InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court preliminarily approves TCPA class action settlement
On March 3, the U.S. District for the Central District of California granted final approval of a TCPA class action settlement with a satellite TV company. According to a memorandum in support of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification, the plaintiff class alleged that the defendant violated the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to call cell phones without the prior express consent of class members, consisting of about 22,000 individuals. The settlement class includes all people who received non-emergency calls from the defendant and four of its debt collection companies “regarding a debt allegedly owed to [the defendant], to a cellular telephone through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and who has not been a [defendant] customer at any time since October 1, 2004.” The settlement requires the defendant to pay an all-cash non-reversionary sum of $17 million. The settlement could also approach or exceed $500 in damages per call for class members who make claims and includes an award of attorney fees of up to $5.61 million, or 33 percent of the settlement fund, in addition to litigation costs. Specifically, the settlement would provide $606.06 per call for settlement class members who received calls from two of the defendant’s debt collectors, and those members will get two shares of the pro rata distribution. Settlement class members who received calls from two other of the defendant’s debt collectors will get $303.03 per call and one share of the pro rata distribution.
Treasury announces MOU with Israel
On August 25, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cybersecurity Cooperation with the Ministry of Finance of the State of Israel (MOF). According to Treasury, the MOU “builds on U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo’s visit to Israel in November 2021 that established a bilateral partnership to protect critical infrastructure in the financial sector and recognized the importance of deepening cooperation on cybersecurity to protect the integrity of the international financial system.” While noting that Treasury has a “long-standing cybersecurity information sharing relationship” with MOF, the announcement stated that the MOU “formalizes and strengthens the close partnership between both agencies.” Specifically, the MOU enhanced collaboration in: (i) information sharing relating to the financial sector including cybersecurity information on incidents and threats; (ii) staff training and study visits to promote cooperation in the area of cybersecurity; and (iii) competency-building activities such as the conduct of cross-border cybersecurity exercises.
Colorado issues remote work guidance to collection agencies
On August 19, the Colorado attorney general published updated guidance on remotely working for employees of entities regulated by the Consumer Credit Unit. Memorandum HB 22-1410, which was signed by the governor on June 7, amended Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code so that a supervised lender licensee may permit its employees to work from a remote location, so long as the licensee complies with certain requirements. The memorandum also provided that the March 2020 guidance issued by the Consumer Credit Unit Administrator for employees of regulated entities during the COVID-19 pandemic “remains in effect for regulated entities not covered by HB22-1410, including collection agencies, debt management providers, and student loan servicers, and will remain in effect until the last day of the 2023 legislative session of the 74th General Assembly, May 10, 2023.” The memorandum also noted that “due to concerns regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, individuals who work for regulated entities may be required, or wish, to work from home to avoid further spread of the outbreak, even though their homes are not licensed as branches.”
The memorandum also disclosed that the state will not take any administrative, disciplinary, or enforcement actions for individuals working at home in what are technically unlicensed branches as long as certain criteria are met: (i) “The Colorado activity is conducted from the home location of an individual working on behalf of an entity who is licensed, registered, or files notification with the Administrator”; (ii) “The individual is working from home due to a reason connected to the Covid-19 outbreak and has informed the regulated entity in writing”; (iii) “None of the Colorado activity will be conducted in person with members of the public at the home location”; (iv) “Individuals working from home will not advertise, receive official mail directly, or permanently store any books or records at their remote location”; (v) “The Colorado licensee shall at all times exercise reasonable supervision of the licensable activity being performed at the home office and ensure sufficient safeguards to protect consumer information and data security”; and (vi) “The individual ceases conducting the activity from the home location as soon as reasonably possible, consistent with recommendations from the CDC, CDPHE, and applicable state health departments.”
Colorado reminds collection agencies about medical law
On August 16, the Colorado attorney general published a memorandum reminding collection agency licensees and interested parties that HB21-1198 becomes effective September 1. HB21-1198, among other things, amends the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to add a new unfair practice—attempting to collect a debt that violates certain HB21-1198 requirements. The bill also creates requirements for notice and certain limitations on collections of medical debt. Specifically, the bill enacts healthcare billing requirements for indigent patients who are treated, but not reimbursed, through the state’s indigent care program and sets forth requirements before any collection proceeding may be initiated against an indigent patient.
District Court preliminarily approves data breach class action settlement
On August 24, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved a putative consolidated class action settlement that would reimburse members for out-of-pocket costs or expenditures actually incurred in connection with a February 2020 data breach. According to class members’ memorandum in support of their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, the data breach may have exposed the personal financial information (PFI) of approximately 10,300 individuals, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, bank account numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, and other information. Class members alleged that defendants failed to adequately protect the PFI of current and former employees and their beneficiaries, and that the resulting data breach “was a direct result of defendants’ failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect PFI.” If granted final approval, the settlement will provide each class member the opportunity to make a claim for up to $3,500 in reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred, and compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent remedying issues fairly traceable to the data breach at $18 per hour. Additionally, class members will be given 18 months of credit monitoring protections.
District Court rules email can be a signed, written instrument for purposes of amending a partnership agreement
On August 15, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling in part that an email could constitute a “written instrument” for purposes of amending a partnership agreement. The plaintiff is one of 33 limited partners in a funding entity formed to pool investments into a fund for litigation-related financing ventures. The plaintiff sued the defendants (the partnership’s general partner and asset manager) asserting four causes of action tied to their alleged failure to dissolve the partnership by a deadline established in the partnership agreement. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties, in which the court reviewed plaintiff’s claims as to whether there was a valid amendment extending the term of the partnership, whether the limited partners received notice of this proposed amendment, and whether the limited partners approved the amendment or failed to raise objections within 25 days.
While the defendants argued that an August 2019 email constitutes a valid amendment of the partnership term, the plaintiff countered that the email “is not a written instrument, is not signed, and does not specify the duration of the extension.” The court first reviewed the text of the partnership agreement, which stated that it “may be amended ‘only by a written instrument signed by the General Partner.’” While the agreement does not define what constitutes a “written instrument,” the court wrote, it “provides that ‘[a]ll notices, requests and other communications to any party hereunder shall be in writing (including electronic means or similar writing).’” As such, the court concluded that an email could constitute a “written instrument” for the purposes of amending the agreement.
With respect to whether the email was “signed,” the court discussed the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act), which provides that “a signature . . . may not be denied legal effect . . . solely because it is in electronic form,” and pointed to several court decisions that similarly determined that the “law demands only demonstration of a person’s intent to authenticate a document as her own in order for the document to be signed [and that] [m]any symbols may demonstrate this intent.” In the present action, the court determined that “the e-mail speaks in the plural using ‘we’ and refers to the senders in third person as ‘your General Partners.’” Moreover, the court held that the plaintiff’s “unsubstantiated assertion” that the email is unsigned “is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to [managing members’] intent to sign the e-mail.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that that the email is not a valid amendment because it did not specify the duration of the extension, pointing to language in the email stating that the fund will be extended until 2021. The court further disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the amendment was not approved, noting that unrebutted statements provided by one of the managing members demonstrated that none of the limited partners aside from the plaintiff objected to the proposed extension.
FCC signs robocall enforcement MOU with Canada
Recently, the FCC announced that it entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to develop a global and coordinated approach for addressing unlawful automated telephone calls. According to the MOU, the FCC and CRTC understand that it is in their common public interest to, among other things: (i) “cooperate with respect to the enforcement against Covered Violations, including sharing complaints and other relevant information and providing investigative assistance”; (ii) “facilitate research and education related to unlawful robocalls and caller ID spoofing”; (iii) “facilitate mutual exchange of knowledge and expertise through training programs and staff exchanges”: (iv) encourage awareness of economic and legal conditions and theories related to the enforcement of applicable laws as identified in Annex 1 to the MOU; and (v) update each other regarding developments related to the MOU in their respective countries in a timely manner. In a related statement, FCC acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel noted that robocall scamming is an “international problem,” and that it is “critical that we work closely with partners like our colleagues in Canada who share our commitment to fighting robocall scams and unmasking the bad actors behind them.”
District Court approves $84 million payment processing settlement
On August 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska granted final approval of an $84 million class action settlement resolving allegations that a payment processing company’s billing practices overcharged merchants. Class members retained the company to process credit card payments and claimed that the company allegedly charged fees that did not align with the terms of their contracts. Class members accused the company of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment related to allegations that the company assessed noncompliance fees, increased contractual credit card discount rates, and shifted credit card transactions from lower-cost rate tiers to higher-cost rate tiers. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay up to $84 million into a settlement fund, which will provide cash benefits to class members and cover administrative costs, attorney fees, and other expenses.
District Court dismisses EFTA claims over prepaid debit card fraud
On August 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the EFTA and state privacy and consumer protection laws brought against a national bank on behalf of consumers who were issued prepaid debit cards providing pandemic unemployment benefits. The named plaintiff—a self-employed individual who did not qualify for state unemployment insurance but who was eligible to receive temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits—alleged that he lost nearly $15,000 when an unauthorized user fraudulently used a prepaid debit card containing PUA funds that were intended for him. The court dismissed the class claims with respect to the EFTA and Regulation E, finding that the Covid-19 pandemic was a “qualified disaster” under applicable law and regulations (i.e. PUA payments were “qualified disaster relief payments”), and that as such, the payments satisfied the CFPB’s official interpretation of Regulation E and were excluded from the definition of a “prepaid account.” The court further explained that while relevant CFPB regulations define an “account” to include a prepaid account, Regulation E excludes “any ‘account that is directly or indirectly established through a third party and loaded only with qualified disaster relief payments.’” Because the prepaid debit card in question was established through a third party and was loaded only with PUA funds, it did not meet the definition of a “prepaid account” and therefore fell outside the EFTA’s definition of a covered account. The court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s contention that PUA payments were authorized by Congress in the CARES Act due to the public health emergency rather than a disaster.
District court partially grants summary judgment in FDCPA suit
On July 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama partially granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA case. According to the memorandum opinion, the plaintiff purchased a home security system, which, after a period of time, she transferred to someone else. The account became delinquent and the plaintiff began receiving collection letters from a debt collection agency regarding the debt owed to the security company. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection. More than two years later, the debt collection agency assigned plaintiff’s account to the defendant for collection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant violated the FDCPA because when it contacted her – via a text message and several alleged telephone calls – to collect a debt on behalf of the debt collection agency, she was a party to Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings in which the alleged debt was listed. The defendant argued that the text message was not an attempt to collect on the debt because it made no demand or request for payment. The district court disagreed, based on the “plain language” of the text message, which stated, “This communication is from a debt collector, this is an attempt to collect a debt.” The text message also referenced a specific debt, thus making the text a “false representation” because it asserted that money was due. The defendant also argued that it should be entitled to the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense. The district court found that the defendant’s actions were “not intentional,” stating that “[w]hen it sent the text message, [the defendant] was not aware that [the plaintiff] had filed for bankruptcy or was represented by an attorney in connection with the debt.” The district court continued, “Moreover, [the plaintiff] had not notified [the defendant] in writing that she refused to pay the debt or that she wished communications to cease. Thus, [the defendant] did not deliberately contact a debtor who had filed for bankruptcy, was represented by an attorney, was refusing to pay the debt, or wished communications to cease.” Though the district court found that the defendant’s error was bona fide, it held that the defendant’s procedure of “relying exclusively” on the collection agency that had assigned the debt to defendant, without any “internal controls,” was “not reasonably adapted to avoid” the error at issue—and thus the defendant was not entitled to the bona fide error defense.