Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP)

Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) can cause significant financial injury to consumers, erode consumer confidence, and undermine the financial marketplace. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), it is unlawful for any provider of consumer financial products or services or a service provider to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. [1] The Dodd-Frank Act granted rulemaking authority regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) [2] ,

The Dodd-Frank Act repealed the NCUA’s Credit Practices Rule (Part 706 of the NCUA Rules and Regulations), which had applied to federal credit unions, and repealed similar rules that previously applied to banks and savings associations. The rules specifically prohibited certain unfair credit practices and unfair or deceptive cosigner practices. However, the NCUA and other federal regulators issued Interagency Guidance stating that the practices previously addressed in those rules could still represent unfair or deceptive acts or practices under those agencies’ statutory authority to prohibit practices that violate any applicable law. (NCUA Letter to Federal Credit Unions 14-FCU-03) In addition, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Credit Practices Rule remains in effect with respect to state-chartered credit unions.

Note regarding citing violations of UDAAP: NCUA staff should use the general citation “Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices” when citing UDAAP violations found in Federal credit unions except for violations of regulations CFPB or the NCUA issues under its respective UDAAP authority.

The Role of Member Complaints in Identifying Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices

Member complaints help detect unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. They have been an essential source of information for examinations, enforcement, and rulemaking for regulators. Member complaints can indicate weaknesses in elements of the credit union’s compliance management system, such as training, internal controls, or monitoring.

While the absence of complaints does not ensure the absence of these practices, complaints may be one indication of UDAAP. For example, complaints alleging that members did not understand the terms of a product or service may be a red flag indicating that examiners should conduct a detailed review, especially when many members make similar complaints about the same product or service.

When reviewing complaints against a credit union, examiners should consider complaints lodged against subsidiaries, affiliates, and third parties about the products and services offered through the credit union or in its name. In particular, examiners should determine whether a credit union itself receives, monitors, and responds to complaints filed against itself or subsidiaries, affiliates, and third parties acting on behalf of the credit union.

Analyzing Complaints

Analysis of member complaints may assist in the identification of potential unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. Examiners should consider the context and reliability of complaints; every complaint does not indicate violation of law. When members repeatedly complain about a credit union’s product or service, however, examiners should flag the issue for possible further review. Moreover, even a single substantive complaint may raise serious concerns that would warrant further review. Complaints that allege, for example, misleading or false statements, or missing disclosure information, may indicate possible UDAAP needing review.

Another area that could indicate potential UDAAP is a high volume of charge-backs or refunds for a product or service. While this information is relevant to the member complaint analysis, it may not appear in the credit union’s complaint records.

Relationship to Other Laws

A UDAAP may also violate other federal or state laws. For example, pursuant to TILA, creditors must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose the costs and terms of credit. An act or practice that does not comply with these provisions of TILA may also be unfair, deceptive, or abusive.

Conversely, a transaction that is in technical compliance with other federal or state laws may nevertheless violate the prohibition against UDAAP. For example, an advertisement may comply with TILA’s requirements, but contain additional statements that are untrue or misleading, and compliance with TILA’s disclosure requirements does not insulate the rest of the advertisement from the possibility of being deceptive.


For on the text of UDAAP, use the links below to the following sections of the U.S.C under Title 12 Chapter 53 Subchapter V, Part C – Specific Bureau Authorities:


The NCUA Letter to Federal Credit Unions 14-FCU-03 can be found here.

Definitions

Unfair Acts or Practices - The Dodd-Frank Act standard for unfairness is that an act or practice is unfair when:

  1. It causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers;
  2. The injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and
  3. The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. [3]

The key question is not whether a consumer could have made a better choice, but whether an act or practice hinders a consumer’s decision-making. For example, not having access to important information could prevent consumers from comparing available alternatives, choosing those that are most desirable to them, and avoiding those that are inadequate or unsatisfactory. In addition, if almost all market participants engage in a practice, a consumer’s incentive to search elsewhere for better terms is reduced, and the practice may not be reasonably avoidable.

Costs that would be incurred for measures to prevent the injury also are taken into account in determining whether an act or practice is unfair. These costs may include the costs to the credit union in taking preventive measures and the costs to society as a whole of any increased burden and similar matters.

Deceptive Acts or Practices - A representation, omission, actor practice is deceptive when

  1. The representation, omission, act, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
  2. The consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, act, or practice is reasonable under the circumstances; and
  3. The misleading representation, omission, act, or practice is material. [4]

It is necessary to evaluate an individual statement, representation, or omission not in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing, to determine whether the overall net impression is misleading or deceptive. A representation may be an express or implied claim or promise, and it may be written or oral. If material information is necessary to prevent a consumer from being misled, it may be deceptive to omit that
information.

Written disclosures may be insufficient to correct a misleading statement or representation, particularly where the consumer is directed away from qualifying limitations in the text or is counseled that reading the disclosures is unnecessary. Likewise, oral or fine print disclosures or contract disclosures may be insufficient to cure a misleading headline or a prominent written representation. Similarly, a deceptive act or practice may not be cured by subsequent
truthful disclosures.

Acts or practices that may be deceptive include: making misleading cost or price claims; offering to provide a product or service that is not in fact available; using bait-and-switch techniques; omitting material limitations or conditions from an offer; or failing to provide the promised services.

Moreover, a representation may be deceptive if the majority of consumers in the target class do not share the consumer’s interpretation, so long as a significant minority of such consumers is misled. When a seller’s representation conveys more than one meaning to reasonable consumers, one of which is false, the seller is liable for the misleading interpretation.

Certain categories of information are presumed to be material. In general, information about the central characteristics of a product or service – such as costs, benefits, or restrictions on the use or availability – is presumed to be material. Express claims made with respect to a financial product or service are presumed material. Implied claims are presumed to be material when evidence shows that the credit union intended to make the claim (even though intent to deceive is not necessary for deception to exist).

Claims made with knowledge that they are false are presumed to be material. Omissions will be presumed to be material when the credit union knew or should have known that the consumer needed the omitted information to evaluate the product or service.

Abusive Acts or Practices - The Dodd-Frank Act makes it unlawful for any covered person or service provider to engage in an “abusive act or practice.” [6] The prohibition against abusive acts or practices has only been in effect since 2011. An abusive act or practice: