The mortgage industry celebrated the passage of bipartisan legislation in the Senate prohibiting the use of “trigger leads.” The vote came shortly after nearly identical legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee (FSC) with a minor amendment.
The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (S. 1467) would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to “prevent consumer reporting agencies from furnishing consumer reports under certain circumstances, and for other purposes,” according to the text of the bill.
This prohibition has certain limitations, which are outlined in the legislative language, including circumstances in which an individual, or an entity authorized by an individual, requests that person’s credit information for the purpose of a residential mortgage transaction.
“The Senate passage of this important bill, following similar legislation advancing in the House FSC earlier in the week, is an enormous step toward finally putting a stop to trigger lead abuses,” Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) President and CEO Bob Broeksmit said in a statement. “We commend Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), as well as the bill’s dozens of bipartisan cosponsors, for their continued leadership on this issue – a top MBA advocacy priority.”
S. 1467 passed with unanimous consent out of the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate on June 12 without amendment. The FSC passed its version of the bill, H.R. 2808, 46-0 on June 10 with an amendment referencing a study by the Government Accountability Office on the value of “trigger leads” received by text message. The findings would have to be reported within a year of the bill’s enactment.
MBA addressed this amendment in a letter prior to the FSC’s passage of the House version, which was sponsored by Reps. John Rose (R-Tenn.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.). Rose introduced the amendment (ANS) in question.
“Simply stated, MBA – along with a broad, bipartisan consumer advocate and industry coalition – strongly supports the Rose ANS to H.R. 2808 – and urges an ‘AYE’ vote when it is offered and considered as a part of tomorrow’s markup,” MBA wrote. “Many other potential changes to the Rose/Torres bill were discussed in the weeks and months leading up to tomorrow’s markup. Though MBA deeply appreciates the thoughtful engagement of Financial Services Committee members and staff with key outside stakeholders, our association would oppose any other changes to the bill that may be offered beyond the Rose ANS.”
Broeksmit noted there are “slight differences in the two bills” he hopes can be quickly reconciled in both chambers before they are signed into law.