InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB fines short-term lender $1.3 million for unfair and deceptive acts and practices
On April 1, the CFPB announced a $1.3 million settlement with a Texas-based short-term lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FCRA, and TILA. The Bureau alleged that while “marketing, servicing, and collecting on high-interest payday, auto-title, and unsecured consumer-installment loans,” the lender made deceptive representations through advertisements and telemarketing calls when promoting purported loan discounts. The Bureau also alleged that the lender engaged in unfair collection call practices by allegedly calling consumers who failed to make payments numerous times—some more than 15 or 20 times a day—even after being asked to stop. In addition, the lender allegedly repeatedly called consumers’ workplaces and references as a tactic to obtain payments and disclosed, or risked disclosing, to third parties the existence of the delinquent debts. According to the Bureau, the lender also violated FCRA by failing to maintain adequate consumer reporting policies and procedures to ensure the “accuracy and integrity” of the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and violated TILA by failing to provide telemarketers guidance on how to lawfully disclose a loan’s annual percentage rate as required by federal law when responding to consumers’ questions about interest and other loan costs.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is required to pay a $1.1 million civil money penalty, $286,675 in consumer redress, and is, among other things, (i) permanently restrained from certain collection practices; (ii) required to ensure employees do not misrepresent discount offers when marketing or selling consumer financial products or services; and (iii) tasked with ensuring employees correctly disclose the APR of loan products.
3rd Circuit: No written dispute requirement under FDCPA Section 1692g(a)(3)
On March 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned previous precedent set in Graziano v. Harrison, holding that there is no written dispute requirement under Section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA. In affirming a district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of a debt collector (defendant), the en banc panel joined several other appellate courts in concluding that disputes under Section 1692g(a)(3) can be made orally, as well as in writing. According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant alleging violations of Section 1692g(a)(3) after she received a letter in which she was provided multiple options for contacting the defendant, instead of an explicit requirement that any dispute be done in writing. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit considered the question of whether a collection letter “must require all disputes to be in writing, or whether [Section] 1692g(a)(3) permits oral disputes.” According to the appellate court, while other sections of 1692g specifically include the word “written,” Section 1692g(a)(3) “refers only to ‘disputes,’ without specifying oral or written.” The en banc court reversed its prior holding in Graziano v. Harrison, in which a panel of the 3rd Circuit held that Section 1692g(a)(3) “must be read to require that a dispute, to be effective, must be in writing.” It determined that after “reading the statutory text with fresh eyes”—as well as considering “the past three decades of Supreme Court statutory-interpretation caselaw”—it now believes Section 1692g(a)(3) allows for oral disputes. According to the appellate court, because Congress did not write Section 1692g(a)(3) to include a written dispute requirement, it must rely on the language Congress chose. “By expressing our view today, we put an end to a circuit split and restore national uniformity to the meaning of §1692g,” the 3rd Circuit wrote.
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issues guidance to debt collection agencies and debt buyers
On March 30, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (Department) issued guidance to Illinois-licensed debt collection agencies and debt buyers regarding Covid-19. The guidance reminds debt collection agencies that the Illinois Collection Agency Act does not contemplate collectors’ ability to conduct business at any place other than the address of record with the Department. Debt collection agencies seeking to work at a location other than their address of record, including remotely, are directed to provide notice to the Department within 14 days of any address changes. Debt collection agencies and debt buyers are encouraged to work with consumers to modify payment schedules or suspend all collection activity for a period of no less than 60 days. The Department also notes that it will closely monitor adherence to the prohibitions on communications at times and places that should be known to be inconvenient to the debtor under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Collection Agency Act.
North Carolina Department of Insurance issues guidance on debt collection
On March 27, the North Carolina Department of Insurance issued guidance clarifying certain debt collection obligations for insurance companies and related entities. Entities involved in collections must provide customers specific relief for payments, submission of claims, and other responsibilities. They must allow consumers, whose requests may have been impacted by the Covid-19 disaster, additional time for their requests to be received and reviewed. Additionally, the timeframes to submit additional information for previously pending requests will also be extended. The guidance is in effect for 60 days.
Massachusetts attorney general issues emergency regulation prohibiting certain debt collection practices
On March 27, the Massachusetts attorney general issued an emergency regulation that makes numerous standard debt collection actions an unfair and deceptive act or practice during the defined “state of emergency period.” Specifically, the emergency regulation prohibits both creditors and debt collectors from: (i) initiating, filing, or threatening to file any collection lawsuit; (ii) initiating or threatening to initiate any legal or equitable remedy for garnishment, seizure, attachment or withholding of wages, earnings, property or funds; (iii) initiating or threatening to initiate repossession of a vehicle; (iv) applying for, causing to be served or enforced, or threatening to apply for or enforce any capias warrant; (v) visiting or threatening to visit the household or place of employment of any debtor; and (vi) confronting or communicating in public with any debt regarding collection. In addition, the regulation also prohibits debt collectors from initiating phone calls with debtors, unless necessary to discuss a rescheduled court appearance or at the request of the debtor. These prohibitions do not apply to debts secured by mortgage on real property or debt owed by a tenant to an owner. The regulation will remain in effect for the early of: (i) 30 days after the lifting of the declared state of emergency; or (ii) 90 days.
District court approves $2.3 million class settlement resolving violations of Massachusetts debt collection laws
On March 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order granting final approval to a nearly $2.3 million class action settlement, reached through mediation, to resolve allegations that a subsidiary of a large U.S. retailer (defendant) made excessive debt collection calls to Massachusetts consumers. The named plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and state debt collection regulations by calling consumers more often than twice in a seven-day period. The order also lowered the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees because, according to the court, the case was not as risky as the attorneys claimed and not complex enough to warrant taking approximately one-third of the settlement fund.
Department of Education provides Covid-19 relief by pausing loan collections, issuing refunds
On March 25, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that in order to provide additional relief for student loan borrowers, the Department will take a number of actions which include the following:
- Stop collection activities and wage garnishments for at least 60 days, effective March 13;
- Stop requests to the Department of Treasury to withhold funds from “defaulted borrowers' federal income tax refunds, Social Security payments, and other federal payments”;
- Refund almost $2 billion to over 830,000 borrowers from funds previously withheld as of March 13;
- Direct private collection agencies to “halt all proactive collection activities, including making phone calls to borrowers and issuing collection letters and billing statements,” however, “[p]rivate collection agencies are permitted to provide assistance upon the borrower's request”;
- Begin to “monitor employers' compliance with the request to stop wage garnishment.” Those “[b]orrowers whose wages continue to be garnished after March 13 should contact their employers' human resources department.”
Borrowers with defaulted loans who would like to “continu[e] a prior payment arrangement, consolidat[e] their loans, or begin[] a loan rehabilitation arrangement with their private collection agency, should contact the Department's Default Resolution Group at 1-800-621-3115 (TTY for the deaf or hearing-impaired 1-877-825-9923).”
For more information, borrowers may visit StudentAid.gov/coronavirus.
CFPB extends comment period for proposed rulemaking on time-barred debt disclosures; CFPB and FTC release 2019 FDCPA report
On March 20, the CFPB announced it was extending the comment period on its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to time-barred debt disclosures (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) for an additional 30 days. Given the challenges created by Covid-19, the comment period will now end June 5.
The same day, the CFPB and FTC released their annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA, which highlights the 2019 efforts of the agencies. Under a memorandum of understanding, the agencies are provided joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts. Among other things, the report provides general demographic and economic data about consumer debt and the debt collection industry, and highlights enforcement actions, education efforts, and supervisory findings. The report also notes that the CFPB handled roughly 75,000 complaints filed by consumers about first- and third-party debt collectors in 2019, down from the 81,500 it received in 2018, and engaged in five public enforcement actions arising from alleged FDCPA violations. Judgments resulting from these actions yielded nearly $50 million in consumer redress and $11.2 million in civil money penalties.
With respect to the FTC, the report states that in 2019 the agency obtained approximately $25 million in judgments and permanently banned 23 companies and individuals that engaged in serious and repeated violations of law from working in the debt collection industry. The report also highlights the FTC’s comment letter on the Bureau’s May 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the FDCPA and to address other debt collection issues, in which the agency stated that it “has long advocated for amendments and clarifications to existing laws to account for changes in the debt collection marketplace and consumer technology” (covered by InfoBytes here).
Indiana secretary of state issues work at home guidance for licensees
On March 24, the Indiana secretary of state, Securities Division, issued a Compliance Alert to all licensed loan brokers and collection agencies. The Division encouraged licensees to instruct their employees to work from home and refrain from any in-person meetings whenever possible, and noted that relevant state laws do not prevent individuals of licensed entities from working from their personal residences. The alert also noted that the commissioner would not consider a temporary arrangement where an employee works from home during the COVID-19 outbreak to require licensure as a branch office—provided certain conditions were met—including for proper handling of personal information.
Utah amends consumer lending requirements
On March 24, the Utah governor signed HB 319, which modifies provisions related to consumer lending in the state, including registration, reporting, and operational requirements for deferred deposit lenders. Among other things, the provisions require deferred deposit lenders to provide borrowers at least 30 days’ notice of default before initiating a civil action, allowing a borrower the opportunity to remedy the default. HB 319 also requires deferred deposit lenders seeking to renew a registration to report, for the immediately preceding calendar year, the total number of loans extended, the total dollar amount loaned, the number of borrowers who were extended loans, and the percentage of loans that were not repaid based on the terms of the loan, among other items. HB 319 further allows third party debt collection agencies to charge a “convenience fee” when debtors use a credit or debit card for the transaction of business, provided the convenience fee amount is disclosed prior to being charged and the debtor is given an alternative payment method that does not carry a fee. The amendments take effect 60 days following adjournment of the legislature.