racial disparities in every state with sufficient data and in every region of the country, and also observed disparities for Hispanics on a national level, but Hispanic origin was not coded on enough loans to analyze state by state. The settlements expired in 2012.

Unfortunately, most of the lenders have returned to the same practices that led to NCLC’s lawsuits. In recent years, the Consumer Bureau and U.S. Department of Justice both concluded that several auto financers’ policy of giving dealers discretion to mark up the interest rate of auto financing resulted in discrimination against borrowers of color. In enforcement actions against Ally Bank, American Honda Finance Co., Fifth Third Bank, and Toyota Motor Credit, the federal agencies found that borrowers of color paid higher interest rates than white borrowers with comparable credit ratings
.

Press

• 3/27/19 Washington Post “Why are we getting so many robocalls?” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 3/16/19 CNBC “Robocalls about your bills can pour in every day, all day” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 10/31/18 Mercury News “Robocalls gone wild end up costing California debt collector $9 million“
• 10/15/18 MarketWatch “Robocall debt collectors see new opportunity under Trump’s FCC” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 8/6/18 CNBC “Don’t pick up (or maybe you should): That annoying robocall could be about your student loans” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 7/17/18 Washington Post “Robo-calls are getting worse. And some big businesses soon could start calling you even more.” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 7/5/18 Detroit Free Press “Could a tsunami of robocalls be headed to our cell phones?” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders
• 6/12/18 Forbes “There Were 4.1 Billion Robocalls Dialed in the U.S. Last Month” quotes NCLC deputy director Carolyn Carter
• 5/24/18 BYU Radio “Robocalls on the Rise” NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders joins Julie Rose for her “Top of Mind” broadcast to discuss the rising toll robocalls take on consumer privacy and what can be done to stop them.
• 5/18/18 Vice: Motherboard “Our Robocall Hell Is a Result of Inconsistent Enforcement and Carrier Apathy”  quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders discusses the failure of telephone service providers and regulators to do enough to stop robocalls.
• 5/16/18 Slate “There Are Two Big Reasons Robocalls Are Getting Worse” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders and explains the FCC’s mistake in only addressing scam robocalls “while largely ignoring the aggressive robocalling behavior of legitimate businesses.”
• 1/17/18 NBC News “It’s not just you–Americans received 30 billion robocalls last year” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders on the volume of robocalls and company’s efforts to amend the rules to make even more robocalls.
• 11/20/17 WIRED “The Robocall Nightmare Is Only Getting Worse–But Help Is Here” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders on the prevalence of unwanted robocalls from banks and debt collectors while the FCC remains focused on scam calls.
• 6/13/17 Boston Globe Editorial “FCC should reject new robocall initiative” quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders on robocalls and the First Amendment.
• 6/6/17 Morning Consult op-ed “Agencies should ensure enforcement of unwanted robocalls, texts” by NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders and Randall A. Snyder argues for greater consumer protections against telemarketers.
• 6/3/17 New York Times “Telemarketers fight to get in with no ring” by Tara Siegel Bernard quotes NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders on the dangers of ringless voicemail. This story also ran in the Boston Globe and the Tampa Bay Times.
• 6/1/17 CBS Evening News (National) 2:01 runtime “Companies want robocalls to go straight to your voicemail” in which Anna Werner interviews NCLC Senior Counsel Margot Saunders.
• 2/8/17 KOMO Radio (Seattle) (3:20 runtime) NCLC attorney Margot Saunders discusses concerns that the FCC might loosen regulations that would allow robocalls by student loan servicers and debt collectors to cellphones without consent with consumer reporter Herb Weisbaum.

Policy Briefs, Reports & Press Releases

2020

• Press release: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case on December 8 that Could Open the Floodgates to More Invasive Robocalls, Dec. 7, 2020
• Issue brief: Robocall Protections: Will the Supreme Court Shield Americans from Unwanted Robocalls?, December 2020
• Policy Brief: How the U.S. Supreme Court Can Shield Americans From Unwanted Robocalls, Dec. 2020
• Press Release: Telecom Carrier and Consumer Groups Stress Critical Need to Maintain Landmark Consumer Privacy Law to Protect Integrity of Communications System and Curb Robocalls in U.S. Supreme Court Case, March 3, 2020

2019

• Press release: Bipartisan TRACED Act Signed Into Law, Latest Tool in Fight Against the Robocall Epidemic, December 30, 2019
• Press release: Are Robot Calls Robocalls? October 21, 2019
• Issue brief: Digital Divide: Millions of Americans Have Limited or No Meaningful Access to the Internet, August 2019
• Press release: Consumer Groups Praise Overwhelming House Passage of Strong Anti-Robocalls Bill, June 24, 2019
• Press Release: Bipartisan House Bill Moves Forward in the Fight to Stop Unwanted Robocalls, July 17, 2019
• Press Release: Bipartisan House Bill is a Significant Step Forward in the Fight to Stop Unwanted Robocalls, June 20, 2019
• Press Statement: FCC Approves Phone Companies Proactively Blocking Robocalls, June 6, 2019
• Press Release: Legislation to Shut Down Unwanted Robocalls Reintroduced, Feb. 4, 2019
• Press release: Consumer Groups Urge Action on Bipartisan Legislation to Stop Misleading “Spoofed” Robocalls, Jan. 17, 2019

2018

• Press Release: FCC Issues Proposed Order to Reduce Wrong Number Robocalls, Nov. 21, 2018
• Press Release: Consumer Groups Welcome Bipartisan Legislation to Stop Misleading “Spoofed” Robocalls, Nov. 16, 2018
• Press Release: Bipartisan Robocall Issue Draws Contrasting Response in U.S. Senate, Aug. 2, 2018
• Press release: Banks, Mortgage Servicers, Student Lenders, and Auto Dealers Push FCC to Weaken Consumer Protections from Unwanted Robocalls, June 26, 2018
• Press release: As Robocall Volume Breaks Records, FCC Could Open the Floodgates to Even More Robocalls, June 7, 2018
• Memo: Amicus Brief Filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Behalf of NCLC and NACA in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Arguing that the FCC’s Pre-2015 Orders Defining a Calling System as a Robodialer Remain in Effect, May 21, 2018
• Press release: NCLC Attorney Margot Saunders Testifies at U.S. Senate Hearing on Stopping Abusive Robocalls; Urges FCC to Strengthen Key Federal Privacy Law, April 18, 2018
• Memo: The Effect of ACA International: What Does it Vacate, What Does it Undermine, What Rules Remain?, April 2, 2018 PDF || MS Word
• Press release: D.C. Court Decision: Ball is Now in FCC Chairman Pai’s Court to Protect Consumers from Robocalls, March 16, 2018
• Press release: Advocates to FCC: Do More, Much More to Block Unwanted Robocalls, Feb. 23, 2018
• Press release: Robocall Problem Even Worse than FTC Data Shows, Jan. 4, 2018

2017

• Press Release: Banking Lobbyists Back FCC Petition to Shield Companies from Penalties for Text Messaging Consumers, Dec. 19, 2017
• Press Release: Consumer Groups Oppose Credit Unions’ Attempts to Robocall, Text Message Customers Without Their Consent, Nov. 7, 2017
• Press Release: FCC Must Protect Consumers from Unwanted Telemarketing and Debt Collection Voicemails, May 18, 2017
• Press Release: FCC Must Resist Industry Pressure to Unleash Incessant Robocalls to Student Loan Borrowers and Their Relatives and Neighbors, Feb. 1, 2017

2016

• Policy Briefs: Amicus Brief to DC Circuit Court by NCLC on behalf of the low-income clients and other consumer groups to defend FCC 2015 Omnibus Order, Jan. 2016
• Press Release: A win for consumers! FCC limits robocalls for collectors of federal student loan debt, August 11, 2016
• Press Release: FCC proposes rules to protect student loan borrowers and other consumers from collectors of federal debt, May 10, 2016

2015

• Press Release: Congress Set to Allow Robocalls to Cellphones, Oct. 27, 2015
• Press Release: FCC Protects Consumers from Unsolicited Robocalls and Texts to Cell Phones and Moves to Modernize Lifeline Program, June 18, 2015
• Press Release: FCC Announces Proposed Ruling Protecting Consumers from Unwanted Robocalls and Texts to Cell Phones, May 28, 2015
• Sign the petition to tell the FCC: NO robocalls to my cell phone
• Press Release: 60,000 consumers tell the FCC: No robocalls to my cellphone, Feb. 19, 2015
• Press Release FCC Poised to Open the Floodgates for Robocalls to Cell Phones, Jan. 2015

Comments and Testimony

2019

• Consumer Groups Comments Urging the FCC to adopt Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59) and Call Authentication Trust Anchor (WC Docket No. 17-97), July 24, 2019
• Group comments to the FCC opposing the petition filed by the P2P Alliance seeking an exemption from the TCPA, July 11, 2019.
• Testimony of NCLC Attorney Margot Saunders before the U.S. House on Legislating to Stop the Onslaught of Annoying Robocalls, April 30, 2019; Press Release
• Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding Illegal Robocalls: Calling All To Stop The Scourge, April 11, 2019; Press Release
• Group comments opposing NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC’s Petition to the FCC for Expedited Declaratory Ruling under the TCPA, March 15, 2019
• Group comments to the FCC Opposing the Petition for Declaratory Ruling Filed by SGS North America re: Telemarketing Robocalls, Jan. 24, 2019

2018

• NCLC Comments to the FCC on the 9th Circuit Marks Decision, Oct. 17, 2018; Group ex-parte supplemental comments, Nov. 13, 2018
• Group comments to the FCC re: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Interpretations in Light of the D.C. Circuit‘s ACA International Decision (CG Docket No. 02-278 and CG Docket No. 18-152), June 13, 2018 and Reply comments; Ex Parte Comments to the FCC, relating to the use of reasonable reliance as a defense to wrong number calls, Jan. 28, 2019
• Consumer groups comments to the FCC in support of the FCC’s consideration of the creation of a reassigned number database, May 29, 2018
• Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the Escalating Problem of Unwanted Robocalls and What To Do About It, April 18, 2018
• Consumer groups comments to the FCC re: Advanced Methods to to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Feb. 22, 2018
• Consumer group comments to the FCC re: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Jan. 23, 2018

2017

• Group comments to FCC re: Petition for Declaratory Ruling by the FHFA on emergency communications by mortgage servicers to borrowers after a declared disaster, Dec. 4, 2017
• Comments of NCLC and other consumer groups to the FCC opposing a request for an exemption from liability by an automated texter, Outcome Health, Nov. 27, 2017.
• Group comments to the FCC opposing the Credit Union National Association petition for exemptions to the TCPA to make robocalls and text messages, Nov. 6, 2017
• Group comments to FCC on the Proposal to Develop a Reassigned Number Database, Aug. 28, 2017; Group Reply Comments, Sept. 26, 2017
• Group comments to FCC on the proposed rules regarding Advanced Methods for Blocking Robocalls, June 30, 2017
• Group comments to FCC opposing Exemptions for Ringless Voice Mail (RVM), May 18, 2017
• Group comments to the FCC re: Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, Feb. 1, 2017

2016

• NCLC comments to the FCC re: procedures relating to retroactive waivers of liability for telemarketing callers and fax senders, Dec. 8, 2016
• Group comments to the FCC requesting additional, clarifying language to healthcare companies petition to exclude telemarketing robocalls without consent, October 18, 2016
• NCLC’s Comments Opposing Professional Services Council Petition for Reconsideration of Broadnet Ruling, Sept. 9, 2016
• Group comments to FCC opposing Mortgage Bankers Association request for exemption to allow robocalls without consent, Aug. 26, 2016
• Petition for Reconsideration of the Federal Communications Commission’s Declaratory Ruling and Request for a Stay re: Broadnet Teleservices, et al, July 26, 2016 || Press Release || Reply comments, Aug. 16, 2016 and Final comments of NCLC and 50 legal aid and public interest groups supporting reconsideration of FCC ruling and request for a stay re: Broadnet Teleservices et al , Aug. 29, 2016 || Reply comments, Sept. 15, 2016
• Comments to the FCC from NCLC and 24 national and state organizations supporting the FCC’s proposed rule to stop unwanted robocalls for federal debt and urging even greater protections, June 6, 2016 and Reply comments, June 21, 2016
• Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation regarding the importance of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to Safeguard Consumers, May 18, 2016
• Group ex parte comments to the FCC opposing Hubbard Broadcasting’s petition for robocall exemptions, Mar. 7, 2016

2015

• Group comments to the FCC on: Blackboard, Edison Electric Institute, and American Gas Asso. petitions regarding the scope of consent to send autodialed calls and texts to cell phones, Aug. 7, 2015
• Comments to the FCC in response to the Commission’s request for comments on the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling and/or Clarification brought by Citizens Bank, March 16, 2015
• NCLC and NACA comments to the FCC re:  ACA International’s Reply Comments re: for Consumer Bankers Association petition re: exemption to the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act, Jan. 2015

2014

• Group comments to the FCC re: opposing the American Bankers Association exemption to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to allow robocalls to cell phones, Dec. 2014
• Group comments to the FCC re:  preserving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) protections for cell phones, Nov. 2014.
• Comments to the Federal Trade Commission regarding the Telemarketing Sales Rule Regulatory Review, Nov. 2014
• Comments to the Federal Communications Commission re:  Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Sept. 26, 2014
• Comments to the FCC opposing change to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to allow marketing robo-calls to cell phones, Aug. 2014
• Joint comments in response to the FCC’s request for comments on the Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and/or Expedited Rulemaking filed by United Healthcare Services, Inc., March 2014

Letters
2019

• Joint Letter to the US House on the “Stopping Bad Robocalls Act,” July 23, 2019
• Ex Parte to supplement the comments filed with the FCC In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Interpretations in Light of the ACA International Decision, Jan. 28, 2019

2018

• Ex Parte regarding meeting between 5 consumer groups and Chairman Pai’s staff regarding pending interpretations of critical terms under the TCPA, Sept. 19, 2018

2017

• Group letter urging FCC to Initiate Enforcement Action Against Navient for Violations of the TCPA, June 14, 2017 Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2

2016

• Group letter to U.S. Senate supporting S 3026 ROBOCOP Act to reduce robocall abuses and opposing S 2644 FCC Reauthorization Act to weaken TCPA, Nov. 15, 2016
• Letter to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology supporting HR 4932 (Robocop Act), Sept. 22, 2016
• Group Letter to the FCC opposing rule allowing federal government contractors to make robocalls to cellphones, July 12, 2016
• Essential Principles of Consumer Protection that the FCC Should Adopt for Calls to Collect Government Debt, March 23, 2016
• Group letter urging U.S. House of Representatives to support HR 4682 Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone call (HANGUP Act), March 11, 2016

2015

• Group letter urging U.S. Senators to support the Help Americans Never Get Unwanted Phone calls (HANGUP) bill, Nov. 2, 2015
• Consumer letter to the FCC re: robocalls to cell phones, June 8, 2015
• Ex parte letter to the FCC re ongoing issues related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, April 2015
• Letter to the FCC regarding a health care industry’s request to eviscerate the TCPA protections against robocalls to cell phones, Feb. 23, 2015
• Response to Ex Parte Presentation of the National Council of Higher Education Resources, Jan 2015
• Ex parte letter to the FCC re ongoing attempts by industry to weaken the consumer protections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Jan. 2015

2014

• Class Actions and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Who Benefits? Seven Myths and Facts, Aug 2014
• Group letter to FCC letter regarding Notice of Ex Parte presentation, May 2014

Litigation

2019

• Amicus brief in Salcedo v. Hanna in support of plaintiff-appellee’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, Sept. 25, 2019
• Amicus brief in Evans v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) arguing that the definition of automated telephone dialing systems (ATDS) under the TCPA should include devices that are able to store numbers and redial them automatically, April 1, 2019
• Amicus brief in Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC. (Federal District Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) arguing that a robocalling telemarketer should not be permitted to evade the consumer protections of the TCPA by inserting a useless dialing agent in the middle of the process, January 24, 2019

2018

• Amicus brief in Marks v. Crunch San Diego arguing the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) pre-2015 orders are still in effect and are binding on Courts, May 21, 2018

2016

• Amicus brief in ACA International, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al, (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) in support of affirmance of the Federal Communications Commission 2015 Omnibus Ruling and Order, January 22, 2016