InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB settles with debt collector over credit reporting violations
On November 12, the CFPB announced a settlement with an Illinois-based non-bank debt collector, resolving allegations that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Regulation V, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act when providing information to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). According to the Bureau, the company allegedly (i) “furnished information to CRAs that it knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate and failed to report to CRAs an appropriate first date of delinquency on certain accounts”; (ii) failed to conduct reasonable investigations into disputes reported to the company and to the CRAs; (iii) failed to send required notices about the results of investigations; and (iv) “failed to establish, implement, and update its policies and procedures regarding its furnishing of consumer information to CRAs.” According to the consent order, the company, among other things, allegedly furnished actual payment amounts as $0.00 on roughly 165,000 accounts even though consumers had made payments. For about 72,000 accounts, the company allegedly furnished current balances and amounts past due in amounts other than $0.00 even though the accounts were settled in full.
The consent order requires the company to pay a $500,000 civil money penalty and to (i) regularly review samples of furnished account information for accuracy and integrity; (ii) review samples of consumer disputes to ensure they are handled in compliance with the FCRA; (iii) update its policies and procedures to ensure compliance and continued effectiveness; and (iv) secure at least one independent consultant who specializes in FCRA and Regulation V compliance to conduct a review of the company’s activities, policies, and procedures related to furnishing and credit reporting.
Illinois governor suspends consumer garnishment and wage deductions
On November 13, the Illinois governor re-issued over 30 previous Covid-related executive orders that had previously been suspended. Of note, Executive Order 2020-55, which suspended portions of the Illinois Code of Civil procedure permitting service of a garnishment summons, wage deduction summons or a citation to discover assets on a consumer debtor, was reissued in its entirety and extended through December 12, 2020.
2nd Circuit: Payment demand in debt collection letter overshadows validation notice
On November 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that warnings in a defendant’s debt collection letter “could have created the misimpression that immediate payment is the consumer’s only means of avoiding a parade of collateral consequences, thereby overshadowing the consumer’s validation rights.” The defendant sent a debt collection letter to the consumer warning that it was instructed to commence litigation in order to collect a debt. The plaintiff was told he could avoid consequences such as paying attorneys’ fees if he made a payment or made suitable payment arrangements. The letter also contained a validation notice, which apprised the plaintiff of his right to dispute the debt within 30 days. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the letter violated the FDCPA because it included language that overshadowed the required disclosure of his right to demand that the debt be validated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege an FDCPA violation based on either (i) “the interaction between the letter’s payment demands and its validation notice,” or (ii) the letter’s statement that the plaintiff may be liable for attorneys’ fees in the event of litigation.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusions, holding that the complaint stated an FDCPA violation because, among other things, the letter’s payment demand overshadowed its validation notice. The appellate court found that the complaint also adequately stated an FDCPA violation based on the letter’s statements that the plaintiff “may be liable for attorneys’ fees where no such fees could be recovered.” Furthermore, the appellate court determined that the defendant’s introduction of an unsigned form contract supporting its claim to attorneys’ fees “at most raises a factual dispute about whether [the plaintiff] ever signed a contract providing for attorneys’ fees,” and concluded that this factual dispute should not have been resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
North Carolina Appeals Court: Original creditors’ intent required for assignment of arbitration rights
On November 3, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued a pair of orders (see here and here) affirming lower courts’ decisions denying a debt collector’s (defendant) motion to compel arbitration. According to the orders, the defendant purchased charged-off accounts belonging to the plaintiffs and filed individual lawsuits in several state courts seeking to collect on the debt. Default judgments were obtained against the plaintiffs in each of the actions. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendant violated certain sections of North Carolina’s Consumer Economic Protection Act by “not comply[ing] with certain statutorily enumerated prerequisites to obtain default judgments.” The defendant eventually moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an underlying agreement between the plaintiffs and the original creditor. The lower court denied the motion, ruling that the defendant—“as a nonsignatory to the credit card agreements”—had not shown it was assigned the right to arbitrate claims when it purchased the charged-off accounts. The defendant appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court considered whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant and agreed with the trial court, holding that “without any showing of the additional intent by the original creditors to assign to [the defendant], at the very least, ‘all of the rights and obligations’ of the original agreements, the right to arbitrate was not assigned in the sale and assignment of the Plaintiffs’ Accounts and Receivables as set forth in the Bills of Sale.” Moreover, the Appeals Court determined that the “trial court correctly concluded [the defendant] has not met its burden of showing a valid arbitration agreement between each Plaintiff and [the defendant] and did not err” by denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
CFPB finalizes certain debt collection rules
On October 30, the CFPB issued (along with blog post from Director Kraninger) its final rule amending Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), addressing debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The final rule does not include several significant provisions from the proposed rule, including those related to consumer disclosures. The Bureau states a second “disclosure-focused” final rule will be released in December 2020. This final rule is expected to address the model debt validation notice and time-barred debt disclosures previously proposed by the Bureau. As previously covered by InfoBytes (here and here) the Bureau issued the proposed rule in May 2019 and a supplemental proposed rule in February 2020, addressing time-barred debt disclosures. The final rule is effective November 30, 2021.
Among other things, the final rule: (i) prohibits a debt collector from calling a consumer about a particular debt more than seven times within seven consecutive days or within seven consecutive days of having had a telephone conversation; (ii) allows consumers to set preferences with debt collectors on certain communications, including communications with third parties and allowing consumers a reasonable way to opt-out of electronic communications; and (iii) clarifies that the FDCPA’s prohibition on harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct applies to email and text messages. Additionally, the final rule also contains the procedures for state application for exemption from the provisions of the FDCPA.
CFPB releases education ombudsman’s annual report
On October 28, the CFPB Private Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on consumer complaints submitted between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. The report is based on approximately 7,000 complaints received by the Bureau relating to federal and private student loans. Of these complaints, roughly 1,700 were related to debt collection, while approximately 500 mentioned Covid-19. The Bureau’s press release notes that the continued decrease in both federal and private student loan complaints may be attributed to factors such as “borrower education and outreach by federal and state agencies and regulators; borrower education and outreach by consumer advocates; and continued maturation of some industry participants’ compliance management systems, complaint monitoring systems, and their internal consumer advocate and ombudsman offices.” Topics discussed within the report include (i) an analysis of socio-economic and racial gaps in the student loan market; (ii) supervisory examinations and prioritized assessments of federal student loan servicers; (iii) enforcement actions taken against student loan debt relief companies and a student loan trust; (iv) borrower education and outreach; and (v) the impact of Covid-19 on student loan borrowers, including CARES Act relief for federally held federal student loans. The report also discusses a Memorandum of Understanding reached with the Department of Education at the beginning of the year, which clarifies the roles and responsibilities for each agency and permits the sharing of student loan complaint data and other information and recommendations (covered by InfoBytes here).
The report provides several recommendations, including that policymakers—when addressing near-term and long-term repayment issues—“may wish to consider simplifying the various loan repayment plans and the various forgiveness, discharge, and cancellation programs,” as well as examine ways to (i) enhance data sharing between federal agencies; (ii) enroll debtors who file for bankruptcy in income driven repayment plans; (iii) revisit the undue hardship bankruptcy test; (iv) assess socio-economic and racial gaps in student loan debt load and degree attainment; and (v) pursue student loan debt relief scams.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful debt collection operation
On October 15, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a temporary restraining order against a debt collection operation for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things, (i) posing as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys, mediators, investigators, or process servers when calling consumers to collect debts; (ii) using profane language and threatening consumers with arrest or serious legal consequences if debts were not immediately paid; (iii) threatening to garnish wages, suspend Social Security payments, revoke drivers’ licenses, or lower credit scores; (iv) attempting to collect debts that were either never owed or were no longer owed; (v) unlawfully contacting third parties, such as family members or employers; and (vi) adding unauthorized or impermissible charges or fees to consumers’ debts. The complaint asserts that the operation also refused to provide written verification about the alleged debts as required by the FDCPA. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, contract rescission or reformation, restitution, disgorgement, the appointment of a receiver, immediate access to business premises, an asset freeze, and other equitable relief.
The action is part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established last month by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to address illegal debt collection practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On October 16, the Illinois governor issued Executive Order 2020-59, which extends several earlier executive orders through November 14, 2020 (previously covered here, here, and here). Among other things, the order extends: (i) Executive Order 2020-07 regarding in-person meeting requirements, (ii) Executive Order 2020-23 regarding actions by individuals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation engaged in disaster response, (iii) Executive Order 2020-25 regarding garnishment and wage deductions (previously covered here), and (iv) Executive Order 2020-30 regarding residential evictions (previously covered here and here).
Debt collector settles with CFPB for $15 million
On October 15, the CFPB announced a proposed settlement with the largest U.S. debt collector and debt buyer and its subsidiaries (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants violated the terms of a 2015 consent order related to their debt collection practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed an action against the defendants in September alleging that they collected more than $300 million from consumers by violating the terms of the 2015 consent order—and again violating the FDCPA and CFPA—by, among other things, (i) filing lawsuits without possessing certain original account-level documentation (OALD) or first providing the required disclosures; (ii) failing to provide debtors with OALD within 30 days of the debtor’s request; (iii) filing lawsuits to collect on time-barred debt; and (iv) failing to disclose that debtors may incur international-transaction fees when making payments to foreign countries, which “effectively den[ied] consumers the opportunity to make informed choices of their preferred payment methods.”
The stipulated final judgment, if entered by the court, would require the defendants to pay nearly $80,000 in consumer redress and a $15 million civil money penalty. Moreover, among other things, the defendants are subject to a five-year extension of certain conduct provisions of the 2015 consent order and must disclose to consumers the potential for international-transaction fees and that the fees can be avoided by using alternative payment methods.
7th Circuit: No FDCPA liability when collection letter leaves future ambiguity
On October 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that itemized breakdowns in collection letters that include zero balances for interest and other charges would not confuse or mislead the reasonable “unsophisticated consumer” to believe that future interest or other charges would be incurred if the debt is not settled. A creditor charged-off a consumer’s credit card debt and informed the consumer that it would no longer charge interest or fees on the account. The debt was reassigned to a collection agency. Consistent with the original creditor’s communication with the consumer, the collection agency sent a collection letter to the consumer that included an itemized breakdown reflecting a zero balance for “interest” and “other charges.” The “balance due at charge-off” and “current balance” were both listed as $425.86. The letter offered to resolve the debt and stated that no interest would be added to the account balance through the course of collection efforts. The consumer filed a putative class action alleging that the collection letter implied that the original creditor would begin to add interest and fees to the charged-off debt if the collection agency stopped its collection efforts in the future and, therefore, the debt collector violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive and misleading representations to collect a debt, and failed to disclose the amount of the debt in a clear and unambiguous fashion. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the collection letter accurately disclosed the amount of the debt.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court. Specifically, according to the opinion, the appellate court concluded that the breakdown of charges in the letter “cannot be construed as forward looking,” rejecting the consumer’s argument that including zero balances implies that future interest or charges could be incurred if he did not accept the collector’s offer. Moreover, the appellate court noted that when a collection letter “only makes explicit representations about the present that are true, a plaintiff may not establish liability on the basis that it leaves ambiguity about the future.” The statement in the letter that no interest would accrue while the collector pursued the debt is not misleading because it “makes no suggestion regarding the possibility that interest will or will not be assessed in the future if [the debt collector] ends its collection efforts.”