CBA Comment Letter re FDIC Mobile Financial Services Strategies and Economic Inclusion

June 15, 2016

 

Submitted Electronically: MFSdemonstration@fdic.gov

 

Keith Ernst

Associate Director of Consumer Research & Examination Analytics

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

550 17th St., NW

Washington, DC 20429-9990

 

RE: FDIC, Financial Institution Letter FIL-32-2016: Request for Comments on Mobile Financial Services Strategies and Participation in Economic Inclusion Demonstrations

 

Dear Associate Director Kevin Ernst:

 

The Consumer Bankers Association (“CBA”)[1] appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC” or “agency”) Request for Comments on Mobile Financial Services Strategies and Participation in Economic Inclusion Demonstrations.[2] We have closely followed the FDIC’s research into mobile financial services and support the agency’s efforts to explore how this technology can be used to bring underserved consumers into the mainstream banking system. Our members’ experience serving millions of consumers aligns with much of the FDIC’s preliminary research findings,[3] and we strongly agree that consumers are better served in the mainstream banking system as banks provide consumers with the ability to securely deposit funds, conduct financial transactions, accumulate savings, and access credit in a safe and responsible manner.[4]

 

As the FDIC is aware, banks have always been leaders in bringing financial technology to market to better serve their customers. The industry developed ATMs in the 1960s to complement its branch presence and has since installed an expansive network that allows consumers to instantly access their funds from locations all over the globe. The industry was an early mover onto the World Wide Web in the 1990s, when internet access became widely available to consumers. Online banking made it possible for consumers to access their accounts and conduct a wide variety of financial transactions from the comfort of their homes.

 

Mobile Financial Services (“MFS”) is just the most recent example of the industry’s leadership in financial technology. MFS was made possible by the invention of the smartphone and the wide availability of fast wireless connections to the internet, and it fits into the broader industry paradigm of developing and leveraging the latest technologies to provide products and services that meet the diverse needs of the American consumer. MFS builds on the industry’s ATM networks and online banking platforms to provide consumers with convenient, round-the-clock access to their accounts and beneficial tools to improve their financial well-being.

 

Consumer response to MFS has been overwhelmingly positive. In 2013, the number of consumers using mobile banking rose to 33 percent of all mobile phone users and 51 percent of smartphone users.[5] In 2014, 74,000 new users entered the mobile banking market each day.[6]  Further, 12 percent of consumers who do not currently benefit from mobile banking stated they will either “definitely” or “probably” use a mobile banking service within the next 12 months.[7] 

 

Even more astonishing than the rapid uptake of MFS by consumers has been the adoption rate of underserved consumers. Evidence shows, almost counterintuitively, that underserved consumers are more likely to engage in mobile banking than the general population.[8] Notably, 19 percent of unbanked households reported they would likely engage in mobile banking within the next year, as opposed to 9 percent of fully banked households.[9] Mobile banking especially appeals to younger and minority consumers, who are generally more likely to be underserved. In 2013, consumers between the ages of 18 and 29 made up 39 percent of the mobile banking market, though they only accounted for 21 percent of all mobile phone users;[10] and the Hispanic population made up 19 percent of all mobile banking users, even though they only represented 14 percent of all mobile phone users.[11]

 

 

I. General Comments

 

The FDIC has chosen an opportune time to engage with the industry on ways MFS can be used to bring more underserved consumers into the mainstream banking industry. The six strategies outlined in the agency’s request for comment provide a good foundation to start this discussion, and CBA offers our comments below to each of these strategies. However, we recommend the FDIC consider additional elements that would enhance our ability to reach our shared objective.

 

  1. The FDIC Should Establish an Agency Program to Aid the Banking Industry in its Efforts to Better Serve Our Customers Through Innovation

 

In CBA’s communications with our membership, our bank members express frustration with the nature and quality of their discussions with their regulators on the topic of innovation. While the broader financial services industry, particularly in the fintech sector, pursues innovative new products and services with vigor and speed, banks hesitate for fear of running afoul of unclear regulatory expectations. This confusion about expectations is further compounded by a lack of clarity from the agencies on how they evaluate new bank product or service proposals. Too often a discussion with one arm of an agency will lead to positive indications of support, while a discussion with a different arm of the same agency will result in a less favorable outcome. Under this cloud of uncertainty, many banks are unwilling to devote capital and resources towards innovation, and it is the consumer who is ultimately harmed.

 

We respectfully submit the FDIC can do more to help the banking industry in its efforts to innovate on behalf of our customers. The FDIC should adopt the approach of its peer agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and establish a framework for working with the industry to efficiently and effectively evaluate new products, services and processes. The OCC’s responsible innovation initiative establishes a set of guiding principles that supports and encourages responsible innovation in the banking industry; fosters an internal agency culture receptive towards innovation; promotes ongoing dialogue with banks through formal outreach; and seeks collaboration with peer regulators to provide consistent guidance and expectations of regulated entities. This multi-pronged approach to responsible innovation has garnered wide support from the banking industry and we believe it provides a useful model of engagement for all the bank regulatory agencies.

 

 

  1. The FDIC Should Coordinate with its Peer Regulatory Agencies to Provide Consistent Guidance and Expectations to the Banking Industry.

 

CBA would also submit that the need for regulatory coordination cannot be overstated; we emphasize the industry’s desire for consistent rules, guidance and expectations from the bank regulators and other relevant agencies. Our members believe banks are in the best position to help consumers successfully achieve their financial goals and have the capacity to innovate with the best technology companies. However, they also believe they are unable to compete to the greatest extent of their abilities because of confusion sown by incongruent or unclear rules, guidance and expectations emanating from a host of federal agencies.

 

As an example, some of our member banks used to offer a short term lending product – the deposit advance product – based on consumer demand for a bank alternative to payday loans. Consumer satisfaction with this product was very high, with banks receiving 90 percent or higher satisfaction ratings in customer surveys. Complaint regarding the deposit advance product was also extremely low – one bank offering the product registered 41 complaints over the course of a year, which represents 0.018 percent of all active users of the product (or one in every 5,500 users).

 

Even with evidence showing the deposit advance product being well regarded by customers, the OCC and FDIC effectively killed the product in 2013.[12] Without access to this product, our customers have to turn to alternative financial service providers to meet their short-term borrowing needs, which inevitably resulted in a rise in underserved consumers. Perhaps the most dismaying aspect of this result was the fact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) was authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act[13] to regulate the deposit advance product, after conducting a thorough examination of the short-term credit market; the CFPB has recently engaged in the rulemaking process for these types of loans with the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.[14] At this time, it is unclear if the final rule from the CFPB will complement or conflict with existing guidance from FDIC and OCC, or if the combination will wholly eliminate the ability of banks to offer short-term loans to their customers.

 

Banks cannot innovate to serve consumers, including underserved consumers, when the industry’s regulators work at cross purposes from one another. The deposit advance product is but one example of how a lack of coordination among regulators can unintentionally harm consumer welfare. We urge the FDIC seek to work more closely with your peer regulators to provide consistent rules, guidance and expectations to the banking industry.

 

 

II. FDIC Mobile Financial Services Strategies

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Increase consumer control over finances by improving access to timely account information.

 

The FDIC’s first MFS strategy to promote economic inclusiveness in the mainstream banking system is to improve the ability of consumers to access timely account information. The agency further specifies that timely account information includes near-real time posting of transactions; communications with precise information on when payments and deposits will clear; and identification of transactions not factored in “available balance” calculations when a consumer checks his account.

 

CBA generally agrees with the FDIC that consumers would benefit from timely access to account information. That is why our member banks have devoted substantial resources, and continue to make significant investments, in developing online and mobile channels to provide their customers with convenient, always-on access to their accounts. Through these channels, consumers receive updates on available balances, pending transactions, and scheduled transfer of funds. Furthermore, consumers have the option to receive tailored “alerts” from their financial institutions regarding a variety of transactions, including information about when funds have been credited or debited from their accounts.

 

However, banks can only provide consumers with information to which they have access. As the FDIC acknowledges in its report, delays in transaction posting can be the result of factors beyond the control of a financial institution.[15] In the retail context, for example, there is no uniform standard for merchants on when they post transactions. Many merchants will wait until the end of the day to batch transactions; in the interim, banks will be unable to post this information as they have not received this information.

 

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Expedite access to money.

 

The FDIC’s second MFS strategy states financial institutions should expedite access to money for consumers, and suggests they “[f]ind ways to clear mobile remote deposit capture (mRDC) deposits faster, while maintaining sound risk-management policies. For example, offer mRDC with faster availability options in exchange for a reasonable fee.”[16]

 

As an initial matter, we note that the timing of when deposited funds are to be made available to consumers has been addressed by Congress in the Expedited Funds Availability Act (“EFAA”) of 1987.[17] The EFAA, and its implementing Regulation CC,[18] provides a standardized system of maximum “hold” periods for deposited funds, which balances the consumer’s interest in quickly accessing these funds against the bank’s interest in mitigating the risks of nonpayment and fraud.

 

CBA member banks fully comply with Regulation CC and have heavily invested in systems and technology to transition to an electronic platform for deposits. Due to these investments, some of our member have been able to offer mRDC to their retail customers. Many banks provide next-day funds availability to mRDC deposits, similar to the funds availability schedule for branch or ATM deposits. While mRDC has made it substantially more convenient for consumers to deposit checks from anywhere they have internet access, the risks of nonpayment and fraud are higher for mRDC.  In fact, mRDC present new, significant fraud risks that do not exist in the branch or ATM context, such as duplicate check deposits, where a person will deposit a check by mRDC and through another channel like the branch, or an alteration to the check details that requires visual inspection to identify. The implementation of a small fee for immediate access to an mRDC is unlikely to defer fraud, nor sufficiently compensate the bank for the associated losses.  In recognition of this reality, and the continuing importance of balancing the interest of consumers and banks, when Congress amended EFAA in the Dodd-Frank Act, it left the expedited funds availability schedule unchanged.[19]  

 

Notwithstanding these challenges, some of our members have established services to provide their customers with immediate access to deposited funds in line with the FDIC’s second MFS strategy.  For example, at least one of our bank members offers check cashing services through the mobile channel in exchange for a risk-adjusted fee. To develop this service, the bank acquired new risk mitigation technology using dynamic risk controls along a multitude of factors. It may be important to note that this service is provided by a 3rd party vendor that assumes the risk of fraud from duplicate or altered checks.  In the absence of a 3rd party partner, as noted above, the introduction of a fee for immediate access to funds is unlikely to deter fraudsters, nor compensate the bank for incremental losses. 

 

The bank also engaged in discussions with its prudential regulator to address any risk management concerns early in the development process. While these discussions were not expected to be quick or simple, these types of engagement could be improved by better coordinating the different functions within the agency to enhance the clarity of communications about concerns, recommendations and decisions. As we note above, we recommend the FDIC consider adopting the responsible innovation approach taken by the OCC to more effectively and efficiently work with the industry on behalf of consumers.

 

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Make banking more affordable through better account management.

 

The FDIC’s third MFS strategy for economic inclusion is to make banking more affordable for consumers through better account management. Specifically, the FDIC suggest banks promote the use of MFS as a tool to help consumers reduce unexpected fees.

 

As we state in our response to the first MFS strategy, our members have invested substantial resources to develop online and mobile channels to provide customers with convenient access to their accounts and to conduct many financial transactions. Based on the FDIC’s research, underserved consumers find these tools to be “convenient and helpful in monitoring their accounts, informing spending decisions, and providing them with high level control over their finances.”[20] In fact, some consumers reported checking their accounts on a routine basis, “in the mornings when they wake up, or in the evenings before bed.”[21] This level of engagement is a virtue by itself, but it also allows consumers to proactively deploy funds as needed to meet upcoming expenses. The combination of these two elements places control firmly in the consumer’s hands and allows them to successfully manage their accounts and avoid exposures to unexpected fees.

 

In addition to building these channels, our members have also developed robust alert systems to keep consumers informed about the status of their accounts. In the mobile channel, bank apps provide a menu of push notification alerts that can be tailored to the consumer’s need. These alerts include: low balance alerts, statement notifications, payment due alerts, deposit or withdraw alerts, fraud alerts, credit balance notifications, and savings reminders. Furthermore, these alerts are under the full control of the consumer as mobile push notifications can be turned off and on at their discretion. These alerts are also available by email. The additional benefit of email alerts is consumers can retain them for their own recordkeeping purposes.

 

Even consumers without a smartphone can manage their accounts by receiving text alerts from their financial institution. Studies indicate 27 percent of customers who engage in mobile banking receive text alerts and, in 2013, 77 percent of the 26 largest banks offered text alerts.[22] After receiving a text alert, consumers change their financial behavior by: transferring money into their account (47%); reducing their spending (37%); and depositing money into their account (32%).[23]

 

Unfortunately, a recent order[24] from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) may have a chilling effect on the willingness of banks to continue to offer text alerts. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)[25], banks face strict liability for using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to call or text message a consumer without giving prior express consent. The FCC recently exercised its rulewriting authority under the TCPA to broaden the statutory definition of ATDS to include devices with even the potential (i.e., lacks the present ability) to dial a randomly or sequentially generated phone number. The Commission also narrowed the TCPA’s safe harbor provision for calls to the wrong party when the caller was unaware that a consenting party’s phone number had been reassigned. Therefore, banks that currently offer text alerts to consenting customers leave themselves exposed to class action lawsuits that can quickly reach tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars or higher.

 

The FCC’s TCPA order has been challenged by several parties, including CBA, as being contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. Meanwhile, as they wait for a final resolution on these cases, some banks may stop offering text alerts to mitigate their liability risks. As a result, consumers that rely on text alerts to manage their accounts are the ultimate casualties in this battle between industry and a federal agency. We would argue this conflict could have been avoided if the FCC would have coordinated with the FDIC and other regulatory agencies to ensure its rule did not detrimentally affect other important consumer protection objectives.

 

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Address real and perceived security shortfalls.

 

The FDIC’s fourth MFS strategy tasks the banking industry to mitigate the exposure of consumers to security risks and to educate them about the steps they can take to protect themselves in the mobile channel. CBA supports this strategy and our members have been leaders in the field of cybersecurity.

 

While MFS provides ample benefits, privacy and security are understandable concerns when developing this technology.  Specifically, our members are focused on risks associated with misplaced or stolen devices and cyber-attacks. Financial institutions are innovators in information security, which is exhibited by the sector’s comparatively negligible amount of data breaches, accounting for just 3.7 percent of all data breaches in 2013.[26]  Despite the low incident rate, our members are exceedingly concerned their customers’ information is safe and are constantly developing new measures to ensure its protection.

 

As many of us can unfortunately attest, the portable nature of mobile phones makes potential loss or theft an unavoidable reality. To combat the compromise of data, our members go to great lengths to secure sensitive information, including logging customers out automatically when locking their mobile screen, requiring authentication to make a transaction, and sending follow-up emails or texts when transactions are complete.  While cyber-criminals will inevitably attempt phishing scams and malware installation in this digital age, our members continually monitor accounts for suspicious activity to shield consumers from attacks and protect their sensitive information.      

 

Mobile banking, in fact, has the unique ability to provide greater security for sensitive financial information by employing document authenticity technologies, location-tracking capabilities, and biometric authentication.[27]  In terms of document authenticity, technology vendors have created programs that use a cell phone’s camera to scan documents to insert necessary information into a financial application, while letting banks assess the authenticity of the document.[28]  Location-tracking capabilities help banks combat fraud by allowing them to identify a customer’s actual location.[29]  Biometric authentication, including facial, voice, and fingerprint recognition, is a new capability that enhances security and minimizes fraud.[30] Some of our members have also implemented two-factor authentication systems to add an additional layer of security to the account log-in process. Furthermore, these features have the potential to increase consumer’s knowledge about mobile security practices and reduce banking costs by diminishing fraud losses.[31]

 

In addition to these bank-driven security measures, our members place a priority on educating consumers about steps they can take to mitigate their risk to security breaches. Many of our members offer instructional videos and written materials on cybersecurity. They also inform consumers about how to distinguish legitimate bank communications from fraudulent spoofing or phishing attacks. And, as a last resort, some banks will actually restrict access to the mobile banking app if a consumer fails to adopt certain security protocols such as biometric or two-factor authentication.

 

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Increase awareness of mobile tools.

 

The FDIC’s fifth strategy encourages banks to increase the awareness of consumers about mobile tools and how they can help consumers to manage funds, reduce unanticipated fees, maintain minimum required balances, increase savings or avoid having transactions declined. The FDIC also suggests banks use the account opening process as an opportunity to help consumers setup MFS accounts and inform them about the various features and tools available on the mobile platform.

 

CBA agrees with the FDIC that raising consumer awareness about mobile tools can result in significant benefits for consumers, the most important of which may be the ability take control of their financial well-being. In general, banks have taken a holistic approach to educating consumers about the availability of MFS tools. Advertising and marketing about MFS is used to establish a base level of awareness for consumers and to start the conversation. Communications to customers in response to trigger events, such as a wide-scale data breach, can also prime consumers to consider how MFS can serve as a secure channel to conduct financial transactions. Partnerships with large technology companies have also played a large role in raising MFS awareness. The rollout of fingerprint authentication by Apple highlighted the security features of the mobile channel. A variety of new NFC-based payment technologies – Apple Pay, Samsung Pay and Android Pay – in combination with biometric authentication showed consumers a new payment model that could be both simple and secure to use. Finally, and as noted in the FDIC report, recommendations from friends and family are an essential element of gaining the trust and awareness of consumers.

 

CBA also agrees that the account opening process provides a great opportunity to onboard new customers. Many of our members take advantage of this opportunity to introduce new customers to their MFS offerings. However, we find that too many customers are being left behind due to the outdated restrictions found in the E-Sign Act.[32]

 

Since passage of the E-Sign Act in 2000, the pace of information technology innovation has given rise to a wired society that was hard to imagine during the law’s enactment. In the year 2000, 52 percent of American adults used the internet; in 2015, internet use is at or near saturation at 84 percent.[33]  And smartphones are the fastest growing channel for accessing the internet, especially among lower-income consumers.[34]

 

Although internet access has been democratized, the E-Sign Act’s consumer consent provisions have remained frozen in time and now serve as an unnecessary barrier to MFS inclusiveness. The law’s requirement that consumers must “reasonably demonstrate” they have the ability to access information in electronic form is based on the presumption the consumer may not have access to the internet. While this presumption might have accurately portrayed the situation in 2000, it makes little to no sense in the current environment where it is safe to assume that a consumer can access electronic information. Today, the E-Sign Act adds an additional point of friction at account openings at the branch, where consumers who do not have their personal device handy will be unable to give legal consent to receive electronic information. In consequence, too many of these consumers fail to complete the onboarding process and it diminishes our members’ ability to provide them with the full range of their MFS offerings.

 

CBA urges the FDIC, alone or in conjunction with your peer agencies, to update the consent provisions of the E-Sign Act to accurately reflect our wired society. We would recommend new rules or guidance that allow consumers to provide consent to receive electronic information without the need to demonstrate their ability to do so after receiving the E-Sign Act mandated disclosures. We believe this action is necessary to maximize the industry’s ability to bring the benefits of MFS tools to a wider audience of consumers.

 

 

  1. FDIC Strategy: Encourage long-term financial management.

 

The FDIC’s sixth MFS strategy recommends banks encourage long-term financial management among underserved consumers. The agency suggests providing “aggregate or trend information through mobile tools to help consumers more effectively monitor progress toward fulfilling financial goals (for example, spending, saving or budgeting).”

 

CBA certainly agrees providing long-term financial management advice and services is an important goal for the entire industry, and our members have long prioritized this goal for all of their customers. By facilitating money management, MFS creates more informed consumers that have the resources to improve their savings and meet their financial goals. Reaching financial goals allows our customers to prepare themselves for life’s uncertainties and important events, such as saving for college, buying a home, or paying for needed repairs to the family car. In this vein, many CBA members have created tools that allow customers to track finances, understand spending patterns, and monitor expenses. 

 

Exemplifying the potential benefits, PNC Virtual Wallet helps consumers develop money management skills and avoid costly mistakes by giving them visual, interactive tools to manage their finances.[35]  Virtual Wallet contains a “Spend” account, an interest-bearing “Reserve” account and a higher-yield “Growth” account to help customers segment their money for different needs.[36] It uses a “Money Bar” to show a customer’s balance in segments of what’s scheduled to come out and what’s free to spend.[37] Other tools visualize where customers spend money by breaking down monthly spending into categories.[38] To help avoid costly mistakes, Virtual Wallet comes with overdraft protection, alerts users with on-screen, email or text alerts when they are most at risk for an overdraft, and even enables them to easily transfer money into the Spend account.[39] The mobile banking format is perfectly tailored to appeal to today’s consumers, as 60 percent of Millennials said they use mobile banking more than any other banking method.[40]   Taken together, these features create a more informed customer who is better equipped to meet their financial goals and transition into adulthood with established credit and money management skills.”

 

III. Feedback to Shape Potential MFS Demonstrations

 

FDIC has expressed an interest in working with banks to demonstrate the potential for MFS-related strategies to help and appeal to underserved. The concept is presented in general terms, but the agency provides three areas of focus: (1) the extent to which the use of mobile banking improves the sustainability of banking relationships across a number of metrics; (2) the effects of providing mRDC with fast or immediate funds availability for low-income consumers; and (3) the best ways to raise the awareness of underserved customers about mobile banking.

 

CBA generally supports the concept of “Demonstrations” to examine ways to improve the MFS engagement of underserved consumers. And our members are eager to engage with the FDIC, and other federal agencies, to conduct in-market tests involving companies and consumers in real-world situations. However, the FDIC’s Demonstration concept is difficult to grasp as the agency offers few details about the program or its level of commitment. Banks are simply not in a position to devote capital and resources to ventures with uncertain objectives and undefined metrics for success.

 

We urge the FDIC to reassess its Demonstrations project and consider offering a more detailed proposal to the industry. At minimum, the re-proposal should set out the FDIC’s commitment to this project, including details on whether the agency will offer participating companies with any resources; information on whether the agency will partner with banks in conducting demonstrations; and a definitive statement about the availability of a safe harbor for participating companies.

 

 

IV. Conclusion

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the FDIC’s mobile financial services strategies and economic inclusion demonstrations. CBA and our members share the agency’s goal to bring more underserved consumers into the mainstream banking system. We are fully  committed to developing and improving our MFS offerings to empower consumers to take firm control over their financial health and well-being.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dong Hong

Vice President, Regulatory Counsel

Consumer Bankers Association

dhong@consumerbankers.com

 

 

 

 

[1] The Consumer Bankers Association is the only national financial trade group focused exclusively on retail banking and personal financial services—banking services geared toward consumers and small businesses. As the recognized voice on retail banking issues, CBA provides leadership, education, research, and federal representation for its members. CBA members include the nation’s largest bank holding companies as well as regional and super-community banks that collectively hold two-thirds of the total assets of depository institutions. 

 

[2] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), Financial Institution Letter, FIL-32-2016, Request for Comments on Mobile Financial Services Strategies and Participation in Economic Inclusion Demonstrations (May 3, 2016), available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2016/fil16032.html.

 

[3] FDIC, Opportunities for Mobile Financial Services to Engage Underserved Consumers, Qualitative Research Findings (May 25, 2016), available at https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/community/mobile/MFS_Qualitative_Research_Report.pdf.

 

[4] Id. at 4.

 

[5] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”), Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2014, at 4 (March 2014), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/consumers-and-mobile-financial-services-report-201403.pdf.

 

[6] Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”), Request for Information Regarding the Use of Mobile Financial Services by Consumer and Its Potential for Improving the Financial Lives of Economically Vulnerable Consumers, 1 (June 2014), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_request-for-information_mobile.pdf .

 

[7] Federal Reserve, supra note 5, at 7.

 

[8] FDIC, Assessing the Economic Inclusion Potential of Mobile Financial Services, 17  (Apr. 23, 2014), available at https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/community/mobile/Mobile-Financial-Services-and-Economic-Inclusion-04-23-2014revised.pdf.

 

[9] Id.

 

[10] Federal Reserve, supra note 7, at 9.

 

[11] Id. at 10.

[12] FDIC, Final Guidance, Guidance on Supervisory Concerns and Expectations Regarding Deposit Advance Products (Nov. 21, 2013), available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2013/pr13105a.pdf; OCC, Final Guidance, Guidance on Supervisory Concerns and Expectations Regarding Deposit Advance Products (Dec. 26, 2013), available at http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/federal-register/78fr70624.pdf.

 

[13] Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010).

 

[14] CFPB, Proposed Rule, Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans (June 1, 2016), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/Rulemaking_Payday_Vehicle_Title_Certain_High-Cost_Installment_Loans.pdf.

 

[15] FDIC, supra note 3, at 16, 23.

[16] FDIC, supra note 2, at 2.

 

[17] Pub. L. No. 100-86 (1987).

 

[18] 12 C.F.R. Part 229 (2015).

 

[19] Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 1086 (2010).

 

[20] FDIC, supra note 3, at 15.

 

[21] Id.

 

[22] FDIC, supra note 8, at 22.

 

[23] Federal Reserve, supra note 5, at 19.

 

[24] Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 et al., CG Docket No. 02-278 et al., Declaratory Ruling, FCC 15-72 (July 10, 2015).

 

[25] 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2015).

 

[26] Identity Theft Resource Center: 2013 Data Breach Category Summary, at http://www.idtheftcenter.org/images/breach/2013/BreachStatsReportSummary2013.pdf.

 

[27] FDIC, supra note 8, at 31.

 

[28] Id.

 

[29] Id.

 

[30] Id.

 

[31] Id.

[32] 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 to 7031 (2015).

 

[33] Pew Research Center, Internet, Science & Tech, Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015 (June 26, 2015), at http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/; Pew Research Center, Internet, Science & Tech, U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015 (April 1, 2015), at http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/.

 

[34] Id.

[36] Id.

 

[37] Id.

 

[38] Id.

 

[39] Id.

 

[40] TD Bank, The Millennial: Financial Behavior & Needs (Feb. 10, 2014) at https://mediaroom.tdbank.com/index.php?s=30403&item=34208