InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court rules FCRA waives sovereign immunity
On May 13, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Education (Department), ruling that the FCRA “unequivocally waives sovereign immunity” concerning the allegations at issue in the case. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Department violated Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by “negligently and willfully” failing to conduct a proper investigation of her dispute and by failing to remove an erroneous notation of “account in dispute” from a tradeline reported on her credit files. The Department moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that it could not be sued for damages under the FCRA “because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to that statute.”
The court, disagreed, pointing out that while the question of whether sovereign immunity is waived under the FCRA “has generated a circuit split,” the “authority finding that the FCRA waives sovereign immunity is more persuasive than the authority supporting the contrary view.” After examining the statute, the court noted that the FCRA defines a “person” to include a “government or governmental subdivision or agency,” and pointed out that the term “person” appears in other FCRA provisions cited within the plaintiff’s lawsuit. As an example, the court referenced Section 1681n(a), which states: “Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer.” The court also determined that the waiver of sovereign immunity “is sufficiently explicit” in Section 1681u of the FCRA.
FTC settles with remaining operators of student loan debt-relief scam
On May 17, the FTC announced settlements to resolve litigation against the remaining defendants involved in a student loan debt-relief operation charged with allegedly engaging in deceptive and abusive practices by collecting advance fees and making false promises to consumers that they could lower or eliminate loan payments or balances. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed complaints against two groups of defendants involved in the debt-relief operation claiming the defendants, among other things, charged consumers advance fees and enrolled consumers in a high-interest financing program without making required disclosures. These actions, the FTC, contended, violated the FTC Act, TILA, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and stipulated orders were entered against several of the defendants in 2019. The terms of the stipulated final orders reached with the remaining defendants (see here and here) prohibit the defendants from (i) engaging in transactions involving secured or unsecured debt relief products and services; (ii) making misrepresentations and unsubstantiated claims regarding any products and services; (iii) violating the TSR; and (iv) collecting any further payments from consumers who purchased debt-relief services prior to the entry of the order. Additionally, certain defendants are required to pay a more than $24.5 million monetary judgment, which will be partially suspended due to inability to pay. One of the defendants is also required to pay $11,500, which will go towards consumer redress.
House passes comprehensive debt collection measures
On May 13, the U.S. House passed, by a vote of 215-207, H.R. 2547, which would provide additional financial protections for consumers and place several restrictions on debt collection activities. Known as the “Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act,” H.R. 2547 consolidates 10 separate proposed consumer protection bills into one comprehensive package.
Provisions under the package would cover:
- Confessions of Judgment (COJs). The bill would amend TILA and expand the ban on COJs to cover small business owners and merchant cash advance companies.
- Servicemembers. The bill would amend the FDCPA to prohibit debt collectors from threatening servicemembers, including by representing to servicemembers that failure to cooperate will result in a reduction of rank, revocation of their security clearance, or prosecution. Covered debtors would include active-duty service members, those released from duty in the past year, and certain dependents.
- Student Loans. The bill would amend TILA to require the discharge of private student loans in the case of a borrower’s death or total and permanent disability.
- Medical Debt. The bill would amend the FDCPA by making it an unfair practice to “engag[e] in activities to collect or attempt[] to collect a medical debt before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date that the first payment with respect to such medical debt is due.” The bill would also amend the FCRA to, among other things, bar entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a consumer reporting agency without providing a consumer notice about their rights.
- Electronic Communication. The bill would amend the FDCPA to limit a debt collector from contacting a consumer by email, text message, or direct message on social media without receiving the debtor’s permission to be contacted electronically. It would also prevent debt collectors from sending unlimited electronic communications to consumers.
- Other Debt Provisions. The bill would (i) expand the definition of debt covered under the FDCPA to include money owed to a federal agency, states, or local government; certain personal, family, or household transactions; and court debts; (ii) restrict federal agencies from transferring debt to a collector until at least 90 days after the obligation becomes delinquent or defaults; (iii) require agencies to notify consumers at least three times—with notifications spaced at least 30 days apart—before transferring their debt; and (iv) limit the fees debt collectors can charge.
- Penalties. The bill would require the CFPB to update monetary penalties under the FDCPA for inflation. It would also (i) clarify that courts can award injunctive relief; (ii) cap damages in class actions; and (iii) add protections for consumers affected by national disasters.
- Non-Judicial Foreclosures. The bill would amend the FDCPA to clarify that companies engaged in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings are covered by the statute.
- Legal Actions. The bill would amend the FDCPA to outline requirements for debt collectors taking legal action to collect or attempt to collect a debt, including providing a consumer with written notice, as well as documents showing the consumer agreed to the contract creating the debt, and a sworn affidavit stating the applicable statute of limitations has not expired.
District Court certifies student loan borrower class action
On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a class of student loan borrowers who claimed a defendant student loan servicer and other associated entities interfered with their rights to prepay or consolidate their Federal Family Education Loan Program student loans in accordance with certain guarantees under federal law. Specifically, the class alleged that they suffered harm when their applications seeking loan forgiveness were denied because the defendant failed to complete and return required loan verification certifications (LVCs) within 10 days. According to the class, the defendant allegedly “admitted that it failed to return LVCs within the time period mandated by law,” and in 2019 had entered into consent orders with the CFPB and NYDFS, “in which it conceded that it had failed to do so.” (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.) The complaint alleges several claims, including violations of New York General Business Law, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Oklahoma enacts student loan servicer prohibitions
On April 27, the Oklahoma governor signed SB 261, which creates the Oklahoma Student Borrower’s Bill of Rights Act and outlines new provisions for student loan servicers. Among other things, the act prohibits student loan servicers from (i) directly or indirectly defrauding or misleading student loan borrowers; (ii) engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, such as “misrepresenting the amount, nature or terms of any fee or payment due or claimed to be due on a student education loan, the terms and conditions of the loan agreement or the borrower’s obligations under the loan”; (iii) obtaining property by fraud or misrepresentation; (iv) incorrectly applying or failing to apply a borrower’s loan payments to an outstanding balance; (v) providing inaccurate information to a credit bureau about a borrower; (vi) failing to report a borrower’s favorable and unfavorable payment history at least once a year except in the case of loan rehabilitation; (vii) refusing to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; (viii) making false statements or misrepresenting by omission any material facts in connection with a government investigation; (ix) failing to inform borrowers of their federal income repayment options prior to offering deferment or forbearance; and (x) failing to inform borrowers if their loan does not qualify for a loan forgiveness program. The act takes effect November 1.
In 2023, the governor signed HB 1443 to make a technical correction to the text. The change is effective November 1.
DFPI announces settlement on deceptive educational financing practices
On April 26, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced a settlement with a San Francisco-based coding school, requiring removal of a bankruptcy dischargeability provision from the school’s student contracts and notification to students that this type of financing can be discharged in a bankruptcy filing. According to the consent order, a non-dischargeability provision used in the school’s installment agreements was “misleading because, contrary to the Bankruptcy Non-Dischargeability Provision, the Contract is not . . . subject to the limitations on dischargeability pursuant to . . . the United States Bankruptcy Code.” Therefore, the school violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, which prohibits companies from participating in practices that are unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive. As part of the settlement, the school must (i) notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate; (ii) retain a third party to review the terms of the school’s finance contract to certify that it follows the relevant regulations and laws; and (iii) go through a marketing compliance review to certify that the information is accurate and not misleading. According to DFPI Commissioner Manuel P. Alvarez, the consent order “helps ensure that future students can confidently enter into educational financing contracts without being subjected to false or misleading terms.”
Minnesota AG settles with student debt relief company
On April 13, the Minnesota attorney general announced a settlement with a California-based student loan debt relief company that allegedly: (i) collected illegal fees from customers; (ii) misrepresented its services to cease operations in Minnesota by not providing full refunds to its Minnesota consumers; and (iii) violated Minnesota’s Debt Services Settlement Act, Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The AG alleged that the company “falsely promised consumers student-loan forgiveness, when only the federal government can forgive federal student loans.” Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to pay the AG $18,190.50, which will be used to provide full restitution to consumers. The settlement also requires the company to cease operations in Minnesota until it becomes registered as a debt-settlement service provider.
NY AG obtains $53 million judgment against company selling debt relief on student loans
On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment and order against a student debt relief company, which requires the payment of $53 million in statutory penalties, after the defendant failed to respond to a suit filed by the New York attorney general. The AG alleged that the defendant sold debt-relief services to student loan borrowers that violated several laws, including the state’s usury, banking, credit repair, and telemarketing laws, and the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. In addition to the $53 million penalty, the order permanently bans the defendant from engaging in debt-relief activities, collecting on loans related to its debt relief products or services, or using any personal information it has for student borrowers. The court also ordered the defendant to turn over financial records and authorized the AG’s office to seek additional restitution and disgorgement on the basis of those records. The order follows a 2020 stipulated judgment entered against other defendants in the action, which included a $5.5 million judgment (covered by InfoBytes here).
Court rules CFPB lacked authority to bring suit while its structure was unconstitutional
On March 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a 2017 lawsuit filed by the CFPB against a collection of Delaware statutory trusts and their debt collector, ruling that the Bureau lacked enforcement authority to bring the action when its structure was unconstitutional. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau alleged the defendants filed lawsuits against consumers for private student loan debt that they could not prove was owed or that was outside the applicable statute of limitations, which allowed them to obtain over $21.7 million in judgments against consumers and collect an estimated $3.5 million in payments in cases where they lacked the intent or ability to prove the claims, if contested. In 2020, the court denied a motion to approve the Bureau’s proposed consent judgment, allowing the case to proceed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Bureau lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendants should not have been under the regulatory purview of the agency, and that former Director Kathy Kraninger’s ratification of the enforcement action, which followed the Supreme Court holding in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB that that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), came after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. While the Bureau acknowledged that the ratification came more than three years after the discovery of the alleged violations, it argued that the statute of limitations should be ignored because the initial complaint had been timely filed and that the limitations period had been equitably tolled.
The court rejected the subject-matter jurisdiction argument because it held that the term “covered persons” as used in the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6), is not a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court then determined that the Bureau’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Bureau filed the complaint while operating under a structure later found unconstitutional in Seila Law, and Director Kraninger’s subsequent ratification of the action came after the limitations period had expired. The court concluded that this made the complaint untimely. It also rejected the Bureau’s equitable tolling argument based on the Bureau’s failure to take actions to preserve its rights during the period when its constitutionality was in question. The court also noted that the Bureau “failed to pursue this very argument seriously in its brief,” which presented the equitable tolling argument in a “brief and conclusory” fashion.
Department of Education streamlines borrower defense relief process
On March 18, the Department of Education announced a new, streamlined approach for ensuring federal borrowers who attended institutions that engaged in certain misconduct are able to receive full discharges of their William D. Ford Direct Loan Program loans. The new approach—which rescinds a methodology announced in December 2019 that relied “on publicly available earnings data and a scientifically robust statistical methodology to determine harm”—will immediately create a path for borrowers with approved borrower defense claims to date to receive full loan discharges, including borrowers who already had their claims approved and received only partial relief. In addition, the Department said full relief under the new approach will also include requests to credit bureaus to remove any negative ratings tied to the loans, and reinstatement of a borrower’s federal student aid eligibility, where applicable.