The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed new rules June 2, marking the federal government’s first attempt to regulate the predatory practices of payday loan lenders. The regulations will curb certain high interest payday, auto-title, and other small loans that feature outrageous fees and interest rates and leave borrowers in long term debt.

With approximately one in 20 Americans taking out payday loans each year, the multi-billion dollar industry has faced heavy criticism for creating a profit-oriented system where borrowers cannot pay off loans and are forced to re-borrow.

According the CFPB data, 80 percent of payday loan borrowers take out more than one loan, 45 percent take out four or more, and about 15 percent take out 10 or more. So, more than one out of 10 “short-term” loan borrowers are in debt for over four months.

Under the new rules, payday loan officials and other lenders will have to incorporate a full-payment test to ensure borrowers will be able to repay the loan or installment payments on time, while also fulfilling other financial responsibilities and basic needs.

Further, the rules limit payday lenders’ ability to debit borrowers’ accounts without giving them written notice–an imperative move when 50 percent of online borrowers had a failed debit attempt or overdrafted their account in the past 18 months. These failed debit attempts lead to overdraft fees, and more than one third of borrowers with a failed payment are in jeopardy of losing their account.

The last major limit imposed on payday lenders requires a cool-off period after borrowers take out three consecutive payday loans. This is a devastating blow to payday lenders who collect 75 percent of their loan fees from borrowers who take out more than 10 loans in a year.

The CFPB rules are intended to reduce the circumstances in which payday loans can lead to exhaustive debt. However, the rules face criticism from payday loan lenders, because they limit a necessary business for many people who cannot access traditional lines of credit due to bad credit history, lack of a dependable checking account, and other reasons. While this criticism is to be expected, the regulations have also received skepticism from consumer advocates claiming that the rules are not expansive enough.

The Center for Responsible Lending points out that numerous loopholes will allow payday lenders to still trap borrowers in debt. Primarily, the full-payment test is only required for individuals taking out more than $500. However, as demonstrated in a former Law Street piece, a loan with the average principal of $325, if renewed eight times (or over the course of four months) would cost the borrower $798–1.5 times the initial loan.

While the new CFPB rules mark an important step in limiting the predatory nature of payday loans, which rely primarily on poor and vulnerable people who lack the bargaining power to reject 400+ percent interest rates on loans, the rules are not without flaw. By setting too high of a threshold for certain rules, the CFPB allows a large portion of the payday loan business to continue unfazed.

Regulations need to provide protection for all borrowers who enter a loan agreement where the lender has coercive power. As it currently stands, the CFPB’s rules are not expansive enough to make a real dent, and they fail to propose an alternative to payday loans, which are the only option for many customers.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Regulations Limit Predatory Payday Loan Lenders appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart is suing Visa in order to require customers with chip-enabled debit cards authorize their transactions with a PIN instead of a signature.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York Supreme Court, Walmart claims Visa is forcing the retailer to allow chip-using customers to use signatures, even though signatures are essentially “worthless as a form of authentication.”

According to the The New York Times, a Walmart spokesman said in a statement:

This suit is about protecting our customers’ bank accounts when they use their debit cards at Wal-Mart. We have long advocated for ‘PIN verification’ as opposed to the less secure signature verification for debit transactions. PIN is the only truly secure form of cardholder verification in the marketplace today, and it offers superior security to our customers.

Currently, Walmart customers with chip-enabled cards are asked to use a PIN at checkout, but they have the option to use a signature instead. Walmart is hoping to make these transactions safer by standardizing PIN use, since it claims 91 percent of fraudulent debit card purchases are authorized with signatures.

Chip cards were developed as a safer alternative to standard magnetic strips. These cards are able to encrypt and authenticate data for each transaction, rather than simply recite your credit card number and expiration date to any machine.

Retailers were required in October to install chip-reading terminals into their stores, or face the threat of being liable for fraudulent transactions. Prior to the deadline, banks were on the hook for these charges.

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove continued,

Visa has acknowledged in many other countries that chip-and-pin offer greater security. Visa nevertheless has demanded that we allow fraud-prone signature verification for debit transactions in our U.S. stores because Visa stands to make more money processing those transactions.

Visa has not released a statement yet addressing these allegations, but more information is likely to come out as the story develops.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Walmart Sues Visa to Require PINs for Chip-Enabled Debit Cards appeared first on Law Street.

Companies such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and others are smashing the traditional models of business, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone or Internet access to instantly connect with other people to acquire and share goods and services. This trend has contributed to the creation of the “sharing economy” which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The sharing economy is formally defined as “an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else.” On one hand, this new economy seems to offer flexibility and greater options to consumers, while allowing nearly anyone to participate and benefit; on the other, these companies are often subject to less regulation and scrutiny than traditional businesses.

Uber and Lyft’s taxi-like services jump-started a trend that has spread to start-ups in nearly every industry imaginable including clothing, alcohol, and even, as The Daily Show noted, chickens.

This new trend has the potential to be a major disruptor to the economy, as it has already impacted the way that business is done. The ability to rent nearly anything has made ownership much less desirable, especially for the millennial generation, who make up the majority of participants in this economy. When people have the ability to easily rent just about anything, there is much less need for people to make actual purchases. Additionally, many of the largest-growing companies today don’t directly provide the good or service they sell to their consumer base: Uber does not own the cars it drives, Airbnb does not own the properties it rents, and Grubhub does not make the food it delivers. They simply act as intermediaries to connect goods or services with consumers.

Despite its newfound dominance in the modern world of commerce, the sharing economy is still young and as it continues to expand at such a rapid pace, it may face some growing pains. Many companies are coming under fire for allegedly not obeying the laws set in place for traditional businesses to protect consumers and laborers. Additionally, the prevalent usage of contractors and temporary workers in their business models has led to many criticisms claiming that they lack respect for workers’ rights.

Read on for a look at the biggest issues facing the companies of today’s sharing economy.

Consumer Safety

A major issue facing these startups is whether consumers can trust these companies to provide the same level of safety as traditional businesses. Due to their peer-to-peer model, they are often not held to the same legal and regulatory standards put in place to protect consumers, leading to a litany of criticisms.

Airbnb

Airbnb, a company that allows people to go online and list or rent properties for short-term rental, is an alternative to traditional hotels for people traveling for leisure or business. The company is a major player in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually own any hotel properties of its own. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the company averages nearly 22 percent more guests per night than Hilton Worldwide.

However, critics are concerned about the safety procedures put in place by Airbnb. The service allows virtually anyone to put up a listing and become a host, and they do not routinely perform background checks on users. The company explains, however, that it has features in place to ensure safety, such as user reviews and a Verified ID process (in which identification is confirmed through a government-issued ID or social media profile). Still, the question remains, is that enough to ensure that both hosts and guests will have a safe experience?

This issue was put in a spotlight last month in a piece published by Matter, in which the author Zak Stone gave an account of his father’s death in a freak accident involving a rope swing in a Texas Airbnb rental. Stone’s piece is an extensive look at the legal and ethical controversies surrounding Airbnb, and includes stories such as one of a woman who died from carbon monoxide in a Taiwanese property. These stories highlight a large concern with the Airbnb business model, which is that the company cannot necessarily hold its listed properties to the same standard as a major hotel chain can with its properties. While hotels must operate under legal and regulatory standards, there are less restrictions on which properties can be posted. Whether user ratings are enough to ensure quality and safety for guests is an issue that can be debated.

Additionally, hosts cannot always be assured by the fact that their guests are trustworthy and will take care of their property. To address this, the company does offer Host Protection Insurance that protects against liability claims liability claims up to $1 million. However, anyone who chooses to become an Airbnb host would presumably be aware that they are agreeing to undertake a certain level of risk by letting a stranger stay in their property.

Uber and Lyft 

The safety concerns that plague Airbnb can also extend to ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft. In order to become a driver with one of these services, drivers must pass a background check, in addition to holding a driver’s license and meeting the minimum age of 21. Cars are not maintained by the companies, but must possess a certain level of insurance in order to operate. Despite this, there is a long list of incidents such as assaults, attempted kidnappings, and driver DUIs, among others. There are also allegations that the background checks are not extensive enough, and as such, they are more likely than taxi services to have such incidents take place.

However, taxi drivers have also been accused of similar offenses, so it seems that this issue is not unique to ride-sharing companies. A Cato Institute study found that ride-sharing companies were just as safe as traditional taxis, and also claimed that background checks for such companies often had stricter requirements than those for cabs in the U.S.’s biggest cities. Additionally, users of Uber and Lyft have the personal information of the driver on their phone, making it easier to report incidents (and the same is true if a driver is attacked by a passenger).

Labor Issues

Companies involved in the sharing economy have been held responsible for the emergence of the “gig economy,” which relies on contractors to make up the majority of its workforce. Because of this, they are not offered benefits such as health insurance and vacation. In fact, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits for the “misclassification of drivers” in order to save on labor costs. Because they classify workers as contractors, federal law does not let them form unions to advocate for fairer treatment. Additionally, as noted earlier, drivers are required to use their own car, smartphone, and insurance in order to operate. This may affect the ability of lower-income workers to be able to participate in the first place.

Some may argue that Uber workers are not typically full-time drivers; they often hold other jobs and drive to make some extra money on the side. As such, do these companies need to be concerned about providing them with benefits? It is true that the vast majority of drivers fall in the 18-to-24 age group, and over half of drivers are part-timers. However, Uber and Lyft have been responsible for affecting the businesses of traditional taxi drivers who often do make their living off of their profession. The majority of New York taxi drivers are immigrants, with the median falling in the 50-54 age range. The disruption of car-sharing services on traditional taxi services has been immense, causing taxi drivers all over the world to protest Uber.

Another problem sharing economy startups bring to the forefront is whether or not their models will hinder future job growth. If apps and websites can eventually take over jobs done by people, what effects will this have on the future of the job market?

In a segment on his show, Bill Maher lamented that this sharing economy is a reflection of societal greed, and will lead to greater income inequality because it will decrease the number of jobs available. These concerns, however, are more so related to technological progress rather than directly the result of the sharing economy, so it seems unreasonable to blame the sharing economy. Hillary Clinton also cited the gig economy as dampening wage growth in the U.S., and “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the sharing economy has had a tremendous impact on the way that business is done, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many are still skeptical of this system because it is based on trust, and it is difficult to hold this trust without being ensured that your interests are protected by the law. The traditional legal system hasn’t caught up to these non-traditional ways of doing business, but as this business model becomes more and more prevalent, companies will need to continue to put regulations and protections in place for consumers and laborers.

Resources

Primary 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Consumer Intelligence Series-“The Sharing Economy”

Additional

Medium: Living and Dying on Airbnb

U.S. News and World Report: Who’s a Sharing Economy Worker?

The Seattle Times: The ‘Shared Economy’ is Further Hurting Workers’ Rights

The Guardian: Uber and the Lawlessness of ‘Sharing Economy’ Corporates

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.