Which scenario would NOT cause a compliance violation?

The scenario where a lender sends an adverse action notice 10 days after receiving an application does not constitute a compliance violation because it aligns with the requirements set forth by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. Under these regulations, a lender must provide an adverse action notice to an applicant if their application is denied or if the terms are less favorable, and this notice must be sent within a specified timeframe. Sending it 10 days after receipt of the application falls within the acceptable period, as it does not exceed the mandated timeframe for notifying applicants of adverse actions.

In contrast, the other scenarios involve potential discrimination or unfair lending practices. For example, treating applicants differently based solely on gender, as in the scenario where a female applicant is asked to return while a male applicant is served immediately, raises valid concerns about equal treatment under the law. Similarly, asking Hispanic applicants specific questions about residency while not doing so for other applicants could indicate discriminatory practices, violating fair lending regulations. Lastly, requiring a spouse to cosign for a loan when the applicant has the capability to qualify independently may involve unfair or biased lending practices, potentially infringing upon the applicant's rights under ECOA.

Therefore, option A correctly reflects a scenario that does not violate compliance