InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court denies FTC’s stay bid in $550 million suit
On February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the FTC’s motion to stay, or in the alternative, voluntarily dismiss its $550 million consumer deception case against a technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”). The FTC filed the motion to stay (or voluntarily dismiss) after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision altered the agency’s ability to obtain equitable monetary relief.
The FTC filed a suit in 2019 alleging the defendants made deceptive representations to customers and charged hidden, unauthorized fees in connection with the company’s “fuel card” products, which was in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 2019, when the agency filed its lawsuit, legal precedent held that the FTC could obtain restitution for consumers directly through such civil proceedings in federal court. However, in April of 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, that the FTC does not have statutory authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
As a result, the FTC filed its motion to stay or voluntarily dismiss in an attempt to preserve the possibility of obtaining monetary relief for injured consumers in federal court, while it pursues claims against the defendants through the agency’s administrative process. The defendants argued they would be harmed by a dismissal of the FTC’s suit in federal court since the defendants have spent money and resources on their case to date. The defendants also claimed that the FTC’s request was done to seek a more favorable forum, and that the FTC’s four-month delay in pursuing this new course after the Supreme Court’s AMG decision demonstrates bad faith. The court noted that “[i]n filing this lawsuit in federal court in December of 2019, the FTC was acting in reliance on the state of the law as it existed at that time in this circuit and all others except the Seventh Circuit,” and “[t]here is no fault, and nothing unreasonable, in the FTC’s decision.” Nevertheless, in denying the FTC’s motion, the court concluded that the “balance of equities does not weigh in favor of a stay or dismissal without prejudice.”
FTC bans auto marketer over deceptive mailings
On January 28, the FTC announced that it had banned a marketing services company and its owner from the auto industry for allegedly misleading consumers that their websites were affiliated with a government stimulus program and sending consumers deceptive mailings regarding prizes they had supposedly won. According to the opinion, the respondents violated the FTC Act by utilizing deceptive and unfair practices such as sending misleading mailings to persuade consumers to visit auto sales sites by suggesting that these sites were affiliated with a government Covid-19 stimulus program when in fact the sales were not part of any such program. The respondents also allegedly quoted monthly payments to purchase vehicles on credit, but did not provide key financing terms required by law that consumers need to determine the true cost of the advertised loans. Additionally, the respondents allegedly sent direct mail advertisements that deceptively indicated that consumers had won specific, valuable prizes that could be collected upon visiting the car dealership. The FTC noted that the respondents conducted such mailings, despite entering into three prior consent orders with state authorities identifying the ads as deceptive. According to the order, the respondents, are, among other things, banned from advertising, selling, or leasing automobiles for 20 years, and are prohibited from misrepresenting any material fact while marketing any product or service of any kind, as well as from any further violations of TILA’s disclosure requirements.
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.
FTC settles FTC Act violations matter
On January 25, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with an online fashion retailer (defendant) for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices—the FTC’s first action involving a company’s efforts to conceal negative customer reviews. According to the complaint, the defendant allegedly violated the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting that the product reviews on its website reflected the views of all purchasers who submitted reviews, when it actually suppressed certain low reviews. The complaint further noted that the defendant utilized a third-party review management software to automatically post certain reviews to its website and hold other reviews for the defendant’s approval. However, from 2015 to 2019, the defendant allegedly did not approve or post lower-starred reviews. According to the FTC, “[s]uppressing a product’s negative reviews deprives consumers of potentially useful information and artificially inflates the product’s average star rating.” The announcement pointed out that this is the FTC’s second recent action taken against the defendant, which includes ordering the defendant to pay $9.3 million to resolve allegations that it failed to properly notify consumers and provide them the opportunity to cancel their orders after it failed to timely ship merchandise, and that it illegally utilized gift cards to compensate consumers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement of the recent allegations, the defendant is: (i) ordered to pay $4.2 million; (ii) prohibited from making misrepresentations about any customer reviews or other endorsements; and (iii) required to post on its website all customer reviews of products currently being sold, under certain circumstances. The FTC also announced that the agency is sending letters to ten companies “offering review management services, placing them on notice that avoiding the collection or publication of negative reviews violates the FTC Act,” and released new guidance for online retailers and review platforms on the agency’s key principles for collecting and publishing customer reviews that are not meant to mislead consumers.
FTC clarifies Holder Rule provision
On January 20, the FTC issued an advisory opinion addressing the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses’ impact on consumers’ ability to recover costs and attorneys’ fees. Commonly known as the Holder Rule, the provisions protect “consumers who enter credit contracts by preserving their right to assert claims and defenses against any holder of certain loans and credit sales contracts, even if the loans or contracts are assigned to a third party.” Because a seller’s use of practices to foreclose these rights constitutes an unfair practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Holder Rule requires sellers to include a notice in credit contracts of a consumer’s right to claims and defenses related to a seller’s misconduct. While courts have addressed the issue of whether consumers are able to recover costs and attorneys’ fees from the holder of a credit contract, the FTC noted that some courts and finance companies have misinterpreted previous FTC statements to suggest that the Holder Rule preempts state laws that authorize attorney fee awards against loan holders. According to the advisory opinion, the “Holder Rule does not eliminate any rights the consumer may have as a matter of separate state, local, or federal law. Consequently, whether costs and attorneys’ fees may be awarded against the holder of the credit contract is determined by the relevant law governing costs and fees.” Noting that “[n]othing in the Holder Rule states that application of such laws to holders is inconsistent with Section 5 of the FTC Act or that holders should be wholly or partially exempt from these laws,” the FTC added that “if the applicable law requires or allows costs or attorneys’ fee awards against a holder, the Holder Rule does not impose a cap on such an award.” While it is not clear how much deference courts would give to the advisory opinion, companies may choose to consider the Commission’s statement.
FTC permanently bans merchant cash advance providers
On January 5, the FTC announced that two defendants who allegedly participated in small business financing scheme are permanently banned from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (including the settling defendants), claiming the defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by, among other things, misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances, using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The defendants also allegedly violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s prohibition on using false statements to obtain consumers’ financial information, including bank account numbers, log-in credentials, and the identity of authorized signers, in order “to withdraw more than the specified amount from consumers’ bank accounts.” Additionally, the defendants allegedly “engaged in wanton and egregious behavior, including laughing at consumer requests for refunds from [the defendants’] unauthorized withdrawals from customer bank accounts; abusing the legal system to seize the business and personal assets of their customers; and threatening to break their customers’ jaws or falsely accusing them of child molestation during collection calls.” Under the terms of the stipulated order, the settling defendants are required to pay a $675,000 monetary judgment, and must vacate any judgments against their former customers and release any liens against their customers’ property.
FTC finalizes decision banning respondents from surveillance business
On December 21, the FTC announced a decision banning a data monitoring application and its CEO (collectively, “respondents”) from the surveillance industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the respondents allegedly violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to provide reasonable data security for consumers’ personal information. According to the FTC, the respondents allegedly “secretly harvest[ed] and shar[ed] data on people’s live location, web use, and online activities through their product’s hidden device hack,” and sold real-time access to their surveillance system, which allowed stalkers and domestic abusers to “stealthily track” unknowing victims. Under the terms of the final decision, the respondents are: (i) ordered to “immediately disable all access to any information collected by or through a monitored Mobile Device” and immediately stop collecting any data through any app installed before the date of entry of the order; (ii) required to delete any information illegally collected from their apps; (iii) required to notify owners who installed respondents’ apps on their devices that their devices might have been monitored and may not be secure; and (iv) banned from offering, promoting, selling, or advertising any surveillance app, service, or business. The respondents are also required to implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain initial and biennial third-party security assessments.
FTC settles with advertising platform for COPPA violations
On December 15, the FTC announced a settlement with a California-based online advertising platform for allegedly engaging in deceptive acts of practices and violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA). (See also DOJ press release here.) According to the FTC, the defendant operates a programmatic advertising exchange that monetizes websites and mobile apps through the sale of ad space. The defendant also contracts with advertising technology companies that aggregate and sell advertising inventory for publishers and then send the defendant ad requests. The DOJ, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint claiming the defendant, among other things, violated COPPA by collecting personal information about children under the age of 13 without notifying their parents and obtaining their consent. Additionally, the FTC claimed that while the defendant’s privacy policy provided users the option to opt-out of the collection of their location data, the defendant still allegedly collected geolocation information from users who specifically asked not to be tracked. The FTC stated that the defendant reviewed hundreds of apps that were directed to children under 13, but did not flag the apps or their data as “child-directed” and permitted the apps to participate in the ad exchange. In addition, the FTC claimed that the defendant allegedly disclosed this personal data to third parties for ads targeted at users of these child-directed apps.
Under the stipulated final order, the defendant must, among other terms, (i) implement a comprehensive privacy program to ensure compliance with COPPA and stop collecting and retaining personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent; (ii) stop misrepresenting a user’s ability to opt-out of the collection of personal information and location information (collectively, “covered information”) and confirm that a user has provided affirmative consent for the collection of location information; (iii) implement safeguards to protect covered information and conduct annual reviews to assess for internal and external risks to the privacy of covered information that could lead to unauthorized access; (iv) engage a third party to conduct biennial privacy assessments; (v) delete all ad request data collected to serve targeted ads prior to the issuance of the order; and (vi) periodically re-review apps to identify those that are directed towards children and ban these apps from its ad exchange. The order also provides for a $7.5 million penalty that will be suspended upon payment of $2 million due to the defendant’s inability to pay the full amount.
FTC publishes 2022 regulatory priorities
On December 10, the FTC published a statement disclosing its regulatory priorities for 2022. Among other things, the statement highlights; (i) newly initiated and upcoming periodic reviews of rules and guides; (ii) ongoing periodic reviews of rules and guides; (iii) proposed rules; and (iv) final actions. According to the Plan, the FTC “will consider developing both unfair methods-of-competition rulemakings as well as rulemakings to define with specificity unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The FTC noted that there are many pressing issues consumers face in the modern economy, such as the “abuses stemming from surveillance-based business models,” which also threaten competition. “The Commission is considering whether rulemaking in this area would be effective in curbing lax security practices, limiting intrusive surveillance, and ensuring that algorithmic decision-making does not result in unlawful discrimination.” The Plan further explains that the FTC will “explore whether rules defining certain ‘unfair methods of competition’ prohibited by section 5 of the FTC Act would promote competition and provide greater clarity to the market.” According to the Dissenting Statement by FTC Commissioner Christine S. Wilson, though, the plan takes “a big step into uncharted waters” with this latter statement, given the breadth of potential rulemakings and lack of clarity on which areas the FTC would pursue. Wilson’s view is that many existing rules “should be abolished,” rather than issuing new rules.
FTC settles with debt collectors
On December 13, the FTC announced a settlement with several South Carolina-based debt collection companies and an individual (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. The FTC filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that they violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things: (i) using robocalls to leave deceptive messages; (ii) falsely representing that an individual is an attorney or is in communication with an attorney; (iii) “falsely claiming or implying that nonpayment of a debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of a person”; (iv) threatening to take unlawful legal action; and (v) making false representations or using deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The action was taken as part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here). The effort previously resulted in settlements with two other debt collectors, which included permanent bars from the industry.
Under the terms of the settlement, in addition to being permanently banned from participating in debt collection and debt brokering activities, the defendants will also be prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers, including (i) whether consumers are legally obligated to pay defendants; (ii) whether defendants are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm; (iii) the terms of any refund policy; and (iv) any material facts concerning products or services. The order also requires the defendants to surrender the contents of numerous bank and investment accounts, including property and the value of certain assets. An approximately $12 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.