InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
2nd Circuit: debt collectors do not need to state interest is not accruing
On March 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that a debt collection letter, which does not disclose that the balance due is not accruing interest or fees is not misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The decision results from a 2016 lawsuit filed by two debtors who alleged that the debt collection notices they received from the defendants were “false, deceptive, or misleading” under Section 1692e of the FDCPA because the notices did not state whether the balances were accruing interest or fees. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants after unrebutted evidence was produced to show that the debtor’s balances did not accrue interest or fees during the collection period. In affirming the district court’s decision, the 2nd Circuit applied the “least sophisticated consumer” standard and found that even if a consumer interpreted the debt collection notice to believe the balance due was accruing interest or fees, the only harm that would exist is “being led to think that there is a financial benefit to making repayment sooner rather than later.” The panel also noted that the notice was consistent with Section 1692g of the FDCPA because interest and fees were not accruing, the balance due stated the accurate amount of the debt.
7th Circuit rules bank cannot arbitrate debt claim with a minor in TCPA suit
On March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed a district court’s decision that had granted a national bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a putative class action. In 2014, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging the bank’s debt collection practices violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), after the bank called the plaintiff’s phone number seeking payment on her mother’s overdue card payments. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred in ruling that the plaintiff—who made a one-time purchase with her mother’s credit card when she was a minor—became an authorized user under the account and was bound by her mother’s credit card agreement, including the arbitration provision, regardless of whether she received a direct benefit from the cardholder agreement. The panel opined that, “an individual does not become an [a]uthorized [u]ser simply by using the credit card to complete the cardholder’s transaction.” Specifically, a provision to add authorized users to an existing account “clearly foresees an [a]uthorized [u]ser as playing a far more durable role in the account,” and in fact, the panel noted, the plaintiff’s mother did not follow the required steps to add an authorized user to the account. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not have the legal capacity to enter into a contractual relationship with the bank, and therefore, could not be bound by the agreement. The 7th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for review.
CFPB and FTC issue annual report on 2017 debt collection activities
On March 20, the CFPB and the FTC issued an annual report to Congress on the agencies’ collective actions to combat illegal debt collection practices based on their shared enforcement responsibilities under the FDCPA. The report was released pursuant to a 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the CFPB and the FTC that provides for coordination in enforcement, supervision, and consumer education. According to the report, the agencies’ actions against debt collectors include:
- CFPB. In addition to handling approximately 84,500 debt collection complaints in 2017, the CFPB reports it resolved one FDCPA enforcement case (previously covered by InfoBytes here) and filed two other complaints alleging FDCPA violations (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here). The Bureau also notes it uncovered a number of actions that the agency’s examiners deemed to be violations of the FDCPA, such as impermissible communications with third parties and implying authorized users are responsible for debt on the account. As for the Bureau’s pending FDCPA rulemaking, the report notes that the CFPB is still considering feedback from stakeholders regarding the July 2016 outline of proposals under consideration.
- FTC. The agency reports it obtained more than $64 million in judgments based on alleged violations of the FDCPA or the FTC Act and emphasized the FTC’s specific focus on phantom debt actions. In addition to working to educate consumers about their rights with regard to debt collection, the FTC emphasized multiple permanent injunctions, which prevent companies and individuals from working in the debt collection field again. As for research, the agency highlighted its July 2017 Military Consumer Financial Workshop, which covered debt collection as an issue faced by the military community (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC and New York Attorney General announce orders banning debt collection operations from related activities
On March 22, the New York Attorney General’s office and the FTC announced settlements with the operators of an allegedly abusive debt collection scheme, resolving lawsuits filed in 2015. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to the FTC, the operators and associated companies allegedly violated the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and New York state laws prohibiting deceptive acts and practices by using abusive language and making false threats that consumers would be arrested or sued in order to collect the supposed debts. The stipulated final orders impose combined judgments of over $48.7 million to be partially suspended upon the surrender of certain assets, including more than $1 million in corporate and individual assets. In addition to barring the operators from the debt collection business and from buying or selling debt, the orders further prohibit them from misrepresenting financial products and services or benefiting from consumers’ personal information collected in connection with the challenged practices.
Wyoming allows state board to use NMLS to assist in regulation of debt collection industry
On March 12, the Wyoming governor signed SF 26, which amends the preexisting licensing law to authorize the state’s collection agency board to use information from, and furnish information to, the nationwide multistate licensing system (NMLS) to assist in the regulation of the debt collection industry. In addition, among other things, SF 26 allows the board to establish application requirements; require background investigations of licensees and applicants; and receive criminal history record information. The law also amends provisions relating to the disposition of fees and expiration and renewal of licenses. The law is effective immediately.
California appellate court says mortgage servicers can be debt collectors under Rosenthal Act
On March 13, a California appellate court held that a mortgage servicer that engages in debt collection activities may be considered a “debt collector” under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). The decision results from a class action lawsuit alleging that the mortgage servicer made hundreds of phone calls demanding mortgage payments that had already been paid or were not yet due, including making calls at inconvenient times throughout the day and using threats of negative credit reporting and foreclosure. The class action suit alleged that the mortgage servicer’s activity violated the Rosenthal Act and the California’s Unfair Competition Law. The trial court sustained the mortgage servicer’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, concluding that servicing a mortgage is not a form of collecting consumer debts. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court held that, although the language in the Rosenthal Act was ambiguous with regard to mortgage debt servicing, it should be “construed broadly in favor of protecting the public,” and thus mortgage lenders and mortgage servicers can be considered “debt collectors” within the law’s purview. The appellate court acknowledged a split among California federal courts on the issue.
9th Circuit reverses lower court’s dismissal of TCPA claim
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated a consumer’s lawsuit against two banks on charges that the nearly 300 calls she received seeking payment of a debt may have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The three-judge panel stated that the district court’s decision to dismiss the case on standing grounds was incorrect in light of a subsequent 9th Circuit ruling in a different case, which held that “a violation of the TCPA is a concrete, de facto injury.” The court further held that the TCPA is not limited to telemarketing calls, and that the unsolicited contact—“regardless of caller or content”—is evidence of “concrete harm” that can be traced back to the conduct at issue. Additionally, the panel also held that the district court erred in granting the banks’ request for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and her claim for “intrusion upon seclusion,” finding that the banks’ actions “allegedly caused harm” to the plaintiff’s solitude. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
FTC announces resolution of an action against the final defendant in a debt collection operation
On March 5, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a default judgment against the final defendant of a debt collection operation accused of violating the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collections Practices Act by allegedly posing as lawyers and threating individuals with lawsuits or prison time if they failed to pay debt they did not actually owe. (See InfoBytes coverage here on previously issued order against three other co-defendants.) Under the terms of the January 23 order, the defendant is prohibited from, among other things, (i) engaging in debt collection activities; (ii) buying or selling consumer or commercial debt; (iii) misrepresenting material facts regarding financial-related products or services; (iv) misrepresenting an affiliation with an attorney or law firm; (v) disclosing, using, or benefiting from consumers’ personal information; and (vi) improperly disposing of consumers’ information. In addition, the court assessed a $702,059 fine, jointly and severally with the co-defendants.
Sixth Circuit rules borrowers lack standing under FDCPA
On February 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a letter sent from an attorney on behalf of a mortgage servicing company to consumers violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), but because the alleged violation did not meet the “injury in fact” requirement for standing, the consumers had no standing to sue. According to the opinion, the letter confirmed receipt of an executed warranty deed in lieu of foreclosure and reaffirmed that the mortgage servicer would “not attempt to collect any deficiency balance.” When the mortgage servicer attempted to collect the debt, the consumers cited the letter and the servicer agreed that nothing was owed. However, the consumers sued the attorney and the mortgage servicer claiming that the letter violated the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act because it did not include a notice that it was from a debt collector. The claims against the servicer were resolved through arbitration, but a district court ruled that the attorney violated Ohio law for failing to include the appropriate disclosures. The attorney appealed, arguing that the consumers did not have standing to assert their federal and state law claims. However, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Sixth Circuit held that the consumers must show more than a “bare procedural violation.” Even though the letter lacked the required disclosures required by the FDCPA, this lack of disclosures caused no harm to the consumers, and in fact, the “letter was good news when it arrived, and it became especially good news when [the servicer] persisted in trying to collect a no-longer-collectible debt.” Because the letter created no cognizable injury, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and dismissed the claims brought under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act for lack of standing.
3rd Circuit rules settlement offer for time-barred debt could violate FDCPA
On February 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that a collection letter offering a settlement on a time-barred debt could violate the prohibition against "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the debt collector after receiving a letter stating that the debt collector would accept a partial “settlement” of the delinquency amount, which was past the New Jersey six-year statute of limitations. The lower court granted the debt collector’s motion to dismiss, finding that the letter did not contain a threat of legal action by the use of the word settlement and therefore, did not violate the FDCPA. In reversing the lower court’s decision, the 3rd Circuit concluded that the “least-sophisticated debtor could be misled into thinking that ‘settlement of the debt’ referred to the creditor’s ability to enforce the debt.” In its conclusion, the appellate court also noted that settlement offers of time-barred debts “do not necessarily constitute deceptive or misleading practices” under the FDCPA and remanded the case back to the lower court for review.