InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York enacts protections for consumers with medical debt
On November 23, the New York governor signed S6522A/A7363A to prohibit certain hospitals and healthcare providers from placing liens on the primary residences of individuals with unpaid medical debts or garnishing wages to collect on unpaid bills or satisfy judgments arising from a medical debt lawsuit. “No one should face the threat of losing their home or falling into further debt after seeking medical care,” Governor Kathy Hochul said in an announcement. “I’m proud to sign legislation today that will end this harmful and predatory collection practice to help protect New Yorkers from these unfair penalties. The bill is effective immediately.
FTC takes action against debt relief operation
On November 30, the FTC announced an action against three individuals and their affiliated companies (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly participating together in a credit card debt relief scheme since 2019. The FTC alleged in its complaint that the company violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using telemarketers to call consumers and pitch their deceptive scheme, falsely claiming to be affiliated with a particular credit card association, bank, or credit reporting agency and promising they could improve consumers’ credit scores after 12 to 18 months. The defendants also allegedly misrepresented that the upfront fee, which in some cases was as high as $18,000, was charged to consumers’ credit cards as part of the overall debt that would be eliminated, and therefore consumers would not actually have to pay this fee. The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the Commission’s request to temporarily shut down the scheme operated by the defendants and froze their assets. The complaint requests, among other things, a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and the TSR by the defendants.
District Court grants MSJ for plaintiff in FDCPA suit
On November 21, the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a defendant debt collection company’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA suit. According to the opinion, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant disputing the accuracy of the information being reported to the credit reporting agency, saying the amount of the debt was incorrect. The defendant received the letter on February 1, 2021, and on February 3, the defendant reported the debt to the CRA, but failed to note that the debt was disputed. The CRA then communicated information about plaintiff’s debt to additional third parties. The next reporting cycle for the plaintiff’s account closed on March 3, 2021. At that time, the defendant correctly reported that plaintiff’s debt was disputed. The defendant explained that although the servicer received the plaintiff’s dispute letter on February 1, 2021, “no one was able to analyze, process, and review” it until February 4, 2021, by which time it had already reported the debt to the CRA.
The defendant argued that it can take up to seven business days for its credit review team to review a dispute letter that it receives, and information about a disputed debt may be communicated to third parties in the interim. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because there was no negative impact on her credit score as a result of the dispute not being transmitted.
According to the court, the defendant’s “system tolerates the communication of false information in cases where disputes arrive at its doorstep at the close of its monthly reporting periods, and it lacks procedures for promptly correcting information it later discovers was false at the time it was communicated to a third party.” The court also found that the plaintiff’s constitutional standing does not depend on proof of damage to her credit score.
States say student loan trusts are subject to the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair debt collection practices
On November 15, a bipartisan coalition of 23 state attorneys general led by the Illinois AG announced the filing of an amicus brief supporting the CFPB’s efforts to combat allegedly illegal debt collection practices in the student loan industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Bureau’s 2017 enforcement action against a collection of Delaware statutory trusts and their debt collector after determining there may be room for reasonable disagreement related to questions of “covered persons” and “timeliness.” The district court certified two questions for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit related to (i) whether the defendants qualify as “covered persons” subject to the Bureau’s enforcement authority; and (ii) whether the case can be continued after the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law v. CFPB (which determined 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). Previously, the district court concluded that the suit was still valid and did not need ratification because—pointing to the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here)—“‘an unconstitutional removal restriction does not invalidate agency action so long as the agency head was properly appointed[,]’” and therefore the Bureau’s actions are not void and do not need to be ratified, unless a plaintiff can show that “the agency action would not have been taken but for the President’s inability to remove the agency head.” The district court later acknowledged, however, that Collins “is a very recent Supreme Court decision” whose scope is still being “hashed out” in lower courts, which therefore “suggests that there is room for reasonable disagreement and thus supports an interlocutory appeal here.”
The states argued that they have a “substantial interest” in protecting state residents from unlawful debt collection practices, and that this interest is implicated by this action, which addresses whether the defendant student loan trusts are “covered persons” subject to the prohibition on unfair debt collection practices under the CFPA. Urging the 3rd Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision to deny the trusts’ motion to dismiss, the states contended among other things, that hiring third-party agencies to collect on purchased debts poses a large risk to consumers. These types of trusts, the states said, “profit only when the third parties that they have hired are able to collect on the flawed debt portfolios that they have purchased.” Moreover, “[d]ebt purchasing entities, including entities like the [t]rusts, are thus often even more likely than the original creditors to resort to unlawful tactics in undertaking collection activities,” the states stressed, explaining that in order to combat this growing problem, many states apply their prohibitions on unlawful debt collection practices “to all debt purchasers that seek to reap profits from these illegal activities, including those purchasers that outsource collection to third parties.” The Bureau’s decision to do the same is therefore appropriate under the CFPA, the states wrote, adding that “as a practical matter, these debt purchasers are as problematic as debt purchasers that collect on their own debt. The [t]rusts’ request to be treated differently because of their decision to hire third party agents to collect on the debts that they have purchased (and reap the profits on) should be rejected.”
CFPB issues fall supervisory highlights
On November 15, the CFPB released its fall 2022 Supervisory Highlights, which summarizes its supervisory and enforcement actions between January and June 2022 in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, and payday lending. Highlights of the findings include:
- Auto Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances of servicers engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices connected to add-on product charges, loan modifications, double billing, use of devices that interfered with driving, collection tactics, and payment allocation. For instance, examiners identified occurrences where consumers paid off their loans early, but servicers failed to ensure consumers received refunds for unearned fees related to add-on products.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in credit reporting companies’ (CRCs) compliance with FCRA dispute investigation requirements and furnishers’ compliance with FCRA and Regulation V accuracy and dispute investigation requirements. Examples include: (i) NCRCs that failed to report the outcome of complaint reviews to the Bureau; (ii) furnishers that failed to send updated information to CRCs following a determination that the information reported was not complete or accurate; and (iii) furnishers’ policies and procedures that contained deficiencies related to the accuracy and integrity of furnished information.
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices due to human errors and system weaknesses; and (iii) provide explanations to consumers after determining that no billing error occurred or that a different billing error occurred from that asserted. Examiners also identified Regulation Z violations where credit card issuers improperly mixed original factors and acquisition factors when reevaluating accounts subject to a rate increase, and identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors engaged in conduct that harassed, oppressed, or abused the person with whom they were communicating. The report findings also discussed instances where debt collectors communicated with a person other than the consumer about the consumer’s debt when the person had a name similar or identical to the consumer, in violation of the FDCPA.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed how it conducted prioritized assessments to evaluate how financial institutions handled pandemic relief benefits deposited into consumer accounts. Examiners identified unfairness risks at multiple institutions due to policies and procedures that may have resulted in, among other things, (i) garnishing protected economic impact payments funds in violation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021; or (ii) failing to apply the appropriate state exemptions to certain consumers’ deposit accounts after receiving garnishment notice.
- Mortgage Origination. Bureau examiners identified Regulation Z violations and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. An example of this is when the settlement service had been performed and the loan originator knew the actual costs of those service, but entered a cost that was completely unrelated to the actual charges that the loan originator knew had been incurred, resulting in information being entered that was not consistent with the best information reasonably available. The Bureau also found that the waiver language in some loan security agreements was misleading, and that a reasonable consumer could understand the provision to waive their right to bring a class action on any claim in federal court.
- Mortgage Servicing. Bureau examiners identified instances where servicers engaged in abusive acts or practices by charging sizable fees for phone payments when consumers were unaware of those fees. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices and Regulation X policy and procedure violations regarding failure to provide consumers with CARES Act forbearances.
- Payday Lending. Examiners found lenders failed to maintain records of call recordings necessary to demonstrate full compliance with conduct provisions in consent orders generally prohibiting certain misrepresentations.
California appellate court affirms arbitration denial
On November 8, the Sixth Appellate District Court in the Court of Appeal in California affirmed a lower court’s decision denying a defendant collection agency’s motion to compel arbitration in a California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) suit. According to the order, the defendant was hired to collect unpaid credit card debt from the plaintiff on behalf of a creditor. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant “engaged in a routine practice of sending initial communications that failed to provide notice as required by Civil Code section 1788.14, subdivision (d)(2), which governs attempts to collect ‘time-barred’ debts—those that are ‘past the date of obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.’” The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, submitting two cardholder agreements produced by the original creditor that did not reference the plaintiff’s name, account number, or the plaintiff’s signature. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant failed to link the plaintiff to the “generic documents” and denied ever seeing or receiving the agreements before. The trial court ruled the documents were not admissible because there was no evidence that they were ever sent to the plaintiff. The trial court concluded that failing to show evidence of mutual assent, the defendant “could not show that the card agreements were enforceable binding arbitration agreements, and thus it denied the motion to compel arbitration.” The defendant appealed.
The appellate court noted that while the custodian of records for the original creditor declared that the agreements submitted by the defendant were linked to the plaintiff’s account, the custodian did not declare how or if the agreements were provided to the plaintiff for his review and acceptance. The appellate court further found that since the plaintiff declared that he never received the agreements, the burden to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement shifted back to the defendant.
Debt collection company issued a CDO for operating without a license
On November 3, the Massachusetts Division of Banks issued a cease directive to a formerly-licensed debt collector company for allegedly operating for more than six years without a license. According to the order, the debt collecting company was a foreign company conducting business in Massachusetts with a main address in Florida. According to records maintained on file with the Division and the NMLS, the Commissioner initially issued a debt collector license to the company to engage in the business of debt collection in Massachusetts on or about January 14, 2010. In December 2012, the debt collector license expired due to the company's failure to respond to license items placed on the NMLS account of the company. In May 2013, the debt collector license was placed into a status of “Terminated – Expired.” During an examination of a separate debt collector licensee, the Division became aware that the company continued to engage in now unlicensed debt collection activity in Massachusetts on behalf of the licensee being examined. As a result, the Division directed the company to immediately cease collecting debts on any accounts in Massachusetts until it obtained the proper license to do so. The company was also been directed to provide a complete record of all funds collected from Massachusetts consumers from January 2019 through November 3, 2022, as well as a detailed record of the Massachusetts accounts it is holding for collection. The company can request a hearing to contest the Division’s allegations and has 30 days from November 3 to request such hearing. If it does not do so or fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, it will have been deemed to have consented to the issuance of the cease directive.
District Court certifies class in FDCPA suit
On November 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in an FDCPA suit related to credit reporting language used in collection letters. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs received collection letters from the defendant with a statement that read: “Our records indicate there is still a balance on this past due account. Please respond to this letter within seven days or we may take additional collection efforts. The creditor shown above has authorized us to submit this account to the nationwide credit reporting agencies. As required by law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations.” The plaintiffs alleged FDCPA violations against the defendant, claiming that the letters constituted false and misleading collection efforts because the defendants did not intend to report the debts to credit reporting agencies within seven days of the letters’ receipt, as the defendant’s policy was to report debts “approximately sixty (60) days from placement absent contract instructions from its client.” The court noted that the collection letter in question was sent to 984 individuals, meeting the numerosity component for class certification. The court also held that, because all members of the class share the same FDCPA claim, the commonality and predominance components of certification were satisfied. The court also ruled that typicality, adequacy, ascertainability, and superiority components were met, and certified the class.
District Court grants FDCPA defendant’s motion for summary judgment
On October 18, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a second summary judgment motion by a debt collection agency (defendant) in an FDCPA suit, after the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, ruling that a collection letter sent to the plaintiff was not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or unconscionable. According to the order, the plaintiff received two bills after being treated at a hospital for an automobile accident: one in the amount of $675, which was adjusted from $900 because the plaintiff lacked insurance, and a second bill from a doctor’s network for $468. The hospital placed the unpaid account with the defendant who in turn sent a collection letter to the plaintiff, which was the only contact between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law the defendant was permitted to attempt to collect only $141.15, and that its failure to do so violated the FDCPA. This value was based on the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code associated with the doctor’s network bill, but the hospital’s bill did not contain a CPT code. The district court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate any material issue of disputed fact that the services provided by the hospital were or should have been billed under the same CPT code as the doctor’s network bill, nor did the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove that the amount billed by the hospital violated state law, and therefore, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
CFPB releases education ombudsman’s annual report
On October 20, the CFPB Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on consumer complaints submitted between September 1, 2021 and August 31, 2022. The report is based on approximately 8,410 complaints received by the Bureau regarding federal and private student loans—a 59 percent increase from the previous reporting period. Of these complaints, roughly 2,000 were related to debt collection, while approximately 900 mentioned Covid-19 (the categories increased by 122 and 23 percent, respectively). The report discussed certain risks raised in the consumer complaints, including difficulty pursuing claims and defenses against predatory institutions of higher learning, improper collection attempts on non-qualified private student loans that have been discharged in bankruptcy, and processing errors and servicer misrepresentations that have caused federal student loan borrowers to not be able to take full advantage of pandemic-related relief.
The report advised policymakers to consider several recommendations, including: (i) examining whether holders of private student loans originated to fund predatory for-profit schools are abiding by state and federal law; (ii) ensuring holders and servicers of private loans are not collecting on non-qualified discharged debt; and (iii) examining whether servicers may be creating barriers to pandemic-related relief. The Bureau also advised policymakers to consider whether to make loan forgiveness programs “opt out” rather than “opt in,” and whether simplifying consumer-facing incentives for consolidating commercial Federal Family Education Loan Program into Direct Consolidation Loans could benefit borrowers if made permanent.