InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District court dismisses FDCPA class action for lack of standing
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant debt collectors’ motion to dismiss a FDCPA class action without prejudice. In 2016, the defendants obtained the plaintiff’s credit card debt and then settled that debt with plaintiff for approximately half of the original amount owed. Thereafter, plaintiff initiated a putative class action alleging defendants made false and misleading representations in the collection letter because they did not specify if the total amount owed included interest, costs, or fees. To establish Article III standing, the Court stated that plaintiff must “allege some form of detrimental reliance on the representations made by a defendant in a collection letter.” The Court found that the plaintiff ultimately failed to demonstrate that the alleged missing interest information in defendants' collection letter was detrimental, and that “informational statements in the [c]ollection [l]etter are not an actual injury unless [p]laintiff acted on them.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to allege any adverse effects of the misleading information, and as a result, failed to establish standing.
Court grants summary judgment for lack of disputed debt evidence
On May 7, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered into an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a debt recovery agency, on the basis that the plaintiff, an individual, failed to prove that the defendant knowingly provided false information to credit agencies in violation of the FDCPA. In this case, the plaintiff alleged violations of the FDCPA due to the defendant’s failure to report his debt as disputed to credit agencies.
The plaintiff claimed that he disputed the debt during a phone call with the defendant by questioning the balance owed on his account. Upon reviewing the call recording and other evidence, the Court found that the plaintiff did not actually dispute the debt during the call and instead asked about the charges. Since there was no evidence of an actual dispute, the Court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.
3rd Circuit finds appellant does not have FDCPA standing where only injury was confusion
On April 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an appellant who sued a debt collector for allegedly violating the FDCPA did not have standing to bring her claim because she “failed to plead a concrete injury” under Article III. The appellant received a debt collection letter that failed to explicitly state if the money was owed to the original creditor or the current creditor and then filed a putative class action alleging a violation of the FDCPA. The appellant asserted that the uncertainty caused her confusion, but failed to allege that she suffered any other harm as a result of the confusion and uncertainty. Relying on precedent, the Third Circuit found that while an intangible harm such as confusion or uncertainty could qualify as a cognizable injury, it must still “bear a ‘close relationship’ to an injury ‘traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts[.]’” Failing to do so, the court ruled that the appellant did not reach the threshold for establishing Article III injury. Therefore, the Third Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court (a dismissal for failure to state a claim) and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
CFPB report finds 15 million Americans with medical debt on their credit reports
On April 29, the CFPB released a report entitled “Recent Changes in Medical Collections on Consumer Credit Records” that showed that as of June 2023 some 15 million Americans (approximately five percent) still have medical bills on their credit reports. However, credit rating agencies’ changes have resulted in a decrease of approximately nine percentage points in the number of Americans that have medical debt on their credit report. Further, the report indicated that the CFPB’s efforts to combat medical debt collection issues (including, and as previously covered by InfoBytes, holding a hearing in July 2023 on medical billing and collections, highlighting the issue in their 2023 FDCPA report, and having its general counsel discuss the issue in April 2024) resulted in a greater expected decline in those with medical billing on their credit report. The CFPB attributed the difference between the forecasted decrease and the actual decrease to two factors: first, that the CFPB’s first report did not include the original date of delinquency; and second, there has been a trend towards reporting fewer medical collections, independent of collection reporting changes.
This year’s report showed that some states saw much larger reductions than others, but indicated a 38 percent nationwide drop in the total balances of medical collections on credit reports, continuing the trend shown in last year’s report that found a 37 percent decline in medical collection tradelines on credit reports (covered by InfoBytes here). Of the 15 million Americans that continue to have medical bills on their credit reports, this year’s report also showed the average reported balance increased from $2,000 to over $3,100, most medical collections tradelines that were removed were below $500, and those living in lower-income communities in the South have the most medical bills in collections for the largest amounts. The CFPB stated that fixing the credit reporting market, including issues that involve the reporting of medical bills, will continue to be a priority.
CFPB’s Frotman speaks on medical debt collections and rental financial products
On April 11, the General Counsel of the CFPB, Seth Frotman, delivered a speech at the National Consumer Law Center/National Association of Consumer Advocates Spring Training, highlighting how the FDCPA and the FCRA cover often-overlooked sectors of consumer finance, including medical collections and landlord-tenant debts. As to medical billing, collections, and credit reporting, Frotman noted that the CFPB has received more than 15,000 complaints in the past two years, as explained previously in the CFPB’s most recent FDCPA annual report (covered by InfoBytes here). These complaints led to the CFPB initiating a rulemaking process to “remove medical bills from credit reports.” Frotman highlighted that many states have taken similar initiatives: Colorado and New York both enacted laws prohibiting the reporting of medical debt, and the CFPB encouraged more states to follow their lead; Connecticut recently introduced legislation banning medical debt in SB 395. Of interest, Frotman noted that when the CFPB contacted debt collectors about suspected bills, they often closed the account – suggesting that these collectors “do not have confidence that this money [was] actually owed,” indicating that collectors could be seeking to collect an invalid medical debt from consumers.
On rental collections and credit reporting, Frotman noted an increase in the “financialization” of the landlord and tenant relationship, such as products to finance security deposits or rent and offering rent-specific credit cards. Frotman also noted that corporate landlords, who have increased their share of the rental housing market, have increased the demand for “tenant screening” products that score prospective tenants. Frotman expressed concern that the algorithms relied on by these tenant screening products have been opaque and even discriminatory. The speech highlighted the CFPB’s focus on tenant screening as part of the Bureau’s increased attention toward debt collection and credit reporting companies generally in the rental industry. For instance, the CFPB noted that law firms that operate as “eviction mills” (i.e., firms that “rubber stamp” eviction actions without performing a meaningful review) could be held liable under the FDCPA.
Utah appellate court upholds ruling for defendant in FDCPA case
Recently, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector in an FDCPA case. According to the court, defendant’s registration as a debt collection agency had lapsed in Utah when it sent the plaintiff a debt collection letter. Later, when still not registered as a collection agency, defendant served plaintiff with a collection complaint and filed it with the district court. Plaintiff did not contest the complaint, leading to defendant moving for a default judgment, which the district court granted in 2020. Thereafter, plaintiff filed suit against defendant for illegally pursuing the prior collection action, and summary judgment was entered against plaintiff.
On appeal, the court turned to a recent similar case that supported the lower court’s decision that a registration violation was not actionable under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA). Regarding plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, the court found that plaintiff did not argue for a different resolution under the FDCPA compared to the Utah Code. Plaintiff contended that since both statutes prohibited the same practices in debt collection, her FDCPA claim should also be valid under the UCSPA. However, as plaintiff did not preserve any argument distinguishing her FDCPA claim from her UCSPA claim, the court affirmed the dismissal of both the FDCPA and UCSPA claims.
Indiana appellate court finds debt company violated FDCPA and Indiana’s deceptive consumer sales act
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a state trial court’s decision concluding that the defendant was a debt collector under both the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the FDCPA when it purchased and collected defaulted debt. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument in its motion for partial summary judgment arguing it was not a debt collector under both statutes because the plaintiff’s debt was owned by it and due to it, and it did not collect debts owed by another. The court reviewed the evidence that the defendant purchased defaulted debt and utilized agencies to contact consumers as its primary business pursuit. The court found the defendant was a “person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts” or a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). It likewise concluded that the defendant was a “debt collector under” the state statute because Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-2(a)(13) incorporated the FDCPA’s definition of debt collector and “[t]he term includes a debt buyer (as defined in IC 24-5-15.5).”
5th Circuit reverses judgment in FDCPA case
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered an FDCPA case to be reversed and remanded after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that the defendant law firm violated the FDCPA for misrepresenting judicial enforceability of a debt in their dunning letters. The case concerned Congress’s “Road Home” grant program, which was created to provide grants to repair and rebuild homes in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. All Road Home grant recipients were required to disclose repair benefits previously received. The named plaintiffs in this case applied for and received Road Home grants but failed to disclose repair benefits previously received from FEMA or a privacy insurance carrier. In March 2008, the State’s contractor, ICF, noticed the potential double payments to the two named plaintiffs and placed an internal flag on their accounts in the Road Home database. After a decade, the defendant law firm was engaged to help recover these double payments. The defendants sent a dunning letter demanding repayment in 90 days or the defendants “may proceed with further action against you, including legal action.” The dunning letter further stated that “you may be responsible for legal interest from judicial demand, court costs, and attorneys fees if it is necessary to bring legal action against you.” The plaintiffs filed suit under Section 1692e of the FDCPA and, in an amended complaint, alleged the defendants collected or attempted to collect time-barred debts, failed to itemize the alleged debts, and threatened to assess attorneys’ fees without determining if that right existed. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The 5th Circuit reversed on appeal. Concerning the first allegation of collecting or attempting to collect a time-barred debt, the court reasoned that while it does not violate the FDCPA to collect on a time-barred debt, a debt-collector “can run afoul of the FDCPA by threatening judicial action while completely failing to mention that a limitations period might affect judicial enforceability.” Further, the appellate court found the dunning letters were “untimely even under the most liberal, 10-year time window” as the plaintiffs breached their agreements when they closed on their Road Home grants or when the State of Louisiana was provided actual notice of the alleged duplicative payments, both of which occurred more than 10 years before the dunning letters were received. The court also found that the defendants mischaracterized one plaintiff’s debt as the dunning letter said the amount owed was for insurance proceeds when it included a 30 percent penalty for lack of flood insurance. Finally, the court explained that because there was no lawful basis to recover attorneys fees, the defendants violated the FDCPA.
Trusts are covered persons subject to the CFPA, 3rd Circuit upholds CFPB FDCPA case
On March 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit filed an opinion remanding a case between the CFPB and defendant statutory trusts to the District Court. After issuing a civil investigative demand in 2014, the CFPB initiated an enforcement action in September 2017 against a collection of 15 Delaware statutory trusts that furnished over 800,000 private loans and their debt collector for, among other things, allegedly filing lawsuits against consumers for private student loan debt that they could not prove was owed or was outside the applicable statute of limitations (covered by InfoBytes here). Then, early last year, the parties settled and asked the court to enter a consent judgment, which was denied (covered by InfoBytes here).
The 3rd Circuit addressed two questions: (i) whether the trusts are covered persons subject to the CFPA; and (ii) whether the CFPB was required to ratify the underlying action that questioned a constitutional deficiency within the Bureau. On the statutory issue, the court found that the trusts fell within the purview of the CFPA because trusts “engage” in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service, specifically student loan servicing and debt collection, as explicitly stated in the trust agreements each trust entered. Regarding the constitutional question, the defendants argued that the Bureau needed to ratify the underlying suit because it was initiated while the agency head was improperly insulated, and since the Bureau ratified it after the statute of limitations had run, the suit was untimely. The court disagreed and found that the defendants’ analysis of the here-and-now injury “doesn’t go far enough,” therefore the CFPB did not need to ratify this action before the statute of limitations had run because the impermissible insulation provision does not, on its own, cause harm.
7th Circuit says plaintiffs should have produced evidence to prove concrete injury
On February 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that while an interruption of self-employment can cause a concrete loss for a plaintiff to sue, that loss must be established by evidence at summary judgment. The loss in question involved a consumer debt in arrears sold by a bank to a debt collection agency. Two individual plaintiffs owing the underlying debt sued the debt collection agency under 15 U.S.C. §1692e of the FDCPA when the debt collection agency attempted to collect on the debt owed without relaying that the bank had not verified the balance of the debt. The judge opined that rather than claiming they had incurred any concrete loss (e.g., a loss of income, payment of funds, etc.), plaintiffs instead filed an affidavit to state that the debt had “interrupted my self-employment” because they were focused on thinking about the debt and spent time working through records to confirm the debt owed. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that debt collection efforts can very well cause a delay in receiving self-employment income, which is a “form of loss”; however, the judge also held that plaintiffs must show evidence of injury at the summary judgment stage, as this is the “put up or shut up” stage in litigation. Ultimately, the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence that debt collection efforts caused them concrete harm, other than interrupting a productive day of work.