Customer Identification Procedures

QUESTION 

We submitted our CIP policy to our regulator in an examination.

In the exit interview, we were told the CIP policy does not have a set of core procedures required under the USA Patriot Act. We’ve provided this policy before, and they never said anything. Now they want us to revise it by including a checklist, but they are not telling us what goes into the checklist! 

We could use an outline of some basic checklist items to update the checklist. 

What should we provide as some checklist areas to implement our CIP policy? 

ANSWER 

Remember that whatever you put into a policy document with respect to procedures must be monitored and tested periodically. How do you know any checklist works if you are not monitoring and testing its effectiveness? 

The USA Patriot Act is a foundational Act for Customer Identification Procedures (CIP), and any checklist must conform with the Act’s mandates. 

In my view, your checklist should contain at least four procedural features: verifying identity, recordkeeping, list-checking, and customer notice. 

Let’s consider each of them in a checklist format. 

Verifying Identity 

The identity of every mortgage loan applicant should be screened for the following information (at minimum):

·       Name 

·       Date of birth 

·       Residential or business street address 

·       Citizenship:

o   For a U.S. person, use a taxpayer identification number.

o   For a non-U.S. person, one or more of the following:

§  a taxpayer identification number; passport number, and country of issuance;

§  alien identification card number, or number and country of issuance of any other government-issued document evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.

o   Instead of obtaining a taxpayer identification number from a customer before opening the account, you may open an account for a customer who has applied for a taxpayer identification number but has not yet received one. In this case, however, you should confirm the application for the number was filed before the customer applied for the loan, and you should obtain the taxpayer identification number within a reasonable period of time after the account is opened.

One warning: Documents used to verify identity may include any unexpired government-issued identification evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguards, such as a driver’s license or passport. But be very careful in utilizing this method! 

Recordkeeping 

It is essential to maintain records of the information used to verify a person’s identity, including, but not limited to: 

·       All identifying information about a customer; 

·       A description of any document relied on, noting the type of document; 

·       Any identification number contained in the document, the place of issuance, and, if any, the date of issuance and expiration date; 

·       A description of the methods and the results of any measures undertaken to verify the identity of the customer; and, 

·       A description of the resolution of any substantive discrepancy discovered when verifying the identifying information obtained. 

Record of the foregoing information should be kept for at least five years after the mortgage loan is paid off or transferred to a loan purchaser. 

List-Checking 

Checking certain lists is a critical aspect of the CIP process. You should determine whether the person appears on any lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations available to your financial institution or provided to your financial institution by any government agency. 

·     Designate a person or department responsible for determining whether each new customer appears on any list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations issued by any federal government agency and designated as such by the Treasury Department in consultation with the federal functional regulators. 

·     The designated person should make a determination within a reasonable period of time after a loan closes, or earlier, if required by another federal law or regulation or federal directive issued in connection with the applicable list. 

·     Follow all federal directives issued in connection with the lists. 

Customer Notice 

Be sure to provide customers with adequate, written notice that you request information to verify identities as required by the USA Patriot Act.

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director 

Lenders Compliance Group

Fannie's Mandate for Servicing Quality Control

QUESTION 

We are a mortgage servicer. We subservice about $8 billion. I am on the staff of the compliance department. Our servicing quality control audits have been picking up compliance issues, particularly overcharging late fees and charging consumers fees that should have been waived per the CARES Act. 

The CFPB's recent Supervisory Highlights specifically mention these two issues in their examination audits. We have no wish to have CFPB examiners identify such findings in their audits. 

We have been through three audit firms for servicing quality control. But only the current one picked up on these issues. Little good it does us since we've been making these mistakes for years! And our clients are going through MORA reviews. Some did not do servicing quality control, so they did not pick up on the problem. Others have, and now they are threatening to leave us. 

We know you offer servicing quality control, so you have expertise in this area. We read your article on servicing QC and found it very helpful. Our concern now is to get a description of the implications of these process issues. 

What are the compliance implications of overcharging late fees in loan servicing? 

What regulatory issues arise when we charge consumers fees that should have been waived per the CARES Act? 

ANSWER 

The article you refer to is Servicing Quality Control: Why's and Wherefore's. That article dealt with a mortgage lender that did not conduct servicing quality control of the subservicer. Interestingly, like some of your clients, that lender seemed to indulge in the philosophy of "unknown knowns;" that is, because it did not do the audits, it was unaware of the risks. Being unaware of known risks – certainly when the risk are knowable – is a recipe for failure. 

Your clients should be conducting servicing quality control of their portfolio being serviced by you.[i] This is an oversight function. They cannot evade liability by pushing it to the servicer. If you are a Fannie Seller/Servicer, it is a relationship mandate that the Fannie's MORA team will check. The MORA team evaluates how well a mortgage company meets Fannie Mae's guidelines and gauges operational risks.

Lenders who use subservicers retain my firm to conduct Servicing Quality Control. A high level of expertise is needed; not just any quality control auditor can do these reviews, and most do not. Interested lenders and servicers can download our Servicing QC presentation HERE. Or contact me HERE, and we'll arrange a call. 

I think you will have a hard time holding onto clients, not only the clients who did the servicing QC audits but also those who did not do them. Especially those clients that did not conduct servicing quality control audits and are involved in Fannie Mae MORA audits,[ii] as they now face a double-barreled issue: (1) they did not do the oversight requirement of servicing quality control, so MORA will write them up for not doing so, and (2) as their subservicer, you are going to give them servicing QC reports that show ostensible compliance issues that the CFPB has identified to be regulatory violations.

The compliance issues that the CPFB has found pervasive come under the regulatory categories of violations of UDAAP and Regulation Z, the latter triggering violations related to junk fees. 

Overall, the Bureau's examiners found that servicers overcharged junk fees that were unlawful, repeatedly charged for unnecessary property inspection visits, misrepresented that consumers owed PMI premiums, charged consumers fees that should have been waived, charged consumers for PMI after it should have been removed, and charged late fees after sending periodic statements listing a $0 late fee. 

I will address the two you mention, referencing the Supervisory Highlights[iii] you've noted. The CFPB's examiners found multiple servicing compliance failures relating to UDAAP and Regulation Z violations. 

What are the compliance implications of overcharging late fees in loan servicing? 

Overcharging late fees is assessing late fees in excess of the amounts allowed by their loan agreements. It is an unfair acts or practices violation. Specifically, where loan agreements included a maximum permitted late fee amount, the servicers failed to input these late fee caps into their systems. 

The servicers charged the maximum allowable late fees under the relevant state laws, which frequently exceeded the specific caps in the loan agreements. This happened because the systems did not reflect the maximum late fee amounts permitted by their loan agreements. Servicers cause substantial injury to consumers when they impose these excessive late fees. 

Consumers can not reasonably avoid injury because they do not control how servicers calculate late fees; indeed, they have no reason to anticipate that servicers would impose excessive late fees. The CFPB's position is that charging exorbitant late fees does not benefit consumers or the competition. Consequently, examiners concluded that servicers also violated Regulation Z by issuing periodic statements that included inaccurate late payment fees, since they exceeded the amounts allowed by the loan agreements.[iv] In general, if this is your situation, you can expect the CFPB to require you to waive or refund late fee overcharges to consumers and correct the periodic statements. 

What regulatory issues arise when we charge consumers fees that should have been waived per the CARES Act? 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) directs servicers of federally backed mortgages to grant consumers a forbearance from monthly mortgage payments if the consumer is experiencing financial hardship resulting from the COVID-19 emergency. 

During the time a consumer is in forbearance, no fees, penalties, or additional interest beyond scheduled amounts are to be assessed. While the CARES Act prohibits fees, penalties, or additional interest beyond scheduled amounts during a forbearance period, consumers sometimes accrue these amounts during periods when they are not in forbearance. 

For instance, a servicer is permitted to charge a late fee if a consumer was delinquent in May 2020 and then entered a forbearance in June 2020. 

In the case of FHA loans, when consumers exit CARES Act forbearance and enter certain permanent loss mitigation options, the HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) requires servicers in certain circumstances to waive late charges, fees, and penalties accrued outside of forbearance periods. 

The CFPB's examiners found that servicers engage in unfair acts or practices when they fail to waive certain late charges, fees, and penalties accrued outside forbearance periods, where required by HUD, upon a consumer entering a permanent COVID-19 loss mitigation option. 

This is not the first time the CFPB has cited UDAAP violations relating to charging fees to consumers during a CARES Act forbearance.[v] The CFPB's position is that the failure to waive the late charges, fees, and penalties constitutes a substantial injury to consumers. This injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers because they have no reason to anticipate that their servicer would fail to follow HUD requirements, and consumers lacked reasonable means to avoid the charges. This harm outweighed any benefit to consumers or competition. You can expect the CFPB to require proof that you have improved your system controls. In addition, you'll need to waive all improper charges and provide refunds to consumers.

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director 

Lenders Compliance Group

---

[i] Fannie Mae’s Quality Control Review, Chapter A2-4 Fannie Mae, Single Family, Servicing Guide, March 8, 2023

[ii] The Fannie Mae Mortgage Origination Risk Assessment (MORA) team conducts a comprehensive review, which includes an assessment of the operational capabilities, governance and compliance with Fannie Mae's Selling Guide requirements.

[iii] Supervisory Highlights – Junk Fees Special Edition, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, March 2023, Issue 29, Winter 2023, pp 9-12; FR, Vol. 88, No. 54, March 21, 2023, Notices, pp 16945-16951

[iv] 12 CFR. § 1026.41(d)(1)(ii)

[v] See Supervisory Highlights, Issue 25, Fall 2021, available at:
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_supervisory-highlights_issue-25_2021-12.pdf.

Reasonable Investigation of a Direct Dispute

QUESTION 

One of the findings in our internal audit caused us some concern. The audit found that we did not follow the proper steps in conducting a “reasonable investigation” for FCRA complaints. It says our “direct dispute” procedures were flawed. 

The audit only gave us a brief overview of what should be done to fix the process but no guidance. So, we’re writing to you for some advice. We’ve done some research, but it’s not particularly helpful. We need a more precise outline of what would cause us to conduct a reasonable investigation. 

Here are our two questions:

What is a “direct dispute?” 

What are some criteria that trigger a “reasonable investigation?” 

Thank you so much for your weekly FAQs. We love them! 

ANSWER 

I appreciate your kind words. Ours is a labor of love that shows our commitment to the mortgage community. Through highs and lows, we should look after one another! 

Let’s start with a general understanding of “direct dispute.”[i] It is a term found in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that occurs when a dispute is submitted by a consumer directly to a furnisher (including a furnisher that is a debt collector) concerning the accuracy of any information in a consumer report and pertaining to an account or other relationship that the furnisher has or had with the consumer. 

Your policies and procedures should meet regulatory standards, and they need to be monitored periodically for implementation. In addition to periodic reviews, you should update them as necessary to ensure their continued effectiveness. 

As a furnisher, you must establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that your organization furnishes to a consumer reporting agency. The policies and procedures must be appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of your furnisher’s activities. 

There are several regulatory requirements.[ii] Subject to exceptions, a furnisher must conduct a “reasonable investigation” of a direct dispute if the dispute relates to: 

1. The consumer’s liability for a credit account or other debt with the furnisher, such as direct disputes relating to whether there is or has been identity theft or fraud against the consumer, whether there is individual or joint liability on an account, or whether the consumer is an authorized user of a credit account. 

2. The terms of a credit account or other debt with the furnisher, such as direct disputes relating to the type of account, principal balance, scheduled payment amount on an account, or the amount of the credit limit on an open-end account. 

3. The consumer’s performance or other conduct concerning an account or other relationship with the furnisher, such as direct disputes relating to the current payment status, high balance, the date a payment was made, the amount of a payment made, or the date an account was opened or closed. 

4. Any other information included in a consumer report regarding an account or other relationship with the furnisher that bears on the consumer’s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.

Exceptions

There are two exceptions to having to conduct a reasonable investigation. The obligation of a furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation does not apply if: 

1. The direct dispute relates to:

 

a. The consumer’s identifying information, as name(s), date of birth, Social Security Number, telephone number(s), or address(es). However, the exception does not apply if the direct dispute relates to a consumer’s liability for a credit account or other debt with the furnisher, such as whether there is or has been identity theft or fraud against the consumer, whether there is individual or joint liability on an account, or whether the consumer is an authorized user of a credit account;

 

b. The identity of past or present employers;

 

c. Inquiries or requests for a consumer report;

 

d. Information derived from public records, such as judgments, bankruptcies, liens, and other legal matters (unless provided by a furnisher with an account of other relationship with the consumer); and

 

e. Information related to fraud alerts or active duty alerts. 

2. The furnisher has a reasonable belief that the direct dispute is submitted by, prepared on behalf of, or is submitted on a form that is supplied to the consumer by a credit repair organization[iii] or an entity that would qualify as a credit repair organization but for the exemption for nonprofit entities. 

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA

Chairman & Managing Director

Lenders Compliance Group

---

[i] 12 CFR § 222.41

[ii] 12 CFR § 334.43(a)

[iii] 15 USC Section 1679a(3)

Furnishing Inaccurate Consumer Information

QUESTION

Our regulator has cited us for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. For some time, we provided consumer information that was outside of the purpose of the relationship we had with the consumer. In some cases, we had not yet established a relationship when we submitted information about the consumer to the credit reporting agency. Consequently, the regulator now says that we acted in the capacity of a consumer reporting agency. 

On top of that, the regulator’s audit shows that we provided information to the credit agencies that were sometimes inaccurate, which triggered consumer complaints. When we got the complaints, we did not correct the information for all the consumers who complained. We did not do a risk assessment to determine how many credit report errors like this occurred. 

I want to revise our policies and procedures to make sure this never happens again. Our attorney says we have furnisher liability under the FCRA. I need some guidance, and I hope you can give me some suggestions.

What are some suggestions to reduce furnisher liability for providing inaccurate consumer information to consumer reporting agencies? 

ANSWER 

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires any entity that furnishes information about its consumers to a consumer reporting agency to be sure the information is accurate. Your company has made several rather big mistakes. I suggest you undertake a policy and procedure revision, update your change management policy, implement periodic testing, and conduct a risk assessment. You must demonstrate to the regulator that you are taking all appropriate steps to cure the violations and, to the extent possible, ensure they do not recur. 

We typically advise our clients that the information should only relate to the entity’s own relationships with its customers; otherwise, the entity risks becoming a consumer reporting agency itself and is subject to the FCRA’s requirements for consumer reporting agencies. 

More precisely, the FCRA states:[i] 

“A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.” (My emphasis.) 

The “knows or has reasonable cause to believe” standard is a potentially burdensome test because it does not explain how much investigation the person must conduct to ensure the information is not inaccurate. Consequently, the FCRA limits the general rule by providing that a person is not subject to the rule if it has specified to the consumer an address for notifying it that specific information is inaccurate. 

A person may choose not to provide an address, but having provided an address, it may not furnish information to a consumer reporting agency if the consumer has notified it, at the address specified, that specific information is inaccurate and the information is, in fact, inaccurate. 

If an entity regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about its transactions or experiences with any consumer and has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information it determines is not complete or accurate, it must promptly notify the consumer reporting agency and provide any corrections to that information, or any additional information necessary to make the information provided to the agency complete and accurate. Then, it must not refurnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. 

Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act), adopted in 2003, required federal agencies to issue guidelines and regulations regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished by entities to credit reporting agencies. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) Regulation V requires each furnisher to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures concerning the accuracy and integrity of the information furnished. The rules encourage the voluntary furnishing of information and list the objectives that should be accomplished, explain practices that should be implemented (such as a review of existing practices, historical records, and feedback received), and describe components that should be included. 

Consistent with these guidelines, your policies and procedures should promote the following objectives: 

·       Furnish accurate information about loans or other relationships with a consumer so that the furnished information identifies the appropriate consumer, reflects the terms of and liability for those loans or other relationships, and reflects the consumer’s performance and other conduct with respect to the loan or other relationship. 

·       Furnish information about loans or other relationships with a consumer that has integrity so that the furnisher’s records substantiate the information at the time it is furnished, is furnished in a form and manner designed to minimize the likelihood that the information may be incorrectly reflected in a consumer report, and includes the credit limit, if applicable, and in the furnisher’s possession. (The information should include appropriate identifying information about the consumer to whom it pertains and be furnished in a standardized and clearly understandable form and manner and with a date specifying the time period to which the information pertains.) 

·       Conduct reasonable investigations of consumer disputes and take appropriate actions based on the outcome of the investigations. 

·       Update the information as necessary to reflect the current status of the consumer’s loan or other relationship, including, for example, any transfer of a loan to a third party (i.e., by sale or assignment for collection) and any cure of the consumer’s failure to abide by the terms of the loan or other relationship. 

Regarding furnisher liability, I would ask you to consider a recent decision by a federal district court in Texas, where the court considered a claim that a lender had failed to provide accurate information to a third party in violation of the FCRA. The case is Dixon v. Mazda Financial Services, Inc. (“Dixon”).[ii] I don’t think the decision breaks new ground, but it does offer useful information for creditors whose unhappy consumers file FCRA lawsuits. 

Dixon alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), and FCRA. The court previously granted summary judgment for Mazda regarding the non-FCRA claims. It dismissed the FDCPA claim because Mazda, as the creditor to whom Dixon’s debt was owed – while in the process of collecting that debt in its own name – was not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. The court granted summary judgment as to the TILA claims because Mazda had fully complied with its disclosure obligations, and its disclosures unquestionably satisfied TILA. The court also dismissed a TILA rescission claim, which plaintiffs too frequently assert in transactions such as Dixon’s – a consumer credit sale of a motor vehicle involving no security interest in a principal dwelling – to which TILA’s right of rescission does not apply. 

As for the FCRA, Dixon alleged that Mazda had illegally furnished personal information to credit reporting agencies. Whether that information was accurate or not, Dixon’s claim failed because the FCRA section he relied on [§ 1681s-2(a)] does not provide a private right of action against a furnisher for failing to provide accurate information. The court noted that this does not mean the section “lacks any true bite.” Rather, the FCRA specifically provides that violations of that section “shall be enforced exclusively” by certain federal and state agencies (for example, the Federal Trade Commission and the CFPB). 

The court then addressed the viability of a possible claim under § 1681s-2(b), which sets forth the responsibilities of a furnisher of information once a consumer reporting agency gives the furnisher notice of a consumer’s dispute about the completeness or accuracy of information provided by the furnisher to the agency. The subsection requires the furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation of the dispute, report its findings to the credit reporting agency, and modify or delete the incorrect information.

RESPA Section 8 Triggers on Mortgage Comparison Platforms

QUESTION 

Last week, you wrote about Digital Mortgage Comparison Platforms. Your article was eye-opening. Thank you! 

The article triggered a lot of feedback and concerns from our management. We advertise on one of these platforms. As the Compliance Officer, I put together a task team to determine which laws and regulations these platforms impact, especially with respect to the CFPB's advisory opinion. 

I was hoping you would elaborate on how the comparison platforms can affect compliance with mortgage advertising, RESPA, and UDAAP. Maybe you can offer some scenarios. 

How can comparison platforms cause mortgage advertising, RESPA, and UDAAP violations? 

Also, what scenario involving a "warm handoff" can impact RESPA section 8? 

ANSWER 

Last week's article, Digital Mortgage Comparison Platforms, provided an overview of the CFPB's position regarding online comparison platforms involved in lead generation. Let's do a little recapitulation to get started. 

The Bureau issued an advisory opinion to address certain circumstances in which operators of digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms may violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).[i] 

The advisory opinion describes how a digital mortgage comparison-shopping platform operator violates RESPA section 8 if its platform provides enhanced placement or otherwise steers consumers to platform participants based on compensation that the platform operator receives from those participants rather than based on neutral criteria. 

Specifically, the advisory opinion states that an operator of a digital mortgage comparison-shopping platform receives a prohibited referral fee in violation of RESPA section 8 when: 

1.   The digital mortgage comparison-shopping platform "non-neutrally" uses or presents information about one or more settlement service providers participating on the platform; 

2.   That non-neutral use or presentation of information has the effect of steering the consumer to use or otherwise affirmatively influences the selection of those settlement service providers, thus constituting referral activity; and 

3.   The operator receives a payment or other thing of value that is, at least in part, for that referral activity. 

Indeed, if an operator of a comparison platform receives a higher fee for including one settlement service provider compared to what it receives for including other settlement service providers participating on the same platform, that can be evidence of an illegal referral fee arrangement absent other facts indicating that the payment is not for enhanced placement or other form of steering. 

Digging deeper, I will discuss some ways that RESPA section 8 is triggered as it relates to the operational factors of online comparison platforms. 

RESPA section 8 applies broadly and, in many circumstances, covers conduct by persons connecting settlement service providers to consumers interested in purchasing a home, applying for a mortgage, or otherwise using a settlement service provider in a RESPA-covered transaction. This may include selling the consumer's contact information (i.e., leads) to settlement service providers. Leads are increasingly sold through various digital platforms and related business agreements. 

In particular, some digital platforms are structured as consumer-facing websites or online applications allowing consumers to search for and compare mortgage options or other settlement services. These digital platforms – in some cases called online marketplaces – can facilitate a consumer's choice among alternative products or settlement service providers and may be operated by settlement service providers or third parties. Consumers often provide their contact information to set up an account through interaction with these digital platforms. Sometimes, they may provide additional information, typically part of a mortgage application, or fill out an online long form. 

The platform operator then purports to use the consumer's information to help the consumer compare a range of options to find a suitable lender or other settlement service provider that the consumer can contact. The platforms typically generate leads for the participating lender or other settlement service provider by facilitating the consumer's click-through to the website of the participating provider, selling the consumer's contact information to the provider, or both. 

The comparison information may be presented to the consumer viewing the platform in a static or interactive format. In the latter case, the platform may give consumers the ability to sort the options or rankings based on different criteria or to customize the presentation of options or rankings based on factors they can select (sometimes after default options or rankings are presented). 

Furthermore, digital platforms may also combine online marketplace and lead generation activities with other services, such as advertising to consumers. 

There are several ways that comparison platforms can violate RESPA. I will describe a few scenarios. The advisory opinion provides examples of digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms where the CFPB would find a RESPA section 8 violation. 

Pay to Play and Steering to the Highest Bidder 

In an example of conduct that would violate RESPA section 8, let's make these assumptions: 

·      Assume the operator permits the consumer to input relevant information on the digital mortgage comparison-shopping platform to aid in the consumer's search for mortgage options (i.e., location, anticipated loan amount, credit score) and represents that the platform will use the information to identify the best match; and 

·      Assume that the platform presents a supposedly "best match" lender to the consumer or ranks the lenders but skews the comparison function results to ensure that the best match is the highest bidding lender participating on the platform. 

Such a process would violate RESPA section 8 because the operator non-neutrally uses the information to preference the highest bidding lender, resulting in the operator steering the consumer to that lender. The operator's actions imply an endorsement by leading the consumer to believe that the operator did an analysis behind the scenes (possibly driven by an algorithm) to determine the most suitable lender for the consumer, thereby influencing the consumer to select that lender. 

Moreover, the operator is not merely receiving a bona fide payment for services under RESPA section 8(c)(2). The CFPB notes that this example could also potentially implicate the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs), particularly if the digital mortgage comparison-shopping platform were to contain misrepresentations about the accuracy of the information on the platform (including about the objectivity of the rankings). Deceptive misrepresentations could serve to accentuate the affirmative influence noted above.