InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC Enters Consent Order with Final Defendant in Alleged 2015 Debt Collection Scheme
On August 30, the FTC announced a settlement banning the final defendant who had participated in a debt collection scheme from debt collection activities. The settlement stems from a 2015 action against three groups of defendants who allegedly violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in the following activities, among others: (i) attempting to collect debts consumers claimed they did not owe; (ii) impersonating law enforcement to threaten non-compliant consumers with arrests and lawsuits; (iii) harassing friends, family members, and employees in an attempt to collect debts; and (iv) failing to identify themselves as debt collectors. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) In 2016, the FTC reached separate settlements (here and here) against two of the three groups of debt collectors. In addition to banning the final defendant from debt collection activities, the 2017 action also imposes a $9.39 million judgment to be suspended due to the defendant’s inability to pay. However, the judgment will become immediately due if the defendant is found to have misstated his financial condition.
FTC Files Complaint Against Debt Collection Operation for FTC Act and FDCPA Violations
On August 29, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against a North Carolina-based debt collection business (defendants) for allegedly using a variety of “trade names” that sound like law firms to threaten individuals if they failed to pay debt they did not actually owe or that the defendants had no right to collect. According to the complaint, the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations regarding debt owed on payday loans or other debts and threatening legal action. Additionally, the defendants allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by: (i) communicating with consumers “at times or places known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer” or “at the consumer’s place of employment when Defendants knew or had reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications”; (ii) engaging in “unlawful third-party communications” without obtaining prior consumer consent; (iii) participating in harassing and abusive collection practices; (iv) making false, deceptive, or misleading representations, including by withholding the true status of the debt, impersonating attorneys, threatening legal action, and failing to disclose they were debt collectors; and (v) failing to provide consumers written verification of their debt within the required time frame. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has temporarily restrained and enjoined the defendants’ alleged illegal practices and frozen their assets.
National Bank, Debt Collection Agency Reach $4.3 Million Class Action Settlement for Alleged FDCPA Violations
On August 21, a national bank and a debt collection agency (Defendants) together entered a $4.3 million settlement in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class action lawsuit brought by borrowers who alleged the Defendants unlawfully attempted to collect certain mortgage payments. The July 2015 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, accused Defendants of violating the FDCPA, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code when they sent more than 20,000 allegedly misleading, unenforceable payment notices to borrowers after the bank had released the liens on the properties securing the mortgage loans.
According to a memorandum in support of the motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, approximately three percent of the 23,376 members of the settlement class members made payments on unenforceable loans. The rest of the class did not make any payments. After three mediation sessions and a series of negotiations, Defendants agreed to award class members amounts based on their placement into one of three tranches: (i) tranche 1: borrowers who made at least one “challenged payment” on a purchase money mortgage; (ii) tranche 2: borrowers who made at least one challenged payment on a non-purchase money mortgage; and (iii) tranche 3: borrowers who received an “allegedly deceptive payment communication” but did not make any challenged payments. The settlement terms stipulate that class members in tranche 1 will receive an initial payment worth 76 percent of the total challenged payments they made, and members in tranche 2 will receive an initial distribution of 38 percent of what they paid. Class members from Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 will be eligible for a second distribution if sufficient funds remain available. An approximately $22 payment will be sent to the majority of the class members (who fall into tranche 3), which will be paid from the $500,000 maximum statutory civil penalty available under the Rosenthal Act. Class members are not required to do anything to receive their award.
FTC Announces Agenda for Joint Conference on Protecting Military Consumers
On August 22, the FTC released the agenda for the Protecting Military Consumers: A Common Ground Conference to be held on September 7 in Los Angeles. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the conference is geared towards military attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and consumer protection officials to provide training on consumer fraud and other issues affecting servicemembers and their families, and will be held in partnership with state and local authorities. Topics for discussion on the agenda include, among things:
- higher education;
- identity theft and imposter scams;
- real estate fraud;
- auto financing;
- debt collection;
- lending; and
- privacy issues such as data collection, storage, and sharing.
Illinois Governor Enacts Amendments to Collection Agency Act
On August 18, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner enacted amendments (HB 2783) to the state’s Collection Agency Act, which establishes provisions relating to licensing requirements. Among other things, the amended Act now (i) allows the Secretary of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (Department) to require licensing applications to participate in a multi-state licensing system and permits the licensing system to share regulatory information and charge administrative fees; (ii) removes the requirement to file an annual trust account financial report to the Department; (iv) provides that members of the Collection Agency Licensing and Disciplinary Board “shall have no liability in any action based upon any disciplinary proceeding or other activity performed in good faith as a member of the Board”; and (v) removes the provision requiring the Department to maintain rosters of all active licensees under the Act or persons whose licenses have been suspended, revoked, or denied renewal under the Act. The amended Act took effect upon being signed into law.
Oregon Governor Enacts Law Regarding Compliance Requirements for Debt Collection Licensees
On August 2, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law House Bill 2356 (HB 2356), which establishes provisions relating to debt collection practices in the state. Among other things, the law (i) details the practices a debt buyer, or debt collector acting on behalf of a debt buyer, is required to follow to legally collect debt; (ii) specifies the type of notice and documents that a debt buyer must provide to a debtor; (iii) requires persons engaged in debt buying to obtain or renew their licenses through the Department of Consumer and Business Services; and (iv) specifies duties of licensees, outlines prohibited conduct, and identifies unlawful collection practices. The law takes effect January 1, 2018.
CFPB Issues Bulletin Warning Service Providers About Pay-By-Phone Fees
On July 31, the CFPB issued a bulletin to warn service providers that misleading consumers about pay-by-phone fees may potentially be a violation of Dodd-Frank’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The Bureau also provided guidance regarding its expectations for UDAAP and FDCPA compliance when assessing pay-by-phone fees. According to the bulletin, the CFPB noted several instances where consumers were either not informed up front of the fees that came with paying expenses over the phone or were not offered lower-cost alternatives. The Bureau cited several public enforcement actions, in which it alleged, among other things, that entities (i) misrepresented available payment options or gave the impression that a fee was required to make a payment by phone, when the only purpose of the fee was to expedite the phone payment; (ii) failed to disclose phone pay fees, thus creating the impression that there was no service fee; or (iii) lacked monitoring and oversight programs to deter this type of misleading behavior. The Bureau further encouraged service providers to consult a 2016 bulletin issued to discuss “detecting and preventing consumer harm from production incentives” to examine whether existing or future provider production incentive programs might “steer borrowers to certain payment types or to avoid disclosures,” which it says increases the potential risk for UDAAP.
FTC to Host Joint Conference on Protecting Military Consumers
On July 27, the FTC announced it is partnering with state and local authorities to host the Protecting Military Consumers: A Common Ground Conference on September 7 in Los Angeles to provide training on consumer fraud and other issues affecting servicemembers and their families. The conference is geared towards military attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and consumer protection officials, and will include the following topics:
- student loans and for-profit colleges;
- identity theft and imposter scams;
- debt collections;
- mortgage disputes; and
- real estate fraud.
Additionally, the conference will discuss several federal, state, and local consumer protection laws, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Military Lending Act, and FTC and CFPB rules and regulations.
Earlier in July, the FTC held a Military Consumer Financial Workshop to educate consumers on financial issues and scams they may face. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
Massachusetts AG Announces Settlement with Law Firm Over Debt Collection Practices
On July 27, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced a $1 million settlement with the largest debt collection law firm in the state to resolve allegations that the firm engaged in unfair and unlawful debt collection practices. According to a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General’s office in 2015, the firm began filing tens of thousands of debt collection lawsuits each year beginning in 2011, at times targeting the wrong consumers or filing claims based on unsubstantiated debts. The firm also allegedly demanded payment from consumers who relied on social security or other exempt income, despite being provided evidence that the income was exempt from court-ordered collection. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to reform its debt collection practices by adhering to guidelines including the following:
- The firm is required to obtain and review “original account-level documentation” prior to initiating a collection to determine whether a consumer is obligated to pay the debt such as, among others, (i) an authenticated bill of sale reflecting the transferred ownership of debt; (ii) original documents reflecting the charge-off balance; (iii) contractual terms and conditions; and (iv) original consumer signed documents showing proof the account was opened;
- The firm is prohibited from engaging in threatening actions to collect on a debt initiated on behalf of a collector or debt buyer, and is further restrained from commencing a collection suit without possessing a final judgment or execution against the consumer, or acceptable account-level documentation;
- The firm cannot initiate a collection suit against a consumer until an attorney listed on the company in the collection suit has reviewed the pertinent information and made the determination that the debt owed is not subject to bankruptcy proceedings and certifies in writing that the collection suit is in compliance.
The settlement terms also stipulate that the firm must comply with collection terms and restrictions concerning exempt and protected income, must adhere to time-barred debt collection restrictions, is enjoined from using false and misleading affidavits to collect debts, and must submit enhanced compliance reporting to AG Healey for review. Additionally, the firm previously paid $1 million to the state to be used in one or more of the following ways: (i) as payments to consumers; (ii) to assist with final judgment facilitation; (iii) to be added to the state’s general fund and/or the Local Consumer Aid Fund; and (iv) to fund programs that “address the negative effect of unfair and deceptive practices related to debt collection.”
North Carolina Amends Collection Agency Definition
On July 20, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper signed into law Senate Bill 415 (S.L. 149), which amends the state’s collection agency law to exclude persons engaged in routine billing services from the definition of a “collection agency.” Specifically, a “collection agency” does not include “corporations or associations engaged in accounting, bookkeeping, or data processing services where a primary component of such services is the rendering of statements of accounts and bookkeeping services for creditors.” The law went into effect July 20, 2017.