InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court agrees with FTC, enters $5 million judgment against credit monitoring scheme
On June 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment, 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 did not involve unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC argued that the defendants’ scheme, which used the promise of a free credit report to enroll the consumers into a monthly credit monitoring program, violated the FTC Act’s ban on deceptive practices. The court agreed, holding that the ad campaign was “rife with material misrepresentations that were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.” Additionally the court agreed with the FTC that the defendants’ website was materially misrepresentative because it did not give “the net impression that consumers were enrolling in a monthly credit monitoring service” for $29.94 a month, as opposed to defendants’ claim that consumers were obtaining a free credit report.
The court entered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay over $5 million in equitable monetary relief to the FTC and prohibiting defendants from, among other things, charging consumers for any credit monitoring services and disclosing or using any collected consumer information. The defendants must also submit to compliance reporting and monitoring by the FTC.
FTC and New York Attorney General announce action against phantom debt operation
On June 27, the FTC and the New York Attorney General’s Office announced charges against two New York-based phantom debt operations and their principals. The complaint alleges they ran a deceptive and abusive debt collection scheme involving the marketing and selling of fictitious loan debt portfolios and collecting on debts consumers did not owe. The charges brought against the operations allege violations of the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and New York state law. According to the complaint, the debt broker knowingly purchased fabricated debt from a phantom debt collection operation previously charged by the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General in a separate action for selling fabricated debt. (As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Illinois-based operation was banned from the debt collection business and prohibited from selling debt portfolios.) The debt broker then engaged a debt collection agency and its owner to collect on the fabricated debt using illegal collection tactics, while continuing to purchase debts and place them for collection despite having knowledge that consumers disputed the debts. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement.
Native American tribes to forfeit $3 million in profits made from payday lending scheme
On June 26, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed two forfeiture complaints, which cover agreements with two Native American tribes to forfeit a combined $3 million in profits made from their involvement in an allegedly fraudulent payday lending scheme (see here and here). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2016, the FTC required a Kansas-based operation and its owner to pay more than $1.3 billion for allegedly violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by making false and misleading representations about costs and payment of the loans. The business owner and his attorney were subsequently found guilty in October 2017 of operating a criminal payday loan empire. As part of the agreements, the two tribes admit that representatives filed affidavits containing false statements in the legal actions against the payday loan scheme. If the tribes comply with agreement requirements, the DOJ will not pursue criminal action for the specified violations.
In February, multiple federal agencies entered into a $613 million deferred prosecution agreement over Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program deficiencies with a national bank, which included allegations that the bank was on notice of the owner’s use of the bank to launder proceeds from his fraudulent payday lending scheme. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.)
District Court grants preliminary injunction in FTC search engine suit
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the FTC’s request for preliminary injunction against an individual defendant and the company he owns and manages (stipulating defendants) for allegedly violating the FTC Act by making robocalls to small business owners claiming they represented a global search engine and could guarantee top search result placements. The stipulating defendants are part of a larger group of Florida-based companies, affiliates, and representatives (defendants) identified in the FTC’s 2018 complaint. According to the FTC’s May 23 press release, the defendants—who allegedly have no relationship with the search engine—threatened to remove companies from the search engine’s results or label them as “permanently closed” unless they accepted the robocall and paid a fee to participate in the defendants’ program. The complaint also claimed that the defendants—who lost the ability to accept payments by credit card after their merchant account was closed due to high chargeback rates—allegedly “took money, usually $100, from at least 250 of their prior or existing customers’ checking accounts without those customers’ advance knowledge, consent, or authorization, and with no apparent reason or justification.”
In granting the preliminary injunction, the court found that there exists “good cause” to believe the FTC’s allegations against the stipulating defendants, and that the FTC is “likely to prevail on the merits of this action.” The injunction, among other things, blocks the stipulating defendants from continuing with their business, freezes their assets and records, and orders the appointment of a receiver to take control over those assets. A temporary restraining order was also issued against all defendants on May 8.
11th Circuit vacates FTC data security cease and desist order issued against medical testing laboratory
On June 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit vacated an FTC cease and desist order (Order) that directed a Georgia-based medical testing laboratory to overhaul its data security program, ruling that the Order was unenforceable because it lacked specifics on how the overhaul should be accomplished. In 2013, the FTC claimed that the laboratory’s violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act constituted an “unfair act or practice” by allegedly failing to implement and provide reasonable and appropriate data security for patient information. The now defunct laboratory argued, among other things, that the FTC did not have the authority under Section 5 to regulate how it handled its data security measures. But the three-judge panel chose not to rule on the broader question about the scope of the FTC’s Section 5 data security authority, choosing to focus its decision on the Order. As previously covered in InfoBytes, in 2016 the FTC reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision to dismiss the 2013 FTC complaint, ordering the laboratory to, among other things, employ reasonable security practices that complied with FTC standards.
After the Order was issued, the laboratory asked the 11th Circuit to decide whether the FTC’s Order was “unenforceable because it does not direct it to cease committing an unfair ‘act or practice’ within the meaning of Section 5(a).” The 11th Circuit agreed to stay enforcement of the Order and ultimately permanently vacated it. “In the case at hand, the cease and desist order contains no prohibitions,” the panel wrote. “It does not instruct [the laboratory] to stop committing a specific act or practice. Rather, it commands [the laboratory] to overhaul and replace its data security program to meet an indeterminable standard of reasonableness. This command is unenforceable.” The court concluded that “[t]his is a scheme that Congress could not have envisioned.”
FTC files complaint against two operations allegedly responsible for making billions of illegal robocalls
On June 5, the FTC announced charges filed against two individuals and their related operations (defendants) for allegedly facilitating billions of robocalls to consumers across the country through a telephone dialing platform in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the alleged misconduct—dating back to 2001—centered around the principal and owner of a group of companies that operated and developed a computer-based telephone dialing platform, and a second individual defendant and his group of call center businesses that paid for the development and use of software designed to make autodial telephone calls and deliver prerecorded messages. The FTC alleged that for many years the two individual defendants jointly owned and operated businesses that resold access to a “bundle of services”—referred to as a “one-stop-shop for illegal telemarketers”—that provided, among other things, (i) servers to host the autodialing software, as well as the physical space housing the servers; and (ii) the ability to make calls using “spoofed” caller ID numbers, which made it look as if the calls came from a consumer’s local area code. According to the FTC, this “bundle of services” became so widely used within the industry that it has been named in at least eight other FTC lawsuits centered on the facilitation of unlawful calls. Among other things, the charges against the defendants include assisting with illegal robocalls, calling with prerecorded messages, calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, calling with spoofed caller IDs, and abandoning calls. The FTC seeks civil monetary penalties, a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent future violations, and reimbursement of costs for bringing the action.
FTC reports on certain 2017 enforcement activities to the CFPB
On May 17, in response to a request from the CFPB, the FTC transmitted a letter summarizing its 2017 enforcement activities related to Regulation Z (TILA), Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act), and Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfer Act) for the CFPB’s use in preparing its 2017 Annual Report to Congress. The FTC highlighted numerous activities related to the enforcement of the pertinent regulations, including:
- Payday Lending. The FTC acknowledged the continued litigation against two Kansas-based operations and their owner for allegedly selling lists of counterfeit payday loan debt portfolios to debt collectors in violation of the FTC Act, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
- Military Protection. The FTC identified the July 2017 military consumer financial workshop and the launch of the new Military Task Force (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here) among the activities the agency engaged in related to protecting the finances of current and former members of the military. The FTC also noted continued participation in the interagency group working with the Department of Defense on amendments to its rule implementing the Military Lending Act.
- “Negative Option.” For actions under the Regulation E/EFTA, the FTC highlighted numerous “negative option” enforcement actions, in which the consumer agrees to receive goods or services from a company for a free trial option, but if the consumer does not cancel before the trial period ends, the consumer will incur recurring charges for continued goods or services. Among the actions highlighted is a case in which the FTC imposed a $179 million judgment (suspended upon the payment of $6.4 million) settling allegations that the online marketers’ offers of “free” and “risk free” monthly programs for certain weight loss and other products were deceptive.
- Auto Loans. The letter highlighted, among others, the FTC action against a Southern California-based group of auto dealerships that allegedly violated a prior consent order with the FTC by misrepresenting the cost to finance or lease a vehicle, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
District Court holds that FTC investigation and initiation of enforcement proceedings do not qualify as final agency actions subject to judicial review
On May 29, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the FTC’s motion to dismiss a declaratory-judgment action filed by several California-based companies that provide student loan processing services, along with their CEO/primary shareholder (plaintiffs). In August 2017, having allegedly learned that the FTC “was in the final process of gathering information to file a lawsuit against one or more of [the] [p]laintiffs on the purported and factually unsupportable basis that the [c]ompanies made misrepresentations to consumers” and violated the TSR’s debt relief service provision, the plaintiffs filed for instant declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking a declaration that the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s (TSR) debt relief provisions did not apply to them or, alternatively, that they were in compliance with the provisions. In February 2018, the FTC filed an enforcement action against the plaintiffs alleging that their collection of fees in advance of providing services violated the FTC Act and the TSR, and seeking injunctive and equitable relief. The FTC also moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
According to the order granting the FTC’s motion, the court agreed with the FTC that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—not the Declaratory Judgment Act—is the exclusive, proper vehicle to obtain judicial review of a federal agency’s action. The court then held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the two prerequisites for judicial review under the APA, that (i) the agency’s actions constitute as a “final” agency action, and (ii) there exists no other adequate remedy in court. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the FTC’s “investigation into the lawfulness of the [plaintiffs’] actions and initiation of enforcement proceedings” qualified as a “final” agency action subject, and that the plaintiffs’ alternative “adequate remedy” was to be had in the enforcement action brought against them by the FTC, where they would be able to present all of the same defenses and arguments they sought to advance in their declaratory judgment action.
FTC settles with North Carolina-based debt collection business and its principals
On June 4, the FTC announced settlements with a North Carolina-based debt collection business and its principals resolving allegations that the business violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations regarding debt owed on payday loans or other debts and threatening legal action. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the business allegedly used 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. The terms of the settlement call for a $2.7 million judgment against the business and one of the principals, as well as a $1.8 million judgment against the remaining principal, with all parties jointly and severally liable for approximately $1.6 million. The judgments will be partially suspended after defendants surrender certain assets. The settlements also prohibit all defendants from debt collection activities as well as from buying or selling debt in the future.
District Court grants FTC request for preliminary injunction against mortgage assistance relief operation that allegedly misrepresented material facts to distressed homeowners
On May 8, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a preliminary injunction on April 27 at the FTC’s request against a mortgage assistance relief operation and its principals (defendants), prohibiting them from misrepresenting material facts to consumers and imposing an asset freeze and other equitable relief. According to a complaint filed by the FTC on April 12, which sought “temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief,” the defendants allegedly violated the FTC Act and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (Regulation O) in their marketing and sale of mortgage relief services to distressed homeowners.
The FTC claimed in its press release that the defendants “misrepresent[ed] the likelihood of success” of their mortgage payment reduction program and directed “confirmed” consumers to pay thousands of dollars in “closing costs” prior to discussing the defendants’ terms with their loan holders or servicers. Furthermore, the defendants allegedly discouraged consumers from communicating with their mortgage lenders and encouraged consumers to stop payments to their lenders without informing them that their actions could lead to foreclosure or damage their credit ratings.
In granting the preliminary injunction, the court ruled that there was good cause to believe that, unless the defendants continued to be restrained and enjoined by order of the court, “the court’s ability to grant effective final relief in the form of monetary restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains will suffer immediate and irreparable damage from [the] [d]efendants’ transfer, dissipation, or concealment of [a]ssets or business records.” Furthermore, the court found good cause to (i) appoint a temporary receiver; (ii) grant the FTC limited expedited discovery from third-parties related to assets; and (iii) freeze defendants’ assets.