InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court enters $2.8 million judgment in CFPB student debt relief action
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. Amended complaints (see here and here) also added new defendants and included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, among other things. A stipulated final judgment and order was entered against the named defendant in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states. The court also previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants and a settlement with two non-parties (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, here, and here).
The final judgment issued against the settling defendant, who neither admitted nor denied the allegations except as specifically stated, permanently bans the defendant from participating in telemarking services or offering or selling debt-relief services, and prohibits it from misrepresenting benefits consumers may receive from a product or service. The defendant is also permanently restrained from violating applicable state laws, and may not disclose, use, or benefit from customer information obtained in connection with the offering or providing of the debt relief services. The settlement orders the defendant to pay more than $2.8 million in consumer redress, as well as a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau and $5,000 to each of the three states.
11th Circuit affirms $23 million judgment against founder of debt relief operation
On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the FTC and the Florida attorney general after finding that an individual defendant could be held liable for the actions of the entities he controlled. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Florida AG filed a complaint in 2016 against several interrelated companies and the individual defendant who founded the companies, alleging violations of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in a scheme that targeted financially distressed consumers through illegal robocalls selling bogus credit card debt relief services and interest rate reductions. Among other things, the defendants also claimed to be “licensed enrollment center[s]” for major credit card networks with the ability to work with a consumer’s credit card company or bank to substantially and permanently lower credit card interest rates and charged up-front payments for debt relief and rate-reduction services. In 2018, the court granted the FTC and the Florida AG’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no genuine dispute that the individual defendant controlled the defendant entities, that he knew his employees were making false representations, and that he failed to stop them. The court entered a permanent injunction, which ordered the individual defendant to pay over $23 million in equitable monetary relief and permanently restrained and enjoined the individual defendant from participating—whether directly or indirectly—in telemarketing; advertising, marketing, selling, or promoting any debt relief products or services; or misrepresenting material facts.
The individual defendant appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes over whether: (i) he controlled the entities; (ii) he had knowledge that employees were making misrepresentations and failed to prevent them; (iii) employee affidavits “attesting that they had saved customers money created an issue of fact about whether his programs did what he said they would do”; and (iv) he had knowledge of “rogue employees” violating the “do not call” registry to solicit customers.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit determined that the facts presented by the individual defendant did not create a genuine dispute about whether he controlled the entities, and further stated that the individual defendant is liable for the employees’ misrepresentations because of his control of the entities and his knowledge of those misrepresentations. The appellate court explained that while the individual defendant argued that he could not be liable because he did not participate in those representations, he failed to present any evidence in support of that argument and, even if he had, “it wouldn’t matter, because [the individual defendant’s] liability stems from his control of [the companies], not from his individual conduct.” Additionally, the appellate court held that whether the services were helpful to customers was immaterial and did not absolve him of liability, because liability for deceptive sales practices does not require worthlessness. As to the “do not call” registry violations, the appellate court disagreed with the individual defendant’s claim that an “outside dialer or lead generator”—not the company—placed the outbound calls, holding that this excuse also does not absolve him of liability.
FTC bans debt relief scheme operators
On February 28, the FTC announced the permanent ban of the operators (collectively, “defendants”) of a debt relief scheme from processing debt relief payments and ordered the defendants to pay a $5.3 million fine. According to the FTC’s July 2020 complaint, which was filed jointly with the Florida attorney general in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive and abusive practices by selling their credit card interest rate reduction services to consumers in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The FTC and Florida AG claimed that the defendants utilized telemarketing calls promising to reduce consumers’ credit card interest rates permanently and substantially, and, after posing as representatives or affiliates of consumers’ credit card companies, the defendants allegedly claimed they could save consumers thousands of dollars in credit card interest and enable them to pay off their debt faster. The complaint also asserted that the defendants, at times, opened new credit cards that offered low introductory interest rates and transferred the balances of consumers’ existing debt to the new cards. For that, customers paid upfront fees of between $995 and $4,995 while also paying “substantial” fees to transfer the balances.
Under the terms of the settlement, the operators are permanently prohibited from participating the debt relief industry, misrepresenting material facts in connection with any product or service, and engaging in deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts and practices, unsubstantiated claims, and other payment practices. Two individual defendants agreed to pay a $225,000 monetary penalty and the other defendant agreed to pay $200,000.
District Court orders debt-relief company to pay $41.1 million CMP
On February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment and order against a debt-relief company (default defendant) accused of allegedly violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed the complaint in 2020 alleging that the company and its two owners (collectively, “defendants”) misrepresented material aspects of their student loan debt-relief services, and violated the TSR by requesting and receiving payment of disproportionate fees for their services before they altered or resolved the terms of the debts. The judgment against the default defendant imposes both permanent injunctive relief and monetary remedies including a $41.1 million civil monetary penalty. The default defendant must also pay $2.1 million in consumer restitution and is permanently enjoined from participating in the financial-advisory, debt-relief, or credit-repair service markets in any way, including through marketing or ownership of such services.
House passes America COMPETES Act
On February 4, the U.S. House passed, by a vote of 222-210, the “America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength (COMPETES) Act” H.R. 4521, which aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses, and counters anti-competitive actions taken by the People’s Republic of China. The COMPETES Act includes provisions affecting financial services, such as:
- U.S. Policy on World Bank Group and Asian Development Bank Loans to China. This provision would, among other things, direct Treasury to vote against any loans to China from the World Bank or Asian Development Bank under certain circumstances, and allow borrowing countries to seek restructuring of China loans in official multilateral debt relief forums.
- Prohibitions or Conditions on Certain Transmittal of Funds. This provision would streamline the process by which special measures may be introduced and modernizes the authorities granted to the FinCEN by permitting the agency to pursue bad actors.
- Study on Chinese Support for Afghan Illicit Finance. This provision would direct Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to brief Congress on the identification and analysis of Chinese economic, commercial, and financial connections to Afghanistan, to include illicit financial networks involved in narcotics trafficking, illicit financial transactions, official corruption, natural resources exploitation, and terrorist networks.
- Support for Debt Relief for Developing Countries. This provision would direct the Treasury secretary and U.S. representatives at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to engage with international financial institutions, official creditors, and relevant commercial creditor groups to advocate for the effective implementation of the G-20’s Common Framework.
FTC settles with remaining student debt relief defendants
On January 26, the FTC announced settlements with the remaining participants in a student loan debt relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against the defendants for allegedly using telemarketing calls, as well as media advertisements, to enroll consumers in student debt relief services in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The defendants allegedly misrepresented that they were affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and misrepresented “material aspects of their debt relief services,” including by promising to enroll consumers in repayment programs to reduce or eliminate payments and balances. Additionally, the defendants allegedly charged illegal upfront fees, and often placed the consumers’ loans into temporary forbearance or deferments with their student loan servicers, without the consumer’s authorization. A $43 million settlement was reached in 2020 with certain of the defendants that was partially suspended conditioned upon the surrender of at least $835,000, as well as additional assets.
The FTC entered two settlements against the remaining defendants. The first settlement imposes a roughly $7.5 million monetary judgment, which is partially suspended after the individual defendant pays $743,386. The second settlement includes a $22 million monetary judgment, which is also partially suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The settlement also requires the defendants to forfeit all frozen funds held by the receiver. Monies recovered in the action will go towards consumer refunds. Additionally, the defendants are banned from providing any debt relief products and services in the future, and are prohibited from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any products or services or from making any unsubstantiated claims. Defendants are also enjoined from violating the TSR.
California sentences student loan debt relief scammers
On December 6, the California attorney general announced the sentencing of four individuals involved in a student loan assistance scam and related computer crimes. According to the AG, the individuals’ now-defunct company presented “itself as a legitimate source of help and feigned association with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in order to gain the trust of distressed student loan borrowers and access their personal information.” Company employees “were directed to access and disrupt student loan borrower account data, as well as create new student borrower accounts while posing as the borrowers,” which violated the state’s computer crime laws the AG stated. Borrowers were convinced to pay fees of up to $1,300 in monthly payments in order to participate in the company’s loan payment reduction programs, which offered loan deferment and income-driven repayment. However, many of the borrowers were unaware that these payment reduction programs were already offered free of charge by the Department of Education. Moreover, borrowers did not know that their monthly payments were not a subscription service or applied towards their federal student loans, but were rather payments on a high interest loan. The AG contended that borrowers were purportedly required to continue making these payments even if they attempted to cancel the company’s services, and that “to facilitate the scam, the defendants used the Federal Student Aid website to illegally access student borrower records housed in computer systems belonging to ED.” In additional to their sentences of up to 180 days in prison, community service and probation, the individuals were ordered to pay restitution to harmed borrowers.
DFPI issues proposed rulemaking under CCFPL
On November 17, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued an invitation for comments on proposed rulemaking under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The CCFPL provides DFPI with the authority to require companies that provide financial products and services to California consumers to register with the agency. DFPI is also able to “require registrants to generate and provide records to facilitate oversight of registrants and detect risks to California consumers.” The draft rule proposes requiring registration for industries that engage in the following financial products and services: debt settlement, student debt relief, education financing, and wage-based advances. According to DFPI’s notice, with respect to education financing, the proposed rulemaking covers providers of any form of credit where the credit’s purpose is to fund postsecondary education. It also covers “credit regardless of whether the provider labels the credit a loan, retail installment contract, or income share agreement, and regardless of whether the credit recipient’s payment obligation is absolute, contingent, or fixed.” Additionally, DFPI notes that “[w]ith respect to education financing with income-based payments, including contracts sometimes referred to as income share agreements,” DFPI proposes “reporting requirements that in some cases diverge from the reporting requirements for education financing with fixed payments.”
The proposed rulemaking provides definitions to implement the CCFPL registration regulations and addresses several registration provisions including the following:
- Provides that a person must not engage in the business of offering or providing the designated products and services without first registering with the commissioner unless exempt. The DFPI’s notice stipulates that registering with the commissioner “does not constitute a determination that other laws, including other licensing laws under the commissioner’s jurisdiction, do not apply” and the proposed rulemaking further provides that “granting registration to an applicant does not constitute a determination that the applicant’s acts, practices, or business model complies with any law or regulation.”
- Outlines registration requirements and designates NMLS to handle all applications, registrant filings, and fee payments on behalf of the commissioner. The proposed rulemaking lays out information that must be submitted and maintained as part of the registration application, as well as notices required by state law, and steps registrants must take when making changes to an application filing. An applicant’s failure to provide all or any part of the requested information may prevent approval, DFPI states.
- Outlines requirements for registrants seeking to conduct business at a new branch office or at a new location for an existing branch. Requests must be filed with NMLS within 30 calendar days of the date a registrant engages in business at the new branch office or new location.
- Addresses procedures related to annual assessments and pro rata payment requirements, as well as annual reporting requirements for registrants based on the products and services they provide.
- Outlines procedures and requirements for rescinding a summary revocation order when a former registrant submits a written request for reinstatement to the commissioner.
- Discusses procedures related to the effectiveness, surrender, and revocation of a registration. DFPI provides that a “registration issued under this subchapter is effective until it is revoked by the commissioner, is surrendered by the registrant, or becomes inoperative under subdivision (b) of Financial Code section 90009.5.”
DFPI’s notice also seeks comments on proposals to streamline the registration process and improve transparency and clarification on matters related to, among other things: (i) the types of information that may be subject to public disclosure; (ii) annual reporting requirements not included in the proposed rulemaking; and (iii) certain registration requirements that may be applicable to DFPI licensees and licensees and registrants of other state agencies. In addition, DFPI seeks stakeholder feedback on the economic impact of the draft rules on businesses and consumers in California.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking are due December 20.
FTC permanently bans payment processor from debt relief processing
On November 8, the FTC announced the permanent ban of a payment processor from processing debt relief payments and ordered payment of $500,000 in consumer redress. According to the FTC’s complaint, the payment processor and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) allegedly processed roughly $31 million in consumer payments on behalf of a student loan debt relief operation charged by the FTC in 2019 for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling their debt relief services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC claimed the operators (i) charged borrowers illegal advance fees; (ii) falsely claimed they would service and pay down their student loans; and (iii) obtained borrowers’ credentials in order to change consumers’ contact information and prevent communications from loan servicers. The FTC alleged the defendants processed payments from tens of thousands of consumers even though they were aware of numerous issues with the scheme and had received complaints from consumers and banks. The FTC further alleged that the defendants continued to process payments until the FTC took enforcement action against the operation.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are permanently prohibited from processing payments for debt relief services and student loan entities and are banned from processing payments for any merchant unless there is a signed, written contract. The defendants are also required to screen prospective high-risk clients to determine whether such clients are, or are likely to be, engaging in deceptive or unfair activities. In addition, the settlement imposes a $27.5 million judgment against the defendants, which is largely suspended following the payment of $500,000, due to the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount.
District Court approves non-party settlement in student debt-relief action
On October 20, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved a settlement with two non-parties in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. Amended complaints (see here and here) also added new defendants and included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the FDCPA and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, among other things. A stipulated final judgment and order was entered against the named defendant in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states. The court also previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here). The most recent settlement resolves a dispute between a court-appointed receiver and the two non-parties. The settlement requires the non-parties to pay $675,000 to the receiver.