InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC resurrects authority to penalize for-profit education institutions
On October 6, the FTC unanimously resurrected the Penalty Offense Authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to deter for-profit higher education institutions from engaging in certain unlawful practices. The Commission sent notices to 70 of the nation’s largest for-profit institutions to inform them that the FTC is “cracking down on any false promises they make about their graduates’ job and earnings prospects and other outcomes and will hit violators with significant financial penalties.” The notice outlines several practices previously found to be unfair or deceptive that could lead to civil penalties of up to $43,792 per violation and puts institutions on alert that they could incur significant sanctions should they engage in certain unlawful practices. Commissioner Rohit Chopra, who was recently confirmed as Director of the CFPB, issued a statement commending the initiative, noting that “[u]nder the FTC’s Penalty Offense Authority, the Commission and the Attorney General can seek substantial civil penalties against companies that engage in practices where they had knowledge that the practices were previously determined by a prior Commission order to be illegal.” This is a particularly important tool, Chopra stressed, given the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement” (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC gives Congress report on privacy and security
Recently, the FTC released a report to Congress regarding the Commission’s actions in strengthening measures to link data privacy and competition enforcement, among other things. The report responds to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, P.L. 116-260, which directed the FTC to “conduct a comprehensive internal assessment measuring the agency’s current efforts related to data privacy and security while separately identifying all resource-based needs of the FTC to improve in these areas.” The report highlights areas that the FTC is focusing on to improve the effectiveness of the Commission’s efforts to protect Americans’ privacy:
- Integrating competition concerns. The FTC intends to “spend more time on the overlap between data privacy and competition.” The report also points out that the FTC has a “structural advantage” compared to other agencies and will look with “privacy and competition lenses at problems that arise in digital markets.”
- Advancing remedies. The FTC is providing relief for consumers and deterring unfair or deceptive privacy and security practices though four remedies: (i) notifying harmed consumers; (ii) obtaining monetary remedies for harmed consumers; (iii) obtaining non-monetary remedial relief for consumers; and (iv) prohibiting companies from benefitting from illegal data collection.
- Focusing on digital platforms. The FTC intends to increase its focus on the data practices of dominant digital platforms, which includes focusing on order enforcement.
- Expanding the FTC’s guidance and understanding of the consumer protection and competition implications of algorithms. The FTC intends “to deepen [its] understanding of the consumer protection and competition risks associated with algorithms and to expand upon the guidance that [it has] provided to businesses on using algorithms and AI truthfully, fairly, and equitably.”
Among other things, the report also urges Congress “to clarify Section 13(b) of the FTC Act and shore up the FTC’s ability to enjoin illegal conduct and revive its authority return to consumers money they have lost, which will greatly assist [the FTC’s] efforts to protect consumers.” The report further notes that the FTC will continue to push Congress to enact privacy and data security legislation, enforceable by the FTC.
In a statement released on October 1, FTC Chair Lina Khan stated the agency “should approach data privacy and security protections by considering substantive limits rather than just procedural protections, which tend to create process requirements while sidestepping more fundamental questions about whether certain types of data collection and processing should be permitted in the first place.”
FTC settles with debt collector
On September 27, the FTC announced a settlement with a Georgia-based debt collection company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that they violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things: (i) posing as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys, mediators, investigators, or process servers when calling consumers to collect debts; (ii) using profane language and threatening consumers with arrest or serious legal consequences if debts were not immediately paid; (iii) threatening to garnish wages, suspend Social Security payments, revoke drivers’ licenses, or lower credit scores; (iv) attempting to collect debts that were either never owed or were no longer owed; (v) unlawfully contacting third parties, such as family members or employers; and (vi) adding unauthorized or impermissible charges or fees to consumers’ debts. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants in September 2020. Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the FTC ordered that the defendants are banned from the debt collection industry, prohibited from misrepresenting that they are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm or whether a consumer owes any kind of debt, and are prohibited from making misleading claims while selling a product or service. The order also requires the defendants to pay more than $266,000 to the Commission. A $3 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.
FTC reaches $6.4 million settlement with remaining defendants in robocalling suit
On September 20, the FTC announced a proposed settlement order resolving charges against the remaining participants in a cruise line telemarketing operation allegedly aimed at marketing free cruise packages to consumers. The FTC alleged the defendants participated in unfair acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, placing illegal telemarketing robocalls, calling phone numbers on the FTC’s Do No Call Registry, calling consumers who asked not to be called, and transmitting false caller ID information. Under the proposed order, the defendants are permanently banned from engaging in or making telemarketing robocalls, and are also banned from engaging in abusive telemarketing, calling numbers on the Do Not Call Registry (unless express consent is given or other conditions are met), blocking or misrepresenting caller ID information, and violating the TSR. The order also imposes a $6.4 million civil money penalty against the defendants, which will be partially waived once the two individual defendants who controlled four of the corporations involved in the operation each pay a $50,000 civil money penalty. Two other settlement agreements were reached in 2020 with the other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here).
District Court reimposes $5 million restitution award in FTC action
On September 13, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reimposed a more than $5 million restitution award in an action dating back to 2018, this time under Section 19 of the FTC Act. The court originally granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment against a credit monitoring service and its sole owner in an action filed under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, after concluding that no reasonable jury would find that the defendants’ scheme of using false rental property ads to solicit consumer enrollment in credit monitoring services without their knowledge could occur without engaging in unfair or deceptive practices (covered by InfoBytes here). However, as previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Section 13(b) does not grant the FTC authority to order restitution—a position that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agreed with when issuing its decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC (which unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement”—covered by InfoBytes here).
In its current ruling, the court agreed to reimpose the damages under the Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (ROSCA) and Section 19. The court noted that because ROSCA incorporates all the enforcement tools of the FTC Act, the FTC could seek remedies using Section 19 of the FTC Act instead of relying on Section 18. Further, the court noted that the FTC indicated that the FTC may seek remedies under Section 19 when it brought the action under Section 5(a) of ROSCA, which the court ultimately agreed was correct. “The FTC has the better of this dispute,” the court wrote, adding, among other things, that “the court is unmoved by [the defendant’s] claims of unfair prejudice. Aside from the particular route to an award of restitution, nothing will materially change. The FTC seeks the same remedy, for the same reasons, and for the same victims under section 5(a) via section 19 as it did under section 13(b).”
FTC to use CIDs and subpoenas to streamline investigations
On September 14, the FTC voted 3-2, at the recommendation of the Bureau of Consumer Protection and Bureau of Competition, to approve a series of resolutions intended to streamline consumer protection and competition investigations in core FTC-priority areas over the next decade. At the recommendation of the Bureaus, the FTC authorized eight new compulsory process resolutions, which authorize the use of civil investigative demands and subpoenas when investigating the following areas: (i) acts or practices affecting U.S. servicemember and veterans; (ii) acts or practices affecting children under 18; (iii) algorithmic and biometric bias; (iv) deceptive and manipulative online conduct, including matters related to tech support scams, payment processing, marketing of goods and services, and user interface manipulation; (v) repair restrictions; (vi) intellectual property abuse; (vii) common directors and officers and common ownership; and (viii) monopolization offenses. According to the FTC, adopting these resolutions will enhance and streamline the ability of FTC investigators and prosecutors to obtain evidence in critical investigations relating to potential violations of the FTC Act. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement following the vote, commenting that the adoption “will improve the agency’s ability to order documents and data in investigations and fills a notable gap in the Commission’s long list of enforcement authorizations developed over many years.”
FTC bans respondents from surveillance business
On September 1, the FTC announced that a data monitoring application and its CEO (collectively, “respondents”) will be permanently banned from the surveillance industry for failing to provide reasonable data security for consumers’ personal information by allegedly “secretly harvesting and sharing data on people’s live location, web use, and online activities through their product’s hidden device hack.” The respondents allegedly sold real-time access to their surveillance system, which allowed stalkers and domestic abusers to “stealthily track” unknowing victims.
According to the complaint, the respondents violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by committing unfair or deceptive business practices in using unauthorized personal information and failing to secure such data in which “victims continue to experience substantial harm, including injury in the form of depression, anxiety, and ongoing fear for one’s safety,” even after the stalking or domestic abuse ended. The complaint detailed the covert monitoring products and services offered by respondents once their application is installed, including capturing and logging: email, SMS messages, call history, GPS location and live location, web history, contacts, pictures, calendar, video chats, files downloaded on the device, notifications, among other functions depending on cost.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the respondents are: (i) banned from offering, promoting, selling, or advertising any surveillance app, service, or business; (ii) required to delete any information illegally collected from their apps; and (iii) required to notify owners of devices that their devices might have been monitored and the devices may not be secure. This is the agency’s second case “brought against stalkerware apps, and the first where the FTC is obtaining a ban.” According to a statement released by FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, the agency is also “seeking public comment on banning [the defendants] from licensing, marketing, or offering for sale surveillance products,” which is “a significant change from the agency’s past approach.”
District Court denies request to set aside $120.2 million judgment in Belizean real estate scheme
On August 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a request to set aside a more than $120.2 million judgment against several defaulted defendants involved in an international real estate investment development scheme. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC initiated the action in 2018 against several individuals and corporate entities, along with a Belizean bank, asserting that the defendants violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by advertising and selling parcels of land that were part of a luxury development in Belize through the use of deceptive tactics and claims. In 2019, a settlement was reached with the Belizean bank requiring payment of $23 million in equitable relief, and in 2020, the district court ordered the defaulted defendants to pay over $120.2 million in redress and granted the FTC’s request for permanent injunctions (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
In their motion, the defaulted defendants argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC (which unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement”—covered by InfoBytes here) nullified the judgment. The district court disagreed, stating that the AMG Capital decision does not render his judgments in the case void and that “[i]n its Opinion rendered before the Supreme Court reached its decision, the Court considered the effect that a decision in AMG Capital adverse to the FTC might have, reasoning that: ‘this Court’s findings of fact and determinations as to liability—including contempt of court and violations of the Telemarketing Services Rule []—would not be affected by a decision in AMG.’” Moreover, the court pointed out that immediate denial of the motion is also warranted because the defaulted defendants failed to comply with a local rule requiring submission of a memorandum of law in support of their motion. The court asked, “In failing to do so, they have skirted among other fundamental questions: What authority do they, as defaulted defendants, involved as part of a common enterprise with virtually all other [d]efendants, have to upset a final and valid judgment against them after willfully defaulting?”
FTC sues company for violating FTC Act
On August 11, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against a Georgia-based technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly charging small business customers hundreds of millions of dollars in mystery fees associated with fuel cards. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely promising companies that they would save money, be protected from unauthorized charges, and have no set-up, transaction, or membership fees with the fuel cards. However, according to the defendant’s records, companies generally have not achieved the advertised fuel savings through utilization of the cards. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things: (i) falsely represented that the company’s fuel cards contained fraud controls to prevent unauthorized purchases; (ii) “billed consumers for fees, interest, and finance charges, and programs for which consumers have not provided express, informed consent”; and (iii) charged fees for set-up, transactions, or membership after claiming that they did not.
In December 2019, the FTC filed suit in federal court against the defendants, alleging that they charged hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden and undisclosed fees to customers after falsely claiming customers would save on fuel costs. However, in April, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement” (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, “[i]n an effort to ensure that the agency’s case against the fuel card marketer is still able to recover money lost by consumers, the FTC has filed a new administrative complaint which alleges that [the defendants] violated section 5 of the FTC Act.”
FTC obtains $450,000 settlement with auto dealer over fraudulent consumer financial documents
On July 29, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with the owner and manager of a group of auto dealers with locations in Arizona and New Mexico near the Navajo Nation’s border, resolving allegations that the individual defendant advertised misleading discounts and incentives and falsely inflated consumers’ income and down payment information on certain financing applications. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, the FTC filed an action against the defendants alleging violations of the FTC Act, TILA, and the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for submitting falsified consumer financing applications to make consumers appear more creditworthy, resulting in consumers—many of whom are members of the Navajo Nation—defaulting “at a higher rate than properly qualified buyers.” A settlement was reached with the auto dealer defendants last September (covered by InfoBytes here), which required, among other things, that the auto dealer defendants cease all business operations and pay a monetary judgment of over $7 million.
If approved by the court, the proposed order would result in a $450,000 payment to the FTC, and would prohibit the individual defendant, who neither admits nor denies the allegations, from (i) misrepresenting information in any documents associated with a consumer’s purchase, financing, or leasing of a motor vehicle; (ii) misrepresenting the costs or any other material facts related to vehicle financing; or (iii) falsifying loan information. The individual defendant would also be required to provide consumers a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to review documents associated with the vehicle financing, and is prohibited from violating the TILA and CLA.