- Reg E FAQs – Part II
Reg E FAQs – Part II
By Andy Zavoina
Last month I introduced you to the updated Reg E FAQ Guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The FAQ is a Compliance Aid as defined by the CFPB. It is not a new rule, but guidance on compliance with an existing rule. When a Compliance Aid such as an FAQ is issued, it can be periodically revised as is the case here. In this instance the existing rules are addressing Reg E concerns. Unlike the first iteration of Reg E FAQs issued in June 2021 this update addresses new concerns and not just what bankers were getting wrong. In this iteration, issued December 13, 2021, there are several issues addressed on Person-to-Person payments and specifically on liability. The interpretation is not favorable for banks.
The purpose of the Compliance Aid is not to write new rules, but to clarify how the CFPB interprets what is already in the laws, regulations and official interpretations without having to go through a rule writing process.
In January’s Reg E FAQ – Part I, we explained how the CFPB was going back to the bare definitions of what is an electronic fund transfer (EFT) and what is a financial institution. Briefly, EFTs are electronic transfers to or from a consumer’s account. Financial institutions include banks and can include P2P providers. And if a P2P provider does not hold the consumer’s account, issues its own access device such as the logon for an app, and has no agreement with a bank to do such transfers, under 1005.14 that vendor has Reg E liability and responsibility. Lastly, we ended last month’s Part 1 with the CFPB interpretation that if the bank and the P2P vendor have an ACH agreement to move funds and share another agreement such as each accepting the others debit cards, then the exception at 1005.14 placing error resolution liability on the P2P provider does not apply. The fact that each entity will accept the other’s debit cards satisfies the need for an “agreement.” We also noted the CFPB expressed this opinion to bankers at least nine months in advance of issuing the FAQ, so it was a somewhat accepted opinion within the CFPB.
Now, let’s continue a review of the third and fourth sections of the Reg E FAQs as updated in December 2021 and we will add a few compliance recommendations.
In this section the CFPB restates much of what the regulation and prior iteration of the FAQ had with two of the questions shown as new.
1, What is an error for purposes of EFTA and Regulation E?
While shown as a new question, the information is not changed from the regulatory verbiage, but this is intended to be a foundational topic on which claims will build.
An error under EFTA and Regulation E includes any of the following:
- An unauthorized EFT.
- An incorrect EFT to or from the consumer’s account.
- The omission from a periodic statement of an EFT to or from the consumer’s account that should have been included.
- A computational or bookkeeping error made by the financial institution relating to an EFT.
- The consumer’s receipt of an incorrect amount of money from an electronic terminal.
- An EFT not identified in accordance with the requirements of 12 CFR 1005.9 or 1005.10(a).
- A consumer’s request for any documentation required by 12 CFR 1005.9 or 1005.10(a) or for additional information or clarification concerning an EFT
(12 CFR 1005.11(a)(1)).
The term “error” does not include:
- A routine inquiry about the consumer’s account balance;
- A request for information for tax or other recordkeeping purposes; or
- A request for duplicate copies of documentation.
2. What are a financial institution’s error resolution obligations under Regulation E?
Again, this is not new information but is necessary to build on in the following FAQs.
In general, Regulation E requires that after a financial institution receives oral or written notice of an error from a consumer, the financial institution must do all of the following:
- Promptly investigate the oral or written allegation of error.
- Complete its investigation within the time limits specified in Regulation E.
- Report the results of its investigation within three business days after completing its investigation.
- Correct the error within one business day after determining that an error has occurred.
12 CFR 1005.11(c)(1).
The investigation must be reasonable, including a reasonable review of relevant information within the financial institution’s own records. 2019-BCFP-0001. The Bureau found that a financial institution did not conduct a reasonable investigation when it summarily denied error disputes if consumers had prior transactions with the same merchant, and the financial institution did not consider other relevant information such as the consumer’s assertion that the EFT was unauthorized or for an incorrect amount. 2019-BCFP-0001. If the error is an unauthorized EFT, certain consumer liability limits apply. 12 CFR 1005.6.
3. If private network rules provide less consumer protection than federal law, can a financial institution rely on private network rules?
The CFPB indicates this is not an update. It does reiterate what has been noted in practice for many years, that a consumer’s rights may not be adversely affected by an agreement.
Although private network rules and other agreements may provide additional consumer protections beyond Regulation E, less protective rules do not change a financial institution’s Regulation E obligations. [See 15 USC 1693l. For example, some network rules require consumers to provide notice of an error within 60 days of the date of the transaction, even though Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11(b)(1)(i), allows consumers to provide notice within 60 days after the institution sends the periodic statement showing the unauthorized transaction. Other network rules allow a financial institution to require a consumer to contact the merchant before initiating an error investigation, even though 1005.11(b)(1) triggers error investigation obligations upon notice from the consumer. The Bureau discussed instances where examiners found financial institutions had violated the 60-day notice requirement in the Summer 2020 edition of Supervisory Highlights.
4. Can a financial institution require a consumer to file a police report or other documentation as a condition of initiating an error resolution investigation?
This is not updated from June 2021 but is reposted here so as to be a complete reference to the reader.
No. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral or written notice of error and may not delay initiating or completing an investigation pending receipt of information from the consumer. See Comments 11(b)(1)-2 and 11(c)-2. In the past, Bureau examiners found that one or more financial institutions failed to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations pending the receipt of additional information required by the institution. These examples can be found in the Bureau’s Summer 2020 edition of Supervisory Highlights and Fall 2014 edition of Supervisory Highlights. The Bureau cited similar violations in 2019-BCFP-0001.
Error Resolution: Unauthorized EFTs
With EFT errors defined and some basic responsibilities set, the FAQ looks deeper at unauthorized transfers and provides guidance banks will need to evaluate their practices and procedures.
1. What is an unauthorized EFT?
While the CFPB’s answer has a December date as a new addition, it is regulatory verbiage that has not changed, so accept it as a reminder of the rules as it helps express the duties and liabilities of the bank.
An unauthorized EFT is an EFT from a consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2(m). Unauthorized EFTs include transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery and consumer transfers at an ATM that were induced by force. Comments 2(m)-3 and 4.
The term unauthorized EFT does not include an EFT initiated through any of the following means:
(1) By a person who was furnished the access device to the consumer’s account by the consumer, unless the consumer has notified the financial institution that transfers by that person are no longer authorized. 12 CFR 1005.2(m)(1). This exclusion does not apply to transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumer’s access device through fraud or robbery. Comment 2(m)-3.
(2) With fraudulent intent by the consumer or any person acting in concert with the consumer. 12 CFR 1005.2(m)(2); or
(3) By the financial institution or its employee, 12 CFR 1005.2(m)(3).
This FAQ is important and often misunderstood by claims investigators. It is important to understand that a consumer loaning their debit card to someone does not provide evergreen authorization for use until the consumer reports to the bank that the person is no longer authorized to use the card. Essentially that person given the card is authorized until the consumer customer retrieves the card or notifies the bank. Once the customer re-secures the card the authorization has ended. If that authorized user remembers the PIN and steals the card, that’s fraud or robbery and not authorized use. If a bank has a problem with these types of losses remind the users of security precautions, the ability to get a new card or change the PIN, and the possibility that the bank will rescind the card and not re-issue it if the bank chooses. There is no legal right to have a debit card. That is a feature of having a deposit account at your bank. Many bankers have also not read the back of the debit cards they issue. All I have looked at specifically states the card is the property of the bank. That provides the bank with the option to rescind that card and make it non-usable.
2. If a transfer meets the Regulation E definition of unauthorized EFT, how does a financial institution determine the consumer’s liability, if any?
Not an updated response from the first FAQ – but in short if the claim is valid, § 1005.6 is used to determine liability based on when the transfers happened, if an accepted access device was used, and when the bank was notified. The response is as follows:
“If a consumer has provided timely notice of an error under 12 CFR 1005.11(b)(1) and the financial institution determines that the error was an unauthorized EFT, the liability protections in Regulation E section 1005.6 would apply. Depending on the circumstances regarding the unauthorized EFT and the timing of the reporting, a consumer may or may not have some liability for the unauthorized EFT. See 12 CFR 1005.6(b).”
The three basic tiers of liability are up to $50 for a timely notice of the claim within 2 business days of the consumer learning of the loss or theft [of an access device], up to $500 if the notice is beyond 2 business days and potentially unlimited for those transfers occurring after 60 days after the first statement was sent to the consumer reflecting an unauthorized transfer.
3. Is an EFT from a consumer’s account initiated by a fraudster through a non-bank P2P payment provider considered an unauthorized EFT?
Shown as a new question and using P2P as an example, the CFPB states, “Yes. Because the EFT was initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer – i.e., the fraudster – and the consumer received no benefit from the transfer, the EFT is an unauthorized EFT. 12 CFR 1005.2(m). This is true even if the consumer does not have a relationship with, or does not recognize, the non-bank P2P payment provider.”
Succinctly, in this case it is a basic theft because the consumer did not do, authorize, or benefit from the transaction. Whether the customer had a relationship already with the P2P provider is immaterial.
4. Does an EFT initiated by a fraudster using stolen credentials meet the Regulation E definition of an unauthorized EFT?
The response is still a basic example of a theft but specifically uses stolen credentials to execute the transfer.
“Yes. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized EFT Question 1, Regulation E defines an unauthorized EFT as a transfer from a consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2(m). When a consumer’s account access information is obtained from a third party through fraudulent means such as computer hacking, and a hacker uses that information to make an EFT from the consumer’s account, the transfer is an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E.
For example, the Bureau is aware of the following situations involving unauthorized EFTs:
- A consumer shares their account access information in order to enter into a transaction with a third party, such as a merchant, lender, or employer offering direct deposit, and a fraudster obtains the consumer’s account access information by hacking into the computer system of the third party. The fraudster then uses a bank-provided P2P payment application to initiate a credit push payment out of the consumer’s deposit account.
- A consumer shares their debit card information with a P2P payment provider in order to use a mobile wallet. A fraudster then hacks into the consumer’s phone and uses the mobile wallet to initiate a debit card transfer out of the consumer’s deposit or prepaid account.
- A thief steals a consumer’s physical wallet and initiates a payment using the consumer’s stolen debit card.
See Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized EFTs Question 5 for more examples of unauthorized EFTs.
All of the financial institutions in these examples, including any non-bank P2P payment provider or deposit account holding financial institution, must comply with the error resolution requirements discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution Question 2, as well as the liability protections for unauthorized transfers in 12 CFR 1005.6.
5. A third party fraudulently induces a consumer into sharing account access information that is used to initiate an EFT from the consumer’s account. Does the transfer meet Regulation E’s definition of an unauthorized EFT?
A key to this June 2021 question is that the consumer was duped into providing account access information and the while the consumer did provide it, it was not with the intent of creating a transfer. That was done fraudulently, and Reg E is a consumer protection regulation. The CFPB provided the following guidance:
“Yes. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized Fund Transfers Question 1, Regulation E defines an unauthorized EFT as an EFT from a consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2(m). Comment 1005.2(m)-3 explains further that an unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud or robbery. Similarly, when a consumer is fraudulently induced into sharing account access information with a third party, and a third party uses that information to make an EFT from the consumer’s account, the transfer is an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E.
For example, the Bureau is aware of the following situations where a third party has fraudulently obtained a consumer’s account access information, and thus, are considered unauthorized EFTs under Regulation E: (1) a third-party calling the consumer and pretending to be a representative from the consumer’s financial institution and then tricking the consumer into providing their account login information, texted account confirmation code, debit card number, or other information that could be used to initiate an EFT out of the consumer’s account, and (2) a third party using phishing or other methods to gain access to a consumer’s computer and observe the consumer entering account login information. EFTs stemming from these situations meet the Regulation E definition of unauthorized EFTs.”
6. If a third-party fraudulently induces a consumer to share account access information, are subsequent transfers initiated with the fraudulently obtained account information excluded from Regulation E’s definition of unauthorized electronic fund transfer because they are initiated “[b]y a person who was furnished the access device to the consumer’s account by the consumer”?
As in the example above, the subsequent transfers were not the intent of the consumer. Even if the consumer authorized one transfer, the intent was for that one transfer, not any additional. Perhaps more to the exact question, any and all transfers that use fraudulently obtained access can be part of a valid EFT claim because there was no intent for the transfers and the consumer received no benefit. So, the CFPB states, “No. A consumer who is fraudulently induced into providing account information has not furnished an access device under Regulation E. As explained above in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized EFTs 3, 4, and 5, EFTs initiated using account access information obtained through fraud or robbery fall within the Regulation E definition of unauthorized EFT. See Comment 1005.2(m)-3.”
7. Can a financial institution consider a consumer’s negligence when determining liability for unauthorized EFTs under Regulation E?
The regulation has never allowed a consumer’s negligence to be used in denying a claim of unauthorized use. The Reg commentary even uses the example of a consumer writing their PIN on the card. In that case the claim would still be valid because there was no intended use allowed. Some vendors may offer enhanced liability protections such as zero liability and some of those enhancements may be reduced because of negligence. But the basic requirements of Reg E do not change, only the enhanced protections.
The June FAQ stands, “No. Regulation E sets forth the conditions in which consumers may be held liable for unauthorized transfers, and its commentary expressly says that negligence by the consumer cannot be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E. 12 CFR 1005.6; Comment 6(b)-2. For example, consumer behavior that may constitute negligence under state law, such as situations where the consumer wrote the PIN on a debit card or on a piece of paper kept with the card, does not affect the consumer’s liability for unauthorized transfers under Regulation E. Comment 1005.6(b)-2.”
8. If a financial institution’s agreement with a consumer includes a provision that modifies or waives certain protections granted by Regulation E, such as waiving Regulation E liability protections if a consumer has shared account information with a third party, can the institution rely on its agreement when determining whether the EFT was unauthorized and whether related liability protections apply?
This restated response further illustrates that rights granted under Reg E may not be taken away. I will add that there are times a consumer will call and make a claim. Perhaps they are on vacation and a great distance away and when told the card will be canceled and reissued in a few days, they protest. They say they will accept the liability because they cannot be without their card while away. That is not an option. The consumer cannot accept that additional liability because to do so would amount to the bank taking away the consumer’s legal rights.
“No. EFTA includes an anti-waiver provision stating that “[n]o writing or other agreement between a consumer and any other person may contain any provision which constitutes a waiver of any right conferred or cause of action created by [EFTA].” 15 U.S.C. § 1693l. Although there may be circumstances where a consumer has provided actual authority to a third party under Regulation E according to 12 CFR 1005.2(m), an agreement cannot restrict a consumer’s rights beyond what is provided in the law, and any contract or agreement attempting to do so is a violation of EFTA.”
9. If a consumer provides notice to a financial institution about an unauthorized EFT, can the financial institution require that the consumer first contact the merchant about the potential unauthorized EFT before the financial institution initiates its error resolution investigation?
Remember that the consumer has basic requirements to file a claim with the bank, and the bank is required to determine if it was an unauthorized use and to investigate and determine liability. The only things the consumer is required to do is indicate who they are and why they believe their account had an unauthorized transfer. Nothing allows the bank to refuse a claim and impose additional requirements beyond what the EFTA has required.
The CFPB’s response: “No. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral or written notice of error and may not delay initiating or completing an investigation pending receipt of information from the consumer. See Comments 11(b)(1)-2 and 11(c)-2. For example, in 2019-BCFP-0001, the Bureau found that the practice of requiring a consumer to contact the merchant before initiating an error resolution investigation was a violation of Regulation E. Similarly, the Fall 2014 edition of Supervisory Highlights discussed instances where examiners found that one or more financial institutions had instructed consumers to contact the merchant instead of promptly initiating an error investigation.”
10. Do private network rules, such as provisions that a transfer is final and irrevocable, impact whether a P2P credit-push transfer meets the Regulation E definition of unauthorized EFT?
This is a new question and addresses specifically a P2P payment. Many P2P agreements indicate that when a transfer is sent and is based on, for example, a cell phone number, the transfer is completed and not reversible once it is accepted by the recipient. There is no process to reverse the transfer from the recipient. This question emphasizes that the bank’s consumer is protected regardless of any network rules. This is a question demonstrating additional liability on the bank. There is no process requiring the consumer to contact the cell number that received the funds and demand the return of those funds. The bank or P2P vendor may attempt this as a part of the investigation but likely there would be no response from the receiver of the funds, especially if the transfer was part of a fraud transaction.
“No. Although private network rules and other commercial agreements may provide for interbank finality and irrevocability, they do not reduce consumer protections against liability for unauthorized EFTs afforded by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. See 15 USC 1693g(e). Moreover, no agreement between a consumer and any other person may waive any right provided by the EFTA. See 15 USC 1693l. Accordingly, any financial institution in this transaction must comply with the error resolution requirements discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution Question 2, as well as the liability protections for unauthorized transfers.”
11. A fraudster initiates an EFT through a non-bank P2P payment provider that the consumer does not have a relationship with from the consumer’s account with a depository institution. Is the depository institution considered a financial institution with full error resolution obligations under Regulation E?
This is another new and P2P specific question. If a fraudster sets up an account using someone else’s identity and account information, transfers can be valid claims.
The Bureau’s response:
“Yes. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Coverage: Financial Institutions Question 1, the definition of financial institution includes a bank, savings association, credit union, or any other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer to provide EFT services. 12 CFR 1005.2(i). Here, the account-holding financial institution holds the consumer’s account, and is thus considered a financial institution under Regulation E. Any entity defined as a financial institution under Regulation E has error resolution obligations in the event that a consumer notifies the financial institution of an error, with limited exceptions. 12 CFR 1005.11. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized Transfers Question 4, since the transaction is an unauthorized EFT, the depository institution must comply with any applicable liability protections for unauthorized transfers in 12 CFR 1005.6.”
Based on this interpretation in the FAQs regarding P2P transactions and liability, we can expect more examiner scrutiny on any claim pertaining to P2P losses by consumers. Prior to the FAQs many in the industry interpreted the needed “agreement” under 1005.14 to be a specific agreement defining the duties of the P2P vendor and the bank and this could have included liability. It may have also addressed daily transactions limits and many P2P vendors allow greater limits on transactions than banks do. Banks consciously keep daily limits low to protect the consumer’s balances and reduce losses. Exceptions are generally granted upon request and verification by the consumer. With the bank having to bear the burden of claims processing and payment liability the P2P vendor’s transaction limitations now control the amount of losses banks may have.
Under Reg E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) consumers are granted certain rights. While the bank and a vendor may have separate agreements addressing some of these same rights – such as monetary liability for unauthorized transactions, the consumers rights always stand and may not be adversely limited by any of these agreements. You can always treat a consumer better, but never worse than the law or regulation provides.
In many cases, because of the CFPB’s interpretation pertaining to a broad definition of what an agreement with the bank is, banks will see an increase in liability for Reg E claims involving P2P transfers reported as unauthorized if the banks were pushing these claims to the P2P vendors in the past. If the P2P vendor allows a $1,200 daily limit and the bank has a $400 daily limit, two similar transfers will arrive at the bank in different ways. The P2P vendor will ACH the funds but a consumer would have directly been allowed say only $400 using their debit card. If the transfer is claimed as unauthorized, the bank now has a greater chance of losing $1,200 rather than $350. Remember the consumer typically has liability for the first $50 when an accepted access device is used. An ACH directly from the consumer’s account is not using an accepted access device between the consumer and the bank. It is easy to see how, in an example such as this, losses could grow over prior years.
If the data is readily available, your bank may want to review EFT claims to determine, based on the new guidance, how many and what amount of EFT claims were P2P related in the past year or two and what new liability the bank may have. This may be a budgeting issue that needs to be addressed depending on the volumes you have seen. You must recognize if this will be a complication and how severe it may be.
Bank staff involved in any part of the claims process may require training to recognize P2P claims as valid EFT claims on which the bank is now deemed responsible. Where these may have been referred to the P2P vendor in the past, that may no longer be allowed.
Advise customers of ways to protect themselves – and the bank. Do not write PINs on debit cards. Secure their cell phones. Use multifactor authentication. Review balances and transactions regularly and even advertise services the bank has where it can advise a consumer of their balance and/or large transactions, etc.
When using P2P transfers, the consumer needs to absolutely verify the recipient that funds will be going to is the intended recipient. And watch out for fraudsters. If a consumer will buy hundreds or thousands of dollars in gift cards and send that information to a fraudster, they will certainly take the convenient track and P2P the funds to an unknown person.
For now, we have Reg E guidance that will, for many banks, increase Reg E liability for more valid claims than in the past. Bank management and the industry as a whole will need to determine if these are valid risks banks want to accept, or if the banks want to find other ways to reduce these claims without disadvantaging consumers and certainly without reducing any Reg E rights. Can ACH transfers require sone customer authentication or verification? Can a limit be placed on daily transfers or each transfer over a given amount?
Lastly, determine if this guidance will require any changes to bank policies and procedures and react appropriately.