Financial Lobby Groups Reject CFPB's Criticism of Deferred-Interest as 'Risky'
Top lobbying groups for the financial industry are pushing back against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the regulator ratchets up pressure on credit products that can lure in customers with zero-interest terms but later surprise them with high charges.
June 13, 2017 at 06:29 PM
10 minute read
Top lobbying groups for the financial industry are pushing back against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the regulator ratchets up pressure on credit products that can lure in customers with zero-interest terms but later surprise them with high charges.
Earlier this month, on the same day CFPB Director Richard Cordray announced he had sent letters to top credit card companies urging them to adopt more transparent practices, leading trade groups including the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association defended so-called “deferred interest” products.
Commonly offered on store-brand credit cards, deferred interest terms allow consumers to make big-ticket purchases and avoid paying interest so long as the balance is paid off before the promotional period ends. If a balance remains after that period—typically six months to a year—consumers can be hit with high interest charges that are retroactive to the date of the initial purchase on the card.
In a speech to a CFPB advisory panel, Cordray said deferred interest terms can confuse consumers and surprise them with high retroactive interest charges. As an alternative, Cordray urged credit card companies and their partner retailers to adopt “zero-percent-interest” terms in which consumers only begin to accrue interest on whatever balance remains following the promotional period.
“The terms are easier for consumers to understand and the costs are more transparent. So we are encouraging others to consider adopting this approach,” Cordray said.
Cordray's speech coincided with the June 8 deadline to respond to the CFPB's most recent request for information on the credit card market. The agency's request—conducted as part of a review required every two years by the Credit CARD Act of 2009—noted that the CFPB had previously found that deferred interest products, “while popular, can pose risks to consumers.”
The American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association disputed the notion that deferred interest products confuse consumers. For instance, the Consumer Bankers Association and Financial Services Roundtable said “high 'payoff rates'” show that consumers understand how deferred interest products work. The groups argued that no additional regulatory action is warranted for deferred interest products.
Dong Hong, vice president and senior counsel for the Consumer Bankers Association, said in an interview that Cordray was using his “bully pulpit” to nudge retailers and credit card companies away from deferred interest products.
“We have not seen any indication that they see rulemaking as necessary. Instead, what we see is the CFPB using letters to particular companies asking them to move away from this product toward another. I just think it's a peculiar way to make a policy decision when they have other tools at the ready,” Hong said.
In its comment letter, the American Bankers Association said “deferred interest programs are popular and beneficial” to consumers and retailers. The group added that “there is little evidence that users of deferred interest products do not understand how those products function.”
“Further, we believe that users of deferred interest plans understand and value those products. As the bureau found in its 2015 Credit Card Review, even among subprime consumers, most consumers who choose the deferred interest plan repay within the deferred interest period and benefit from the free loan,” wrote Nessa Feddis, senior vice president and deputy chief counsel for consumer protection and payments at the American Bankers Association's Center for Regulatory Compliance.
The CFPB has long kept a wary eye on deferred interest products. In December 2013, the agency reached a settlement with GE Capital Retail Bank requiring the company and its subsidiary, CareCredit, to pay up to $34.1 million in refunds to victims of allegedly deceptive credit card enrollment practices. The CFPB alleged that, at dentists' and doctors' offices across the country, consumers were signed up for CareCredit cards they believed were interest-free but actually accrued interest that would kick in if the balance was not fully paid by the end of a promotional period.
“Deferred-interest products can be risky for consumers in the best of circumstances and today's action ensures that CareCredit will no longer be able to profit from consumer confusion,” Cordray said at the time.
In his speech last week, Cordray applauded Wal-Mart for deciding to no longer offer deferred interest on its store credit card. The retailer will instead offer what he called a “more straightforward zero-percent-interest promotional program.”
That same day, the National Consumer Law Center urged the CFPB to ban deferred interest products. “At a minimum,” the group wrote, “the bureau should use its bully pulpit to urge other retailers and card issuers to follow Wal-Mart's example in dropping deferred interest.”
Copyright National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|- Treasury Report, Mirroring Industry Complaints, Proposes Curbing the CFPB
- CFPB Just Withdrew Investigative Subpoena. That Doesn't Happen Often
- DC Circuit Shows No Sign of Punting on CFPB's Constitutionality
- CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule
Top lobbying groups for the financial industry are pushing back against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the regulator ratchets up pressure on credit products that can lure in customers with zero-interest terms but later surprise them with high charges.
Earlier this month, on the same day CFPB Director Richard Cordray announced he had sent letters to top credit card companies urging them to adopt more transparent practices, leading trade groups including the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association defended so-called “deferred interest” products.
Commonly offered on store-brand credit cards, deferred interest terms allow consumers to make big-ticket purchases and avoid paying interest so long as the balance is paid off before the promotional period ends. If a balance remains after that period—typically six months to a year—consumers can be hit with high interest charges that are retroactive to the date of the initial purchase on the card.
In a speech to a CFPB advisory panel, Cordray said deferred interest terms can confuse consumers and surprise them with high retroactive interest charges. As an alternative, Cordray urged credit card companies and their partner retailers to adopt “zero-percent-interest” terms in which consumers only begin to accrue interest on whatever balance remains following the promotional period.
“The terms are easier for consumers to understand and the costs are more transparent. So we are encouraging others to consider adopting this approach,” Cordray said.
Cordray's speech coincided with the June 8 deadline to respond to the CFPB's most recent request for information on the credit card market. The agency's request—conducted as part of a review required every two years by the Credit CARD Act of 2009—noted that the CFPB had previously found that deferred interest products, “while popular, can pose risks to consumers.”
The American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association disputed the notion that deferred interest products confuse consumers. For instance, the Consumer Bankers Association and Financial Services Roundtable said “high 'payoff rates'” show that consumers understand how deferred interest products work. The groups argued that no additional regulatory action is warranted for deferred interest products.
Dong Hong, vice president and senior counsel for the Consumer Bankers Association, said in an interview that Cordray was using his “bully pulpit” to nudge retailers and credit card companies away from deferred interest products.
“We have not seen any indication that they see rulemaking as necessary. Instead, what we see is the CFPB using letters to particular companies asking them to move away from this product toward another. I just think it's a peculiar way to make a policy decision when they have other tools at the ready,” Hong said.
In its comment letter, the American Bankers Association said “deferred interest programs are popular and beneficial” to consumers and retailers. The group added that “there is little evidence that users of deferred interest products do not understand how those products function.”
“Further, we believe that users of deferred interest plans understand and value those products. As the bureau found in its 2015 Credit Card Review, even among subprime consumers, most consumers who choose the deferred interest plan repay within the deferred interest period and benefit from the free loan,” wrote Nessa Feddis, senior vice president and deputy chief counsel for consumer protection and payments at the American Bankers Association's Center for Regulatory Compliance.
The CFPB has long kept a wary eye on deferred interest products. In December 2013, the agency reached a settlement with GE Capital Retail Bank requiring the company and its subsidiary, CareCredit, to pay up to $34.1 million in refunds to victims of allegedly deceptive credit card enrollment practices. The CFPB alleged that, at dentists' and doctors' offices across the country, consumers were signed up for CareCredit cards they believed were interest-free but actually accrued interest that would kick in if the balance was not fully paid by the end of a promotional period.
“Deferred-interest products can be risky for consumers in the best of circumstances and today's action ensures that CareCredit will no longer be able to profit from consumer confusion,” Cordray said at the time.
In his speech last week, Cordray applauded
That same day, the National Consumer Law Center urged the CFPB to ban deferred interest products. “At a minimum,” the group wrote, “the bureau should use its bully pulpit to urge other retailers and card issuers to follow
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 AllEquifax Is Bashed for Forcing Arbitration on Consumers After Data Breach
12 minute readA Law Firm 'Cleverly' Used Ellipses to Fight a CFPB Investigation. But It Still Lost.
4 minute readIs the CEO Pay Disclosure Rule Still Alive? And: SEC Takes On 'Fake News'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
- 2A Q&A with Sidley Austin's London Leader
- 3New York-Based Harris Beach Combines With Connecticut-Based Murtha Cullina, Forming NE Powerhouse
- 4New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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