Labor: CFPB warns against mandating use of payroll cards
The CFPBs guidance proves valuable to employers and financial institutions alike who seek to (or already) use payroll card accounts in their business operations.
October 14, 2013 at 04:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is responsible for enforcing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and related Regulation E, recently issued Bulletin 2013-10 explicitly prohibiting the mandatory use of payroll card accounts at an employer-selected financial institution and otherwise discussing the requirements for such use. Of note is the fact that the EFTA and Regulation E specifically preempt any state laws relating to EFTs, unless the state law affords more protection to the consumer. Further, the CFPB has clarified that these regulations apply to both employers and large depository institutions engaged in providing or utilizing payroll card accounts.
Significant guidance within the bulletin includes the CFPB's ban against employer mandates that employees receive wages only on a payroll card of the employer's choosing, and the agency's position that employers must offer wage payments by some other means. Subject to state law requirements, the CFPB approves mandatory direct deposit at a financial institution of the employee's choosing, or, alternatively, allowing the employee to choose among wage deposits at an institution designated by the employer, or a check or cash payment. In the event of a payroll card use, the bulletin also outlines some important consumer protections with which employers and financial institutions must comply, including:
- Disclosures – Regulation E affords payroll card holders the right to receive initial disclosures (at account opening or before the first transfer occurs, unless state law provides for earlier disclosure) of any fees imposed by the financial institution for electronic funds transfers (EFTs) or for the right to make such transfers, as well as various other disclosures, including liability limitations and the types of EFTs that can be made with the payroll card. Each of these disclosures must be “clear and readily understandable, in writing, and in a form the consumer may keep.”
- Access to account history – The payroll card issuer must provide periodic statements as required by Regulation E, or, alternatively, just provide the consumer access to his/her account balance by telephone; an electronic history (such as through the Internet) of account transactions for at least 60 days preceding the electronic account access; and, upon either oral or written request by the consumer, a written history of account transactions for at least 60 days preceding the request. The account transaction history provided electronically or upon request must comply with the requirements for periodic statements under Regulation E, including transaction information; and the amount of any fees imposed during the 60 day period for EFTs, the right to make EFTs, or account maintenance.
- Limited liability for unauthorized transfers – Regulation E's limited liability protections apply to payroll cards, with limited exceptions pertaining to the period in which unauthorized transfers must be reported.
- Error resolution rights – Financial institutions must respond to the consumer's reported errors regarding his/her payroll card account, provided that the report is received within 60 days of the earlier of the consumer's accessing the account history or receiving a written account history reflecting the error, or within 120 days after the alleged error occurs.
As the regulating entity for the EFTA and Regulation E, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the CFPB's guidance proves valuable to employers and financial institutions alike who seek to (or already) use payroll card accounts in their business operations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKeys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
6 minute readLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Apply Now: Superior Court Judge Sought for Mountain Judicial Circuit Bench
- 2Harrisburg Jury Hands Up $1.5M Verdict to Teen Struck by Underinsured Driver
- 3Former Director's Retaliation Suit Cleared to Move Forward Against Hospice Provider
- 4New York Judge Steps Down After Conviction for Intoxicated Driving
- 5Keys to Maximizing Efficiency (and Vibes) When Navigating International Trade Compliance Crosschecks
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250