InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
8th Circuit reverses debt collection action for lack of standing
On February 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded the dismissal of a class action lawsuit concerning a medical collection letter that listed amounts due but did not distinguish between the principal and the interest that the debt collectors were attempting to charge. Plaintiff, who never paid any part of the interest or principal, filed a class action against the defendant debt collectors alleging violations of the FDCPA and the Nebraska Consumer Practices Act (NCPA). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The district court denied the motion and the jury found for the defendants on all counts except for the NCPA claim, which was not tried before a jury. After trial, the district court determined it had provided improper jury instructions, and sua sponte, entered judgment for the plaintiff as a matter of law on both the NCPA and FDCPA claims. The district court specifically ruled that the NCPA does not allow collection of prejudgment interest by a debt collector without an actual judgment. The defendants appealed.
On appeal, the 8th Circuit focused on whether the plaintiff had standing. The appellate court held that the collection letter did not cause the plaintiff concrete harm, and concluded (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins) that without a concrete injury in fact, she “is ‘not seeking to remedy any harm to herself but instead is merely seeking to ensure a defendant’s compliance with regulatory law (and, of course, to obtain some money via the statutory damages).’” Without suffering a tangible harm, the appellate court said it could only recognize injuries with “a ‘close relationship’ to harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.” The plaintiff pointed to fraudulent misrepresentation and conversion as analogous to her alleged injury, but the appellate court disagreed and determined that the consumer could not establish injury sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. In vacating and remanding the district court’s ruling, the 8th Circuit pointed out that, absent standing, it lacked jurisdiction to decide any other issues raised on appeal.
District Court says undated collection letter is misleading
On February 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida partially granted a defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss an action alleging an undated collection letter violated various provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant providing information on the amount of outstanding debt and instructions on how to dispute the debt, as well as a timeframe for doing so. However, the letter sent to the plaintiff was undated, and the plaintiff asserted that it was impossible for him to determine what “today” meant when the letter said “‘[b]etween December 31, 2021 and today[,]’” or what “now” referred to in the context of “[t]otal amount of the debt now.” He argued that by withholding this necessary information, the letter appeared to be illegitimate and misleading, and ultimately caused him to spend time and money to mitigate the risk of future financial harm. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, maintaining that the letter “fully and accurately stated the amount of the debt and otherwise complied with all requirements of the [statute].” The defendant further argued that the letter “conforms exactly to” the debt collection model form letter provided by the CFPB, and insisted that, because it complied with 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34(d)(2), it fell within the safe harbor provided by Bureau regulations to debt collectors that use the model form letter. The defendant contended that, even if it did not qualify for the safe harbor provision, it is not a violation of the FDCPA for a debt collection letter to be undated. The plaintiff asked the court to ignore the Bureau’s safe harbor provision and find that the undated letter is sufficient to state a plausible FDCPA claims.
In dismissing one of plaintiff’s claims, the court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to provide any factual or plausible allegations demonstrating “harass[ment], oppress[ion], or abuse” by the defendant (a requirement for alleging a violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692d). “An undated letter, with little else, is not ‘the type of coercion and delving into the personal lives of debtors that [section] 1692d in particular[] was designed to address,” the court wrote.
However, the court determined that the plaintiff’s other three claims survive the motion to dismiss. First, the court held that the defendant’s reliance on the model form letter “overstates both the meaning and scope of the regulatory safe harbor provided by the CFPB.” Specifically, the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant violated any CFPB regulations—he alleged violations of the FDCPA, and the court explained that nowhere does the Bureau state that using the model form letter “suffices as compliance with the corresponding statutory requirements of [FDCPA] section 1692g.” Moreover, while use of the model form might provide a safe harbor from some of the statute’s requirements, “a safe harbor for the form of provided information is different from a safe harbor for the substance of that information,” the court said, adding that using the model form letter alone does not bar plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, the court determined that under the “least-sophisticated consumer” standard, the plaintiff alleged plausible claims for relief based on the omission of the date in the letter. Among other things, the undated letter could be interpreted as not stating the full amount of the debt, nor does the letter provide a means for plaintiff to assess how the debt might increase in the future if he did not make a prompt payment. With respect to whether the defendant used “unfair or unconscionable means to collect” the debt, the court determined that the undated letter’s misleading nature as to the full amount of the debt might “be ‘unfair or unconscionable’ to the least-sophisticated consumer.”
CFPB finds 33 percent decline in collections tradelines on credit reports
On February 14, the CFPB released a report examining debt collection credit reporting trends from 2018 to 2022. The Bureau’s report, Market Snapshot: An Update on Third-Party Debt Collections Tradelines Reporting, is based on data from the agency’s Consumer Credit Panel—a nationally representative sample of roughly five million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide credit reporting companies. According to the report, from Q1 2018 to Q1 2022, the total number of collections tradelines on credit reports declined by 33 percent, from 261 million tradelines in 2018 to 175 million tradelines in 2022. The Bureau determined that this decline was driven by contingency-fee-based debt collectors (responsible for primarily furnishing medical collections tradelines), who furnished 38 percent fewer tradelines during this time period. The total number of unique contingency-fee-based debt collectors also declined by 18 percent (from 815 to 672).
In a related blog post, the Bureau estimated that while medical collections tradelines declined by 37 percent between 2018 and 2022, these tradelines still constitute a majority (57 percent) of all collections on consumer credit reports. The Bureau explained that the “decline may be partly explained by structural dysfunctions in medical billing and collections, which increase the risk that debt collectors will not meet their legal obligations” and can result in false and inaccurate information. The Bureau said it will continue to closely examine medical billing and collection practices and highlighted a bulletin published in January 2022, which reminded debt collectors and credit reporting agencies of their legal obligations under the FDCPA and the FCRA when collecting, furnishing information about, and reporting medical debts covered by the No Surprises Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
DFPI takes action against five debt collectors
On January 30, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced enforcement actions against five separate debt collectors for unlicensed activity under the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA) and unlawful and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). According to DFPI, the desist and refrain orders allege that the subjects engaged in a variety of different unlawful and deceptive practices, including, among other things: (i) engaging in debt collection in California without a license from the DFPI; (ii) attempting to collect a debt that a consumer did not owe; (iii) making unlawful threats to sue on debts; (iv) making false claims of pending lawsuits; and (v) failing to notify consumers of their right to request validation of debts. According to DFPI Commissioner Clothilde Hewlett, the agency has observed “an increase in fake debt collector scams in recent months,” and is “committed to rigorous, ongoing enforcement efforts to protect Californians from these deceitful practices.” The combined actions resulted in penalties totaling $120,000 and ordered the debt collectors to desist and refrain from violating the DCLA and CCFPL.
District Court denies certification and defendants’ motion for summary judgment in FDCPA class action
On January 26, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a plaintiff’s motion for class certification and denied motions for summary judgment from defendants in an FDCPA case stemming from a consent order between one of the defendants and the CFPB. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2017, the CFPB announced it had filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against a collection of 15 Delaware statutory trusts 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 that was outside the applicable statute of limitations. According to the consent judgment, the trusts were required to pay at least $3.5 million in restitution to more than 2,000 consumers who made payments resulting from the improper collection suits, to pay $7.8 million in disgorgement to the Treasury Department, and to pay an additional $7.8 million civil money penalty to the CFPB. In addition, the trusts were required to: (i) hire an independent auditor, subject to the Bureau’s approval, to audit all 800,000 student loans in the portfolio to determine if collection efforts must be stopped on additional accounts; (ii) cease collection attempts on loans that lack proper documentation or that are time-barred; and (iii) ensure false or misleading documents are not filed and that documents requiring notarization are handled properly. A separate consent order issued against the debt collector orders the company to pay a $2.5 million civil money penalty to the CFPB.
According to the district court’s order, the plaintiffs, who were sued by the defendants for failing to pay their student loans, alleged that the defendants filed fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading affidavits in order to obtain default judgments. The plaintiffs sought to include a class of those residing in Washington for which the defendants sought to collect a debt allegedly owned by one of the trusts. The district court, however, was “unconvinced” that any of the questions would generate common answers on a class-wide basis. For example, the question of whether the defendants’ employees filed false or misleading affidavits “cannot be resolved in one stroke,” the district court said, because the plaintiffs “cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that the documents Defendants used in every debt collection action suffered from the same alleged deficiencies.” With respect to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, the district court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged violations of the FDCPA and state law in Washington. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, noting noted that “[a]ttempts to collect debts with false affidavits and without the necessary documentation to prove the claims is unfair or unconscionable and involves false, deceptive, and/or misleading representations in violation of the FDCPA.”
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal of FDCPA, FCRA, RICO action
On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a debt collection action related to alleged violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and the Racketeer and Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Plaintiff filed a complaint against a telecommunications company and related entities concerning a disputed past-due charge and subsequent debt collection proceeding. The district court dismissed the action and denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. In affirming the dismissal, the appellate court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the FCRA on the basis that (i) the plaintiff failed to allege cognizable damages caused by the alleged violations; and (ii) the credit reporting agencies corrected the allegedly inaccurate information within 30 days of being notified. The 2nd Circuit held that the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims also failed, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., which found that “you have to attempt to collect debts owed another before you can ever qualify as a debt collector” under the FDCPA. According to the appellate court, the plaintiff claimed that the relevant defendants are or were creditors seeking to collect on debts owed to them, and that, as such, they do not qualify as debt collectors under the statute. Finally, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the communications he received from the defendant qualified as mail or wire fraud under RICO.
3rd Circuit: Now-invalid default judgment still in effect when debt collection attempts were made
On January 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants accused of violating the FDCPA when attempting to collect on a judgment that was later vacated. According to the opinion, the plaintiff was sued in state court for an unpaid debt. Contradictory orders were entered by the Superior Court, one which dismissed the action due to one of the defendant’s failure to attend trial, and another that entered default judgment against the plaintiff (which was confirmed two years later by the state court).
A few years later, an attempt was made to collect on the debt. The plaintiff disputed the debt and later sued, claiming the defendants “knew or should have known” that the debt was unenforceable. The plaintiff later filed a motion in state court to vacate the default judgment and declare it “void ab initio,” which was eventually granted by the state court after it determined that the judgment was erroneously entered by the clerk after the court had already dismissed the case due to the debt collector’s failure to appear for trial. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the district court.
The district court, however, found that the defendants’ alleged efforts to collect the debt were not false or misleading because the now-invalid default judgment at issue was technically still valid and existed when the collection attempts were made. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the summary judgment violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the district court “‘could not have reached the decision that it did without necessarily supplanting’ the Superior Court’s order vacating the judgment against her.” The plaintiff also argued that the district court erred when it found the Superior Court judgment against the plaintiff to be “in effect . . . until such time as it was vacated, . . . rather than ‘per se not valid’” when the defendants engaged in their efforts to collect the debt.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertions. According to the appellate court, the plaintiff satisfied none of the four requirements to trigger the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, adding that regardless of whether the state court declared the judgment “void ab initio,” it was in effect when the defendant attempted to collect on the debt. Moreover, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff “failed to present a triable issue that any communication from Defendants to [the plaintiff] regarding the collection of the default judgment was made unlawful retroactively upon the Superior Court vacating its default judgment order.”
CFPB says ruling on funding structure doesn’t affect debt collector’s CID
In December, the CFPB denied a petition by a debt collection agency to set aside a civil investigative demand (CID) issued last October. The company challenged the Bureau’s authority to issue the CID on the grounds that the agency’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional. The company’s argument relied on a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 19 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), which found that the Bureau is unconstitutionally funded and vacated the CFPB’s Payday Lending Rule. The Bureau submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari in November asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit decision (covered by InfoBytes here).
The debt collection agency and the CFPB held a “meet and confer” at the end of October, and the company argued that during the meet and confer the parties did not agree on two of the company’s objections: (i) the inadequate Notification of Purpose Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §1080.5 contained in the CID; and (ii) the Bureau’s unconstitutional funding mechanism. The company filed a petition to set aside the CID, arguing that because the Bureau’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional, the Bureau lacks enforcement authority and the CID should be set aside in its entirety. The company claimed a similar nexus exists between the Bureau’s unconstitutional funding mechanism and the concrete harm suffered by the company. Just as the Payday Lending Rule was vacated by the 5th Circuit and set aside as unenforceable, “but for the Bureau’s unconstitutional spending, the CID would not have been issued,” the company said.
In rejecting the company’s arguments, the Bureau commented that it “has consistently taken the position that the administrative process … for petitioning to modify or set aside a CID is not the proper forum for raising and adjudicating challenges to the constitutionality of the Bureau’s statute.” In declining to set aside the CID on constitutional grounds, the Bureau wrote that should it later determine that it is necessary to obtain a court order compelling compliance with the CID, the company will have an opportunity to raise any constitutional arguments as a defense in district court.
NYDFS revises proposed amendments to third-party debt collection rules
In December, NYDFS released revised proposed amendments to 23 NYCRR 1, which regulates third-party debt collectors and debt buyers. NYDFS first issued a proposed amendment to 23 NYCRR 1 in December 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here), which factored in findings from NYDFS investigations that revealed instances of abusive and deceptive debt collection practices, as well as consumer debt collection complaint data. The first proposed amendment, among other things, is intended to enhance consumer protections by increasing transparency, requiring heightened disclosures, reducing misleading statements about consumer debt obligations, and placing stricter limits on debt collection phone calls than those currently imposed under federal regulations. The revised proposal, among other things, also include the following requirements:
- A debt collector must send written notification within five days after the initial communication with a consumer that clearly and conspicuously contains validation information as required under Regulation F. Debt collectors are prohibited from using the charge-off date as the itemization date for the alleged debt unless it is a revolving or open-end credit account. Instead, debt collectors should use the last payment date as the itemization date if available.
- Written notifications must be clear and conspicuous and also include the following, in addition to validation information: (i) the reference date relied upon to determine the itemization date; (ii) for revolving or open-end credit accounts, an account number (or a truncated version of the account number) associated with the debt on the last payment date or the last statement date if no payment has been made; (iii) the merchant brand, affinity brand, or facility name, if any, associated with the debt; (iv) the date and amount of the last payment or a statement noting that no payment was made, if available; (v) the applicable statute of limitations expressed in years for debt that has not been reduced to judgment; (vi) information on a debt that has been reduced to a judgment, if applicable; and (vii) notice that a consumer has the right to dispute the validity of a debt and instructions on how to submit a dispute.
- Debt collectors must inform consumers of available language access services and are required to record the consumer’s language preference, if other than English, in the written notification.
- Unless affirmatively requested by the consumer, required disclosures may not be made exclusively by electronic communication. Additionally, a debt collector may communicate with a consumer exclusively through electronic communication only if: (i) the consumer has voluntarily provided contact information for electronic communication; (ii) the consumer has given revocable consent in writing to receive electronic communication from the debt collector in reference to a specific debt (electronic signatures constitute written consent); (iii) the debt collector retains the written consent for six years or until the debt is discharged, sold, or transferred (whichever is longer); and (iv) all electronic communications include clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding revoking consent.
- Communications sent in the form of a pleading in a civil action will not be considered an initial communication for the purposes of these amendments.
- Debt collectors must provide substantiation of debt within 45 days.
- Debt collectors may not communicate or attempt to communicate excessively with a consumer. Specifically, debt collectors are limited to one completed phone call and three attempted phone calls per seven-day period per alleged debt. Telephone calls more than these limits may be permitted when required by federal or state law, or when made in response to the consumer’s request to be contacted and in the manner indicated by the consumer, if any.
Comments are due February 13. The amendments are scheduled to take effect 180 days after the notice of adoption is published in the State Register.
10th Circuit: Vendor knowledge of consumer debt is not a public disclosure
On December 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of an FDCPA suit. According to the opinion, the plaintiff, who had student loan debt, received a collection letter from the defendant that listed the assigned balance as $184,580.73 and the debt balance as $217,657.60 without explaining the difference or that the debt could increase due to interest, fees, and other charges. The defendant, who used an outside mailer to compose and send the letters, sent her two more letters without providing an explanation for the balances. The plaintiff sued, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA by communicating information about the debt to a vendor that printed and mailed the letters. According to the plaintiff, communicating this information violated FDCPA provisions that prohibit debt collectors from communicating with, in connection with the collection of any debt, any person without the consumer’s consent or court permission. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount of the debt because it did not indicate that the amount of the debt may increase.
On the appeal, the appellate court affirmed dismissal after it found that the plaintiff lacked standing since neither of the plaintiff’s claims caused a concrete injury. First, the appellate court found that one private entity knowing about the plaintiff’s debt is not a public disclosure of private facts, which does not rise to the level of sustaining a concrete injury needed to sue in federal court. Second, regarding the substance of the letters, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff simply claimed that the letters she received caused her to be confused and to believe the debt was not accruing interest. However, the appellate court found that “confusion and misunderstanding are insufficient to confer standing.”