Life Insurance Groups Sue to Overturn DOL Fiduciary Rule

Nine major life insurance trade groups have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in an effort to overturn a new fiduciary rule. These groups argue that the rule would limit consumers’ access to retirement investment advice.

The lawsuit was filed by several organizations, including the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) and its chapters in Texas, Dallas, Fort Worth, and NAIFA-POET, Finseca, the Insured Retirement Institute, and the National Association for Fixed Annuities. This information comes from a report by AM Best.

Background on the Fiduciary Rule

The fiduciary rule aims to ensure that financial advisors act in the best interests of their clients, particularly when it comes to retirement investments. This concept isn't new; a similar federal attempt was made in 2016 to change how retirement investors conduct business. The 2016 effort faced significant legal and political opposition, including from the ACLI, and was eventually withdrawn.

In their statement, the organizations suing the DOL said, “Our filing makes a convincing case that the DOL’s fiduciary-only regulation suffers from the same legal defects as the DOL’s failed 2016 rule. It exceeds the DOL’s authority under federal law, is arbitrary and capricious, and is unconstitutional. Moreover, it ignores recently enhanced federal and state standards for financial professionals who work with retirement savers.”

Details of the New Rule

The U.S. Labor Department finalized a rule that amends the definition of fiduciary. This rule, which the annuities industry opposes, is set to take effect on September 23. The rule expands the previous standard to include new types of non-securities, such as fixed-indexed annuities sales. It falls under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Internal Revenue Service guidelines. The goal is to eliminate “junk fees” and advice deemed a conflict of interest.

Federal officials argue that the rule is meant to protect retirement savers by ensuring that advisors are paid fairly while preventing them from putting their financial interests ahead of their clients' needs. The DOL cited research from the Council of Economic Advisers, which indicates that conflicted advice in the fixed-indexed annuity sector alone could cost savers up to $5 billion annually.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It claims that the DOL’s new rule is a “radical intervention” in the retirement savings market that was implemented without input from other regulatory bodies. The plaintiffs argue that it will “drastically and unreasonably” increase the cost of assisting customers and deprive many of access to information about products like annuities.

In simpler terms, the groups believe the DOL’s current rule suffers from the same key legal problems as the 2016 rule. They argue that the DOL has overstepped its authority and that the rule was created through a rushed, biased process. They also say the rule is arbitrary and capricious because it:

- Fails to prove its necessity, especially given existing regulations.
- Unfairly targets annuities while ignoring their benefits.
- Includes a cost-benefit analysis that doesn’t reflect sound decision-making.
- Fails to adequately address significant concerns raised by the industry.

Concerns Over Costs and Accessibility

One of the main concerns from the insurance groups is that the new rule will make it more expensive for advisors to assist customers. This could lead to fewer advisors being willing to offer their services, making it harder for consumers to get the advice they need. The groups argue that this will particularly affect products like annuities, which are often important for retirement planning.

The lawsuit emphasizes that the DOL did not consider the full impact of the rule on the availability of these financial products. They argue that the rule was put together too quickly and without proper consultation with other regulatory bodies. This, they say, has resulted in a rule that could harm both advisors and their clients.

The Argument for Exceeding Authority

The insurance groups claim that the DOL has exceeded its authority under federal law by implementing this rule. They argue that such significant changes should involve more input from Congress and other stakeholders in the financial industry. The groups believe that the DOL’s actions are not supported by the necessary legal framework and that the rule is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Looking Ahead

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the financial industry, particularly for advisors who specialize in retirement planning. If the rule is overturned, it could mean a return to previous standards, allowing advisors more flexibility in how they offer advice and manage conflicts of interest. On the other hand, if the rule is upheld, it could lead to a major shift in how retirement advice is given, with a stronger emphasis on fiduciary responsibility.

For now, both sides will present their arguments in court, and the future of the DOL’s fiduciary rule will be determined by the judicial system. The case highlights the ongoing debate over how best to protect consumers while ensuring that advisors can continue to offer valuable financial advice.

Nine life insurance trade groups are challenging a new rule from the U.S. Department of Labor that mandates fiduciary standards for all retirement investment advice. They argue that the rule is legally flawed, exceeds the DOL’s authority, and could limit consumers' access to valuable financial advice. The lawsuit underscores the tension between regulatory efforts to protect consumers and the operational concerns of financial advisors and their organizations. The court’s decision on this matter will be crucial in shaping the future landscape of retirement investment advice in the U.S.

Share On :