InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB finds relationship between medical care assistance and debt collections
On August 24, the CFPB published a blog post exploring the connection between eligibility for financial assistance for medical care and the prevalence of medical collections. According to the Bureau, Americans spent $4.1 trillion on health care in 2020, and continue to incur significant medical expenses, despite private insurance coverage and government programs. The Bureau expects that number to reach $6.2 trillion by 2028. The Bureau found that as household incomes decrease, a higher percentage of consumers have medical collections. For example, the Bureau reported that of those with household earnings between $20,001 and $40,000 in 2018, consumers had at least one medical collection on their credit report. The Bureau also reported that among people in households with children and with incomes under $40,000, “38.1 percent had at least one medical collection on their credit report in December 2018,” which is approximately three times the rate for people without children earning the same amount. The Bureau noted that three nationwide credit reporting companies recently began removing paid medical collections from credit reports and will, starting in 2023, stop reporting medical collections below $500. However, the Bureau explained that many low-income consumers will not benefit from this change as their existing collections exceed $500, and therefore access to financial assistance continues to be important for such consumers. The Bureau concluded that more “research could explore the extent to which differences in legislative and regulatory environments influence the provision of financial assistance and lead to better financial outcomes for consumers.”
The same day, the Bureau announced that Director Rohit Chopra will host a virtual discussion to explore challenges around nursing home debt collection practices and the impact they can have on financial wellbeing on September 8. According to the Bureau, the discussion “is a chance for the CFPB to listen and learn about consumer advocates’ and individuals’ experiences with nursing home debt and debt collection practices.”
FTC will not extend comment period on NPRM seeking to ban auto lending junk fees and bait-and-switch tactics
On August 23, the FTC issued a decision declining to extend the public comment period for its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to ban “junk fees” and “bait-and-switch” advertising tactics related to the sale, financing, and leasing of motor vehicles by dealers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NPRM seeks to prohibit dealers from making deceptive advertising claims to entice prospective car buyers and would also: (i) prohibit dealers from charging fees for “fraudulent add-on products” and services that—according to the FTC—do not benefit the consumer; (ii) require clear, written, and informed consent (including the price of the car without any optional add-ons); and (iii) require dealers to provide full, upfront disclosure of costs and conditions, including the true “offering price” (the full price for a vehicle minus only taxes and government fees), as well as any optional add-on fees and key financing terms. Dealers would also be required to maintain records of advertisements and customer transactions. In declining to extend the comment period, the FTC said the public has been afforded “a meaningful opportunity to provide the Commission with comments regarding its rulemaking proposal.” The comment period will end September 12.
House Republican concerned about Treasury sanctions on virtual currency mixer
On August 23, Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen raising privacy and due process concerns related to recent “first-of-their-kind” sanctions issued against a virtual currency mixer accused of allegedly laundering more than $7 billion in virtual currency, including more than $455 million stolen by a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea state-sponsored hacking group that is separately subject to U.S. sanctions (covered by InfoBytes here). The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said the sanctions resulted from the company “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, a cyber-enabled activity originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that has the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Emmer stressed, however, that adding the company to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List seemed to diverge from previous OFAC precedent since several of the company’s designated “smart contract addresses” do not appear to be a person, entity, or property, but rather are distributed technological tools that are not controlled by any entity or natural person. “OFAC has a long, commendable history of utilizing financial sanctions to enhance the national security of the United States,” the letter said. “Nonetheless, the sanctioning of neutral, open-source, decentralized technology presents a series of new questions, which impact not only our national security but the right to privacy of every American citizen.” Emmer referenced May 2019 guidance issued by FinCEN (covered by InfoBytes here), which he said drew “a distinction between ‘providers of anonymizing services’ (including ‘mixers’)” which are subject to Bank Secrecy Act obligations and “‘anonymizing software providers’” which are not. Emmer recognized that OFAC is not bound by FinCEN regulations, but said it is his understanding that the sanctioned company is “simply the anonymizing software deployed on the blockchain.”
Emmer requested clarification from Treasury on several questions, including the factors OFAC considers when designating technology to the SDN List and how OFAC plans to “uphold the appeals process for the sanctioned addresses that have no ability to appeal the sanction to OFAC” because they “are smart contracts with no agency, corporate or personal, and as such cannot speak for themselves or those whose funds they hold.”
Maryland orders debt-consolidation operation to pay more than $2 million in penalties and restitution
On August 22, the Maryland attorney general issued a final order against a debt-consolidation operation, resolving allegations that the respondents collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from consumers to help them consolidate and pay off outstanding debt but failed to provide the promised services. According to the AG, the respondents deceptively promised that their services would save consumers money, allow consumers to pay off outstanding debts in a shorter timeframe than the original loan terms, and improve consumers’ credit scores. Consumers were charged upfront fees ranging from $11,000 to $118,000 for services plus additional amounts that were supposed to go toward paying off their outstanding debts. However, instead of providing the promised services, the respondents allegedly used most of the funds for their own personal use while consumers were threatened with foreclosure and had their cars repossessed. The final order permanently enjoins the respondents from violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Maryland Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Act, the Maryland Credit Services Business Act, and the Maryland Debt Management Services Act. The respondents are also required to pay a $1.2 million penalty and must refund all monies collected from consumers who did not receive the promised services. The AG estimates that total payments will exceed $2 million.
CFPB “on track” to issue Section 1071 rulemaking by March 31
On August 22, the CFPB filed its tenth status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, related to the collection of small business lending data. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The current status report states that the Bureau is on track to issue the Section 1071 final rule by March 31, 2023—a deadline established by court order in July (covered by InfoBytes here).
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
FHFA to establish advisory committee on affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing
On August 23, FHFA announced plans to establish a federal advisory committee on affordable, equitable and sustainable housing. The committee’s activities will focus on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks and “their respective roles in providing a reliable source of liquidity and funding to support housing finance in the single-family and multifamily housing markets.” The committee will provide advice and input regarding affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing needs, including barriers to accessing such housing and long-term sustainability, and will advise on any regulatory or policy changes necessary to address these matters. FHFA will solicit applications and nominations for memberships in an upcoming Federal Register notice and is seeking individuals engaged in the financing, development and/or administration of affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing and housing policy who have experience in areas such as fair housing, fair lending, civil rights, and single-family/multifamily lending and servicing.
California appellate court overturns ruling for collector that stapled note to summons
On August 23, the California Sixth Appellate District overturned summary judgment in favor of a collector (defendant) that was sued for FDCPA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations. According to the court, the plaintiff incurred an unpaid medical debt, which was referred to the defendant for collection. The defendant sent the plaintiff eight letters; however, the plaintiff was allegedly not aware that the hospital assigned the debt to a debt collector and did not pay the debt. The defendant filed a collection suit against the plaintiff, seeking to recover the unpaid medical debt. The defendant stapled a typewritten note to the summons, which read, “If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact: []” in English and Spanish. The plaintiff filed a complaint, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act, alleging that “it was unlawful for [the defendant] to send the attachment with the summons and the complaint because the attachment appeared to be a message from the court and did not contain language disclosing that it was sent by a debt collector.” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the communication was lawful, and denied the plaintiff’s cross-request for summary judgment.
On the appeal, the defendant argued that "the attachment is not a ‘communication’ within the meaning of either statute, on the theory that the attachment itself says nothing about the debt." However, the appellate court wrote that the note was not sent “in a vacuum: The attachment, summons, and complaint comprised a collection of documents delivered by a process server—personally to [the plaintiff’s] girlfriend and then by mail to [the plaintiff].” The appellate court further noted that the reference to “this matter” in the note “unmistakably signified the litigation initiated by the accompanying complaint pleading [the plaintiff’s] indebtedness and the amount and source of indebtedness in a common count cause of action.” With regard to whether the note was a communication in connection with the collection of a debt, the appellate court noted that it “fail[ed] to conceive of any subject other than debt collection [the defendant] might think the communication was in connection with. The message in the attachment refers to the existence of a debt, conveys information regarding the debt, and serves the purpose of debt collection by enticing the recipient to contact the debt collector.” The appellate court concluded that “[b]y omitting the mandatory disclosure that this attachment was from [the defendant], a debt collector, [the defendant] made it reasonably likely that the least sophisticated consumer would believe the suggestion to call [the defendant] was from the court that issued the summons to which the suggestion was affixed. [The defendant’s] communication was therefore deceptive.”
FHA requires mortgagees to provide UEI
On August 23, the FHA announced in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2022-14 that all FHA-approved lenders and mortgagees, and institutions seeking FHA approval, must provide an active Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) as part of their institution data in the Lender Electronic Assessment Portal (LEAP) or application for FHA approval. Additionally, the ML, among other things: (i) informs mortgagees how to register for an UEI; (ii) provides instructions on updating the institution profile in LEAP; and (iii) invites feedback from interested parties for 30 calendar days from the ML’s issuance date. The new provisions must be implemented no later than December 31.
FTC seeks feedback on digital ad effects on children
On August 23, the FTC announced that it is soliciting additional public feedback on the effects digital advertising and marketing messages have on children. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May the FTC announced that it is seeking comment on its notice of proposed changes to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” (Endorsement Guides), which includes the addition of a new section highlighting special concerns related to child-directed advertising. Under the Endorsement Guides, which were enacted in 1980 and amended in 2009, advertisers are required “to be upfront with consumers and clearly disclose unexpected material connections between endorsers and a seller of an advertised product.” The Commission also noted that, in conjunction with the notice, it is hosting a public event on October 19 to address topics including “children’s capacity at different ages and developmental stages to recognize and understand advertising content and distinguish it from other content,” and the “need for and efficacy of disclosures as a solution for children of different ages, including the format, timing, placement, wording, and frequency of disclosures.” Comments are due by November 18 “to accommodate those who wish to provide input on the topics discussed at the October digital advertising event.”
Massachusetts reaches settlement with mortgage servicer over foreclosure practices
On August 17, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a national mortgage servicer must pay $3.2 million to resolve allegations that its mortgage servicing, debt collection, and foreclosure practices were unfair and deceptive. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the servicer allegedly violated Massachusetts’ Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures by not providing notice and opportunity for borrowers to apply and be reviewed for loan modifications. Among other things, the servicer also allegedly placed debt collection calls exceeding the number of calls permitted by state law, did not inform borrowers of their right to request verification of the amount of their debt, unfairly charged foreclosure-related fees prior to obtaining authority to foreclose, and failed to send required debt validation notices. While the servicer denied the allegations, it agreed to pay borrowers $2.7 million in the form of principal forgiveness on eligible loans as well as a $500,000 fine. The servicer also agreed to “make significant changes” to its business practices.