InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Split 9th Circuit: Nevada’s medical debt collection law is not preempted
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a split decision upholding a Nevada medical debt collection law after concluding the statute was neither preempted by the FDCPA or the FCRA, nor a violation of the First Amendment. SB 248 took effect July 1, 2021, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and requires debt collection agencies to provide written notification to consumers 60 days “before taking any action to collect a medical debt.” Debt collection agencies are also barred from taking any action to collect a medical debt during the 60-day period, including reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency.
Plaintiffs, a group of debt collectors, sued the Commissioner of the Financial Institutions Division of Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry after the bill was enacted, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. In addition to claiming alleged preemption by the FDCPA and the FCRA, plaintiffs maintained that SB 248 is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, ruling that none of the arguments were likely to succeed on the merits.
In agreeing with the district court’s decision, the majority concluded that SB 248 is not unconstitutionally vague with respect to the term “before taking any action to collect a medical debt” and that any questions about what constitute actions to collect a medical debt were addressed by the statute’s implementing regulations. With respect to whether SB 248 violates the First Amendment, the majority held that debt collection communications are commercial speech and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. As to questions of preemption, the majority determined that SB 248 is not preempted by either the FDCPA or the FCRA. The majority explained that furnishers’ reporting obligations under the FCRA do not include a deadline for when furnishers must report a debt to a CRA and that the 60-day notice is not an attempt to collect a debt and therefore does not trigger the “mini-Miranda warning” required in a debt collector’s initial communication stating that “the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt.”
The third judge disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the majority’s “position requires setting aside common sense” in believing that the FDCPA does not preempt SB 248 because the 60-day notice is not an action in connection with the collection of a debt. “The only reason that a debt collector sends a Section 7 Notice is so that he can later start collecting a debt,” the dissenting judge wrote. “It is impossible to imagine a situation where a debt collector would send such a notice except in pursuit of his goal of ultimately obtaining payment for (i.e., collecting) the debt.” The dissenting judge further argued that by delaying the reporting of unpaid debts, SB 248 conflicts with the FCRA’s intention of ensuring credit information is accurately reported.
7th Circuit: Time and money in responding to second verification request confers standing under FDCPA
On June 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that spending time and money to send a second verification request is enough to confer standing under the FDCPA. Plaintiff’s defaulted credit card debt was purchased by one of the defendants and placed with a collection agency. A letter providing details about the debt, including the original creditor, current creditor, and a validation notice, was sent to the plaintiff. Within the required 30-day timeframe, plaintiff sent a letter to the collection agency requesting validation of the debt. However, instead of receiving a response from the agency, plaintiff received another letter from one of the defendants that provided information on the debt and informed her that it had initiated a review of the inquiry it had received. The second letter also included a validation notice, which confused the plaintiff and resulted in her spending time and money ($3.95) to request validation again. Plaintiff filed suit accusing the defendants of violating the FDCPA and asserting that the second letter would lead a consumer to believe that they must re-dispute the debt. According to the plaintiff, the letter, among other things, used false, deceptive, misleading, and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that while the letter may have confused and alarmed the plaintiff, it did not cause her to initiate “any action to her detriment on account of her confusion.” The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the time and money spent on sending the second validation request did not rise to the level of detriment required for standing under the FDCPA, and that, moreover, it provided plaintiff with another opportunity to dispute the debt if she failed to properly do so the first time.
Disagreeing with the dismissal, the 7th Circuit wrote that the second postage fee (albeit modest in size) is the type of harm that Congress intended to protect consumers from when it enacted the FDCPA. “Money damages caused by misleading communications from the debt collector are certainly included in the sphere of interests that Congress sought to protect,” the appellate court stated, explaining that the second letter caused the plaintiff “to suffer a concrete detriment to her debt-management choices in the form of the expenditure of additional money to preserve rights she had already preserved.”
7th Circuit: Time and money spent responding to second verification request is sufficient for standing
On June 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that spending time and money to send a second verification request is enough to confer standing under the FDCPA. Plaintiff’s defaulted credit card debt was purchased by one of the defendants and placed with a collection agency. A letter providing details about the debt, including the original creditor, current creditor, and a validation notice, was sent to the plaintiff. Within the required 30-day timeframe, plaintiff sent a letter to the collection agency requesting validation of the debt. However, instead of receiving a response from the agency, plaintiff received another letter from one of the defendants that provided information on the debt and informed her that it had initiated a review of the inquiry it had received. The second letter also included a validation notice, which confused the plaintiff and resulted in her spending time and money ($3.95) to request validation again. Plaintiff filed suit accusing the defendants of violating the FDCPA and asserting that the second letter would lead a consumer to believe that they must re-dispute the debt. According to the plaintiff, the letter, among other things, used false, deceptive, misleading, and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that while the letter may have confused and alarmed the plaintiff, it did not cause her to initiate “any action to her detriment on account of her confusion.” The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the time and money spent on sending the second validation request did not rise to the level of detriment required for standing under the FDCPA, and that, moreover, it provided plaintiff with another opportunity to dispute the debt if she failed to properly do so the first time.
Disagreeing with the dismissal, the 7th Circuit wrote that the second postage fee (albeit modest in size) is the type of harm that Congress intended to protect consumers from when it enacted the FDCPA. “Money damages caused by misleading communications from the debt collector are certainly included in the sphere of interests that Congress sought to protect,” the appellate court stated, explaining that the second letter caused the plaintiff “to suffer a concrete detriment to her debt-management choices in the form of the expenditure of additional money to preserve rights she had already preserved.”
CFPB warns debt collectors on “zombie mortgages”
On April 26, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion affirming that the FDCPA and implementing Regulation F prohibit covered debt collectors from suing or threatening to sue to collect time-barred debt. As such, a debt collector who brings or threatens to bring a state court foreclosure action to collect a time-barred mortgage debt may violate federal law, the Bureau said. The agency stated that numerous consumers have filed complaints relating to “zombie second mortgages,” where homeowners, operating under the assumption that a mortgage debt was forgiven or was satisfied long ago by loan modifications or bankruptcy proceedings, are contacted years later by a debt collector threatening foreclosure and demanding payment of the outstanding balance along with interest and fees.
The Bureau explained that, leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, many lenders originated mortgages without considering consumers’ ability to repay the loans. Focusing on “piggyback” mortgages (otherwise known as 80/20 loans, in which consumers took out a first lien loan for 80 percent of the value of the home and a second lien loan for the remaining 20 percent of the home’s valuation), the Bureau stated that most lenders did not pursue payment on the second mortgage but instead sold them off to debt collectors. Years later, some of these debt collectors are demanding repayment of the second mortgage and threatening foreclosure, the Bureau said, adding that for many of the mortgages, the debts have become time barred. The Bureau commented that, in most states, consumers can raise this as an affirmative defense to prevent a debt collector from recovering on the debt using judicial processes such as foreclosure. Additionally, because “Regulation F’s prohibition on suits and threats of suit on time-barred debt is subject to a strict liability standard,” a debt collector that sues or threatens to sue “violates the prohibition ‘even if the debt collector neither knew nor should have known that a debt was time-barred,’” the Bureau said. The advisory opinion clarified that these restrictions apply to covered debt collectors, including individuals and entities seeking to collect defaulted mortgage loans and many of the attorneys that bring foreclosure actions on their behalf.
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra delivered remarks during a field hearing in Brooklyn, New York, in which he emphasized that the Bureau will work with state enforcement agencies to take action against covered debt collectors who break the law. He reminded consumers that they can also sue debt collectors themselves under the FDCPA.
3rd Circuit: No ambiguity in collection dispute notice
On April 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative FDCPA class action debt collection lawsuit concerning allegedly misleading dispute language. A letter the plaintiff received from the defendant debt collector included the following statement:
Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request of this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice[,] this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
If you dispute the debt, or any part thereof, or request the name and address of the original creditor in writing within the thirty-day period, the law requires our firm to suspend our efforts to collect the debt until we mail the requested information to you.
The plaintiff argued that the suspended collection language in the second paragraph violated the FDCPA because it led her to believe “that she could suspend collection by disputing all or part of the debt orally outside of the 30-day window.” Doing so, the plaintiff maintained, would conflict with her rights under Section 1692g(b) of the statute, which “guarantees that, if a consumer invokes her § 1692g(a) right to request information about a debt, and the consumer invokes this right in writing and within the thirty-day period prescribed by statute, a debt collector must ‘cease collection of the debt’ until it has provided the requested information to the debtor.” While the defendant was not required to notify the plaintiff about her rights under 1692g(b), the plaintiff claimed that including inaccurate information about those rights gave her “contrary and inconsistent” information.
The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on the premise that, when “read holistically,” the letter did not suggest that the plaintiff could have collection activity suspended by orally disputing the debt outside the 30-day window. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court that the language that preceded the disputed statement “eliminates any ambiguity” because “it explains that a debtor who wishes to avail herself of her statutory right to validation of a debt must request validation in writing and within 30 days of receiving a collection notice.”
CFPB defines abusive conduct under the CFPA
On April 3, the CFPB issued a policy statement containing an “analytical framework” for identifying abusive conduct prohibited under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau broadly defines abusive conduct as anything that obscures, withholds, de-emphasizes, renders confusing, or hides information about the important features of a product or service. The policy statement, which is intended to clarify Congress’s statutory definition of abusive practices, serves as the Bureau’s “first formal issuance” summarizing more than a decade’s worth of precedent on abusiveness.
Specifically, the policy statement highlights two categories of abusive prohibitions: (i) obscuring critical features that could materially interfere with or impede a consumer’s ability to understand terms or conditions that may prompt a consumer to reconsider signing up for certain products or services (e.g., burying or overshadowing important disclosures, filling disclosures with complex jargon, omitting material terms and conditions, physically preventing consumers from viewing notices, or engaging in digital interference through the use of “dark patterns” aimed at “making the terms and conditions materially less accessible or salient”); and (ii) leveraging a company’s knowledge or market power to take unreasonable advantage of a consumer relating to: gaps in understanding; unequal bargaining power; and consumer reliance (e.g., causing a consumer to face a range of potential harms, including monetary and non-monetary costs, taking advantage of a consumer’s lack of understanding as it relates to whether a debt is legally enforceable or when fees will be assessed, or preventing a consumer from switching service providers).
Additionally, the Bureau notes that in order to establish liability, the agency would not be required to show that “substantial injury” occurred—it only needs to show that a practice is considered “harmful or distortionary to the proper functioning of the market.”
Abusive acts or practices will focus on actions, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra explained in prepared remarks at the University of California Irvine Law School, whereas deception claims are more concerned with whether a company’s communications create a misleading net impression. “Congress prohibited companies from leveraging unequal bargaining power, and that includes consumer reporting companies, servicers, and debt collectors who use the fact that their customers are captive to force people into less advantageous deals, extract excess profits, or reduce costs by providing worse service than they would provide if they were competing in an open market,” Chopra added.
The Bureau will receive comments on the policy statement through July 3.
District Court allows prerecorded-voice-based claims to proceed
On March 23, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York partially granted a defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in an action concerning the alleged use of an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) to collect unpaid medical debt. Plaintiff claimed the defendant repeatedly called his cell phone using an autodialer and left messages using a prerecorded voice message even after he asked the defendant to stop. These actions, the plaintiff said, violated the FDCPA and the TCPA. In partially granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the plaintiff’s TCPA claims concerning the alleged use of an autodialer were “no longer viable” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Facebook v. Duguid (covered by a Special Alert), which narrowed the definition of autodialer under the TCPA, resulting in the law only covering equipment that generates numbers randomly and sequentially.
Although both parties agreed that the Facebook decision does not affect plaintiff’s prerecorded-voice-based-claims (which are distinct from claims based on the use of an autodialer), the parties disputed how the defendant came to possess the plaintiff’s cell phone number. The defendant maintained that the hospital that treated the plaintiff provided the cell phone number; however, the plaintiff contended that he did not recall providing his number to the hospital. The court reviewed, among other things, whether the plaintiff expressly consented to receiving calls—prerecorded or not. Under the TCPA, “[p]roviding one’s phone number to an entity constitutes consent for that entity to use the number to collect a debt, so long as ‘such number was provided during the transaction that resulted in the debt [being] owed,’” the court explained, adding that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff consented to receiving the calls that allegedly used a prerecorded voice.
A purported hospital intake form submitted by the defendant that included the plaintiff’s cell phone number did not indicate that “it was filled out by, or includes information provided only by, [the plaintiff],” the court said, also writing that “this document merely demonstrates that whenever the document was typed, [the hospital] had [plaintiff’s] phone number from some source.” This is not sufficient to indicate that the plaintiff consented to be contacted, the court ruled, holding that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment based on its express consent affirmative defense. As a result, the court allowed the prerecorded-voice-based-claims to proceed to trial.
2nd Circuit: CFPB funding is constitutional
On March 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the CFPB’s funding structure is constitutional—splitting from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which concluded that Congress violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause when it created what that Court described as a “perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure.” The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review the 5th Circuit’s decision next term (covered by InfoBytes here).
Meanwhile, the 2nd Circuit concluded that it “cannot find any support” for the 5th Circuit’s determination in Supreme Court precedent, the text of the Constitution text, or in the history of the Appropriations Clause. “Because the CFPB’s funding structure was authorized by Congress and bound by specific statutory provisions, we find that the CFPB’s funding structure does not offend the Appropriations Clause,” the 2nd Circuit wrote. As such, the appellate court affirmed a 2020 district court order requiring the defendant debt collection law office to comply with a civil investigative demand issued by the Bureau in June 2017. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CID requested information from the defendant as part of a Bureau investigation into whether debt collectors, furnishers, or other persons associated with the collection of debt and furnishing of information have engaged or are engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA, FDCPA, and FCRA. The defendant objected on several grounds, including that the CID was void ab initio under Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (the defendant contended that “the CFPB Director was shielded from presidential oversight by an unconstitutional removal provision at the time the CID was issued”), and that the Bureau is unconstitutionally funded. As noted in the opinion, the Bureau ratified the CID and the enforcement action against the defendant following the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law, and the district court ultimately granted the Bureau’s petition to enforce the CID.
On review, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, concluding that the CID was not void ab initio because “there is no dispute that the CFPB Director who issued the CID was properly appointed.” The appellate court pointed to the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here), which held that “‘an unconstitutional removal restriction does not invalidate agency action so long as the agency head was properly appointed[,]’” and therefore the Bureau’s actions are not void and do not need to be ratified, unless a plaintiff can show that “the agency action would not have been taken but for the President’s inability to remove the agency head.” The panel further noted that “[s]ince the CID was issued, there have been three different CFPB Directors appointed by two different presidents, each of whom has been subject to at-will removal at some point in their tenure. There is nothing to suggest that the Director’s removal protection affected the issuance of the CID or the investigation into [the defendant].” The 2nd Circuit further concluded that “the CFPB’s funding structure is not constitutionally infirm under either the Appropriations Clause or the nondelegation doctrine, and that the CID served on [the defendant] is not an unduly burdensome administrative subpoena.”
CFPB receives FCRA rulemaking petition on debt collection
On March 3, the CFPB received a rulemaking petition from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) in response to forthcoming FCRA rulemaking announced in the Bureau’s Fall 2022 regulatory agenda. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau announced it is considering pre-rulemaking activity in November to amend Regulation V, which implements the FCRA. In January, the Bureau issued its annual report covering information gathered by the Bureau regarding certain consumer complaints on the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). At the time, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said that the Bureau “will be exploring new rules to ensure that [the CRAs] are following the law, rather than cutting corners to fuel their profit model.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
The NCLC presented several issues for consideration in the FCRA rulemaking process, including that the Bureau should (i) “establish strict requirements to regulate the furnishing of information regarding a debt in collections by third-party debt collectors and debt buyers”; (ii) “require translation of consumer reports by the [CRAs] into the eight languages most frequently used by limited English proficient consumers”; and (iii) “establish an Office of Ombudsperson to assist consumers who have been unable to fix errors in their consumer reports from the nationwide CRAs and other CRAs within the CFPB’s supervisory authority.”
“Given the level of errors, problems, and abuses by debt collectors in furnishing and resolving disputes, requiring an original creditor tradeline is a reasonable quality control mechanism,” the NCLC said. “Alternatively, if the CFPB continues to permit the furnishing of debt collection information without a pre-existing tradeline by the original creditor, the Bureau should require that the furnisher of debt collection activity (whether a debt collector, debt buyer, servicer or other) provide a complete account history in the tradeline, including positive payments,” the petition added, stressing that “such reporting must require adequate substantiation[.]”
6th Circuit: Each alleged FDCPA violation carries its own statute of limitations
On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a debt collection action, holding that every alleged violation of the FDCPA has its own statute of limitations. According to the opinion, the plaintiff financed a furniture purchase through a retail installment contract. While making payments on the contract, the company purportedly sold the debt to a third party. After the plaintiff defaulted on the debt, the third party—through the defendant attorney—sued the plaintiff in state court to recover the unpaid debt and attorney’s fees. After the third party eventually voluntarily dismissed the suit due to questions of whether the debt transfer was valid, the plaintiff sued the attorney for violating the FDCPA, alleging the defendant doctored the retail installment contract (RIC) to make it appear as if the debt assignment was legal. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The district court dismissed the case citing the complaint was filed more than a year after the third party filed the state court complaint and later denied both the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit agreed that the plaintiff made a timely claim. Plaintiff argued that at least one of her claims fell within the one-year statute of limitations—the attorney’s filing of the updated RIC that allegedly showed the “contrived transfer” of debt—and maintained that she filed within one year of that alleged violation. The defendant countered, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because it was a continuing effect of the third party’s initial filing of the state court complaint. The 6th Circuit reviewed caselaw on the “continuing-violation doctrine” and determined that the doctrine was not relevant to the case, stating that the plaintiff never invoked it because she was not “trying to sweep in acts that would otherwise be outside of the filing period,” but rather sought “redress for a single claim that is not time-barred.” The 6th Circuit emphasized that the plaintiff’s “single claim is independent of [the third party’s] initial filing of the lawsuit—not a continuing effect of it—because it is a standalone FDCPA violation.” The opinion further stated that the only date considered for the statute of limitations is the date a lawsuit is filed when subsequent FDCPA violations within that lawsuit occurred, and wrote that “[i]f we were to only consider the date [the third party] filed suit . . . we would create a rule that disregards the fact that §1629k(d) creates an independent statute of limitations for each violation of the FDCPA . . . . And if we adopted [the defendant’s] approach, we’d be saying that ‘so long as a debtor does not initiate suit within one year of the first violation, a debt collector [is] permitted to violate the FDCPA with regard to that debt indefinitely and with impunity.’”