Regulatory: Keeping the bureau at bay
Effectively managing the risks of UDAAP under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act is essential.
August 24, 2011 at 05:56 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This column is part of a series of articles on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the upcoming wave of regulations affecting the consumer financial industry.
For banks and other financial services companies, the Dodd-Frank Act's prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) are suddenly a top compliance risk. Consumer financial products and services must now meet amorphous and, let's face it, subjective standards that can easily be used by regulators and others to meet statutory and regulatory gaps, and to achieve policy goals, some of which may not yet be revealed.
It is a new world with new risks. Surmounting the UDAAP challenges on the horizon will ultimately require fundamental changes in the way we approach compliance. If you have any doubt, just ask yourself if your compliance functions are meant to ferret out consumer fairness. Like it or not, UDAAP is about fairness.
Because the law of UDAAP is so nebulous, unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to know, let alone eliminate, all of the risks that are out there. But all hope is not lost.
Conduct a UDAAP audit. Review program and product materials, disclosures, and customer lists for red flags such as a substantial number of customers receiving terms less favorable than those advertised. The audit should include a review of every consumer product and service (and related marketing activity) in the organization. Things such as deposit accounts, underwriting and data security are easily overlooked but nonetheless covered by UDAAP.
Incentivize compliance and ethical conduct. Affirmatively discourage troublesome conduct. Do not incentivize employees to make misleading statements. Scrutinize sales programs that reward extra charges.
Facilitate informed choices. Focus customer attention on limitations, conditions and other key terms. Make product and program documents readable and understandable. The bureau is focused like a laser on making disclosures simple. You should be, too.
Be proactive, not reactive. Seek out input from consumers and employees. Make it safe for employees to raise questions or concerns about products. Consolidate review of customer complaints so that discernable complaint trends are not just blown off because the products technically comply with black-letter law. If public controversy starts to develop around a product or service, scrutinize it rather than reactively defending it. Conduct adequate due diligence on all new products and third-party service providers.
Keep suitability considerations front-of-mind. If you do not, the regulators and courts might just do it for you.
Make no mistake about it: the paradigm has shifted with the passage of UDAAP. Where business lines could previously push back on compliance with, “Where does it say we cannot do that?,” the risk of capitulating to the absence of specific guidance has significantly increased even though there may be nothing for compliance to point to in response. Nothing, that is, except for UDAAP.
One may be tempted to put off getting ready for UDAAP. Do not wait. While there will certainly be struggles over the bureau's power for the foreseeable future, and the bureau will undoubtedly issue regulatory guidance and some clarifications about what UDAAP means and how it will be enforced, that will not stop the potential for enforcement actions. Get out in front of that wave and proactively begin your UDAAP preparations and transformations today.
This column is part of a series of articles on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the upcoming wave of regulations affecting the consumer financial industry.
For banks and other financial services companies, the Dodd-Frank Act's prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) are suddenly a top compliance risk. Consumer financial products and services must now meet amorphous and, let's face it, subjective standards that can easily be used by regulators and others to meet statutory and regulatory gaps, and to achieve policy goals, some of which may not yet be revealed.
It is a new world with new risks. Surmounting the UDAAP challenges on the horizon will ultimately require fundamental changes in the way we approach compliance. If you have any doubt, just ask yourself if your compliance functions are meant to ferret out consumer fairness. Like it or not, UDAAP is about fairness.
Because the law of UDAAP is so nebulous, unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to know, let alone eliminate, all of the risks that are out there. But all hope is not lost.
Conduct a UDAAP audit. Review program and product materials, disclosures, and customer lists for red flags such as a substantial number of customers receiving terms less favorable than those advertised. The audit should include a review of every consumer product and service (and related marketing activity) in the organization. Things such as deposit accounts, underwriting and data security are easily overlooked but nonetheless covered by UDAAP.
Incentivize compliance and ethical conduct. Affirmatively discourage troublesome conduct. Do not incentivize employees to make misleading statements. Scrutinize sales programs that reward extra charges.
Facilitate informed choices. Focus customer attention on limitations, conditions and other key terms. Make product and program documents readable and understandable. The bureau is focused like a laser on making disclosures simple. You should be, too.
Be proactive, not reactive. Seek out input from consumers and employees. Make it safe for employees to raise questions or concerns about products. Consolidate review of customer complaints so that discernable complaint trends are not just blown off because the products technically comply with black-letter law. If public controversy starts to develop around a product or service, scrutinize it rather than reactively defending it. Conduct adequate due diligence on all new products and third-party service providers.
Keep suitability considerations front-of-mind. If you do not, the regulators and courts might just do it for you.
Make no mistake about it: the paradigm has shifted with the passage of UDAAP. Where business lines could previously push back on compliance with, “Where does it say we cannot do that?,” the risk of capitulating to the absence of specific guidance has significantly increased even though there may be nothing for compliance to point to in response. Nothing, that is, except for UDAAP.
One may be tempted to put off getting ready for UDAAP. Do not wait. While there will certainly be struggles over the bureau's power for the foreseeable future, and the bureau will undoubtedly issue regulatory guidance and some clarifications about what UDAAP means and how it will be enforced, that will not stop the potential for enforcement actions. Get out in front of that wave and proactively begin your UDAAP preparations and transformations today.
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 AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readFTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Supreme Court Reinstates Corporate Disclosure Law Pending Challenge
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
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