InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC takes action against day-trading company for deceptive sales techniques
On April 19, the FTC filed a complaint against a day-trading investment company and its CEO alleging the defendants violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) in connection with the company’s investment opportunities. According to the complaint, the Massachusetts-based defendants promote day-trading investments online and sell programs promising to show consumers how to earn substantial profits in a short time period. The FTC contends that the defendants promote these so-called “profitable” and “scalable” trading strategies to consumers through allegedly deceptive sales pitches and inform consumers that their strategies are effective even with initial investments as small as $500. However, the FTC claims that 74 percent of customers’ accounts actually lost money and that only 10 percent of the accounts earned more than $90.
Under the terms of the proposed stipulated order, the defendants are required to pay $3 million in consumer redress and are permanently restrained and enjoined from making unsubstantiated earnings claims concerning consumers’ potential to earn money using their trading strategies regardless of the amount of capital invested or the amount of time spent trading. Defendants are also prohibited from violating federal law, or from making any misrepresentations about investment opportunities, including misrepresentations in connection with telemarketing regarding the amount of “risk, liquidity, earnings potential, or profitability of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer.”
CFPB and FTC release 2021 FDCPA report
On April 15, the CFPB and the FTC released their annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA (see announcements here and here). The agencies are delegated joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and, pursuant to a 2019 memorandum of understanding, may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the annual report provided a broad overview of the debt collection industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and highlighted enforcement actions taken by, and education and outreach efforts, policy initiatives, and supervisory findings of, the CFPB and FTC. With respect to enforcement, the report noted that: (i) the FTC resolved three FDCPA cases against 17 defendants and banned all 17 companies and individuals who engaged in serious and repeated violations of law from engaging in debt collection; (ii) there was one new public enforcement action brought in 2021 related to unlawful debt collection conduct; (iii) the Bureau resolved two pending lawsuits with FDCPA claims and also filed an action to recover a fraudulent transfer to enforce a prior judgment that penalized a defendant’s FDCPA violations, which resulted in judgments for $2.26 million in consumer redress; and (iv) by the end of 2021, the Bureau had three FDCPA enforcement actions pending in federal court. The report also noted that the CFPB handled roughly 121,700 debt collection complaints in 2021, of which the Bureau sent approximately 73,600 (or 60 percent) to companies for their review and response. Finally, the report also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC “made it much more difficult for the FTC to obtain monetary relief for unfair or deceptive debt collection practices that fall outside the scope of the FDCPA.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in that decision the Court 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.”
FTC takes action against medical school for deceptive tactics
On April 14, the FTC filed a complaint against a Caribbean for-profit medical school and its Illinois-based operators alleging the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, Holder Rule, and Credit Practices Rule (CPR) in connection with its marketing and credit practices. According to the complaint, the defendants improperly marketed the school’s medical license exam pass rate and residency match success. In addition, financing contracts omitted a legally-mandated Holder Rule notice in their credit agreements, among other things. Under the Holder Rule, “any seller that receives the proceeds of a purchase money loan [must] include, in the underlying credit contract, a specific notice informing the consumer of their right to assert claims against any holder of the credit contract.” In addition to omitting the required notice, the defendants also allegedly attempted to waive consumers’ legal rights by inserting language in the credit agreements stating, “ALL PARTIES, INCL[U]DING BOTH STUDENT BORROWER AND COSIGNER. . .WAIVE ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER THAT THEY MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO [DEFENDANT]…” The FTC also contended that the defendants included a notice informing cosigners of their liability in the middle of the contract, instead of providing a separate document containing specific language required by the CPR.
Under the terms of the proposed stipulated order, the defendants are required to pay a $1.2 million judgment that will go towards refunds and debt cancellation for affected consumers, and also cease collection of approximately $357,000 in consumer debt covered by the proposed order. Defendants are also required to notify each consumer that their debt is being cancelled and that consumer reporting agencies will be directed to delete the debt from the consumers’ credit reports. Additionally, defendants are prohibited from misrepresenting their pass rates and residency matches, and from making unsubstantiated claims or violating federal law. The order also provides Holder Rule protections, including prohibiting defendants from selling, transferring, or assigning any consumer credit contracts unless the recipient of such contract agrees, in writing, “that its rights are subject to the borrowers’ claims and defenses against [d]efendants” and requiring defendants to notify each borrower whose credit contract is sold.
FTC settles with retailers over deceptive product representation
On April 8, the FTC used its Penalty Offense Authority against two national retailers for allegedly engaging in false labeling and marketing tactics by presenting rayon textile products as bamboo. According to the complaints (see here and here), which were filed by the DOJ on behalf of the FTC, since at least 2015, the companies allegedly made false or unsubstantiated representations in violation of the FTC Act by improperly labeling and marketing textile fiber products as “made of bamboo” in both product titles and descriptions. The companies also, among other things, falsely marketed some of the “bamboo-derived” products as providing general environment benefits, such as being produced “free of harmful chemicals, using clean, non-toxic materials,” also in violation of the FTC Act. Additionally, in connection with the advertising of textile fiber products containing rayon, the companies allegedly made representations regarding the products’ fiber content without disclosing the full fiber content, in violation of the Textile Act and Textile Rules.
According to the proposed settlements (see here and here), the companies are, among other things: (i) prohibited from making deceptive claims, including false and/or unsubstantiated claims, relating to bamboo fiber products; (ii) prohibited from future violations of the FTC Act and Textile Act and Textile Rules; and (iii) ordered to pay $5.5 million total in penalties.
FTC imposes “record-setting” fine on auto dealer alleging discriminatory junk fees
On April 1, the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General announced a proposed settlement with an Illinois-based multistate auto dealer group for allegedly adding junk fees for unwanted “add-on” products to consumers’ bills and discriminating against Black consumers. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants are ordered to pay a $10 million penalty, of which $9.95 million will be used to provide monetary relief to consumers. According to the FTC, this is the highest penalty ever obtained against an auto dealer. The remaining balance of the penalty will be paid to the Illinois Attorney General Court Ordered and Voluntary Compliance Payment Projects Fund.
According to the complaint, which brings claims under the FTC Act, TILA, ECOA, and comparable Illinois laws, eight of the defendant’s dealerships, along with the general manager of two of the Illinois dealerships, allegedly tacked on junk fees for unwanted “add-on” products such as service contracts, GAP insurance, and paint protection to consumers’ purchase contracts at the end of the negotiation process, often without consumers’ consent. In other instances, consumers were told that the add-ons were free or were required to purchase or finance their vehicle. The complaint further alleges that defendants discriminated against Black consumers by charging them higher interest rates or more for add-on products than similarly situated non-Latino white consumers. As result, Black consumers allegedly paid, on average, $190 more in interest and $99 more for add-on products.
FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a joint statement noting that they “would have also supported a count alleging a violation of the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair acts or practices.” Khan and Slaughter elaborated on reasons why the FTC “should evaluate under its unfairness authority any discrimination that is found to be based on disparate treatment or have a disparate impact,” pointing out that (i) discrimination based on protected status can cause substantial injury to consumers; (ii) “injuries stemming from disparate treatment or impact are unavoidable because affected consumers cannot change their status or otherwise influence the unfair practices”; and (iii) “injuries stemming from disparate treatment or impact are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.”
District Court denies majority of MSJ requests in FTC action against online discount club
On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the majority of motions for summary judgment filed by the FTC and defendants in a 2017 action that charged the operators of a group of marketing entities and payment processors (collectively, “defendants”) with numerous violations of law for allegedly debiting more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership in online discount clubs without their authorization. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC’s 2017 complaint alleged that the online discount clubs claimed to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans, but instead enrolled consumers in a coupon service that charged an initial application fee as well as automatically recurring monthly fees.
In reviewing the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, the court first reviewed the FTC’s claims against the defendants allegedly responsible for launching the discount program (lead generator defendants) “as a way to salvage leads on loan-seeking consumers that the [lead generator defendants] were not able to sell to lenders or others.” The lead generator defendants allegedly used loan-seeking consumers’ banking information to enroll them in discount club memberships with automatically recurring monthly charges debited from the consumers’ bank accounts. While the lead generator defendants contended that the enrollments were authorized by the consumers themselves, the FTC claimed, among other things, that “loan-seeking consumers were redirected to the discount club webpage during the loan application process.” The court determined that because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lead generator defendants’ loan application process, discount club webpages, and telemarketing practices were deceptive or if their practices violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, the FTC is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for injunctive relief or equitable monetary relief.
The court also concluded that the FTC failed to present evidence showing that another defendant—a now-defunct entity whose assets and business operations were sold to some of the defendants—is violating or is about to violate the law because the FTC’s action was filed more than three years after the defunct entity ceased all operations. As such, the court found that the statute of limitations applies and the defunct entity is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the FTC’s claims. However, the court determined that there is evidence suggesting the possibility that two individual defendants involved in monitoring and advising the defendants in the alleged discount club scheme, may continue the scrutinized conduct.
With respect to the FTC’s claims against certain other individual defendants allegedly responsible for owning and managing some of the corporate defendants and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, the court considered defendants’ arguments “that they had a general lack of knowledge of (or authority to control) the alleged violative conduct” and “that the FTC does not have the right to seek equitable monetary relief” as a result. In denying the FTC’s motions for summary judgment against these individual defendants, the court found “that there are disputed issues of material fact as to these matters which should be decided by the trier of fact,” and that the FTC’s claim for equitable monetary relief required further analysis following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which held 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.)
Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence showed that another individual (who served as an officer of a defendant identified as being responsible for processing the remotely created checks used to debit consumers’ accounts during the discount club scheme) “knowingly and actively participated in acts that were crucial to the success of the . . . alleged discount scheme.” However, because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the lead generator and named defendants’ loan application process, discount club webpages, and telemarketing practices were deceptive, the court ruled that the FTC is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to its claims against the individual’s estate. The court also found that the individual’s estate is not entitled to summary judgment on either of its arguments related to the FTC’s request for monetary relief.
FTC issues final order in FTC Act violations matter
On March 21, the FTC announced a final order resolving allegations that an online fashion retailer (defendant) allegedly violated the FTC Act by engaging in deceptive practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, 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 negative reviews. The complaint further noted that the defendant utilized a third-party review management software to automatically post higher-rating reviews to its website, while withholding other lower-rating reviews for the defendant’s approval prior to posting—which never took place. According to the final order, the defendant is: (i) required to pay $4.2 million as monetary relief to the FTC; (ii) prohibited from misrepresenting information about product reviews; and (iii) required to publicly display all product reviews on its website.
FTC sues sales organization in business opportunity scam
On March 15, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against an independent sales organization and its owners (collectively, “respondents”) for allegedly opening merchant accounts for fictitious companies on behalf of a business opportunity scam previously sued by the FTC in 2013. According to the complaint, the scammers promoted business opportunities to consumers that falsely promised they would earn thousands of dollars. From its previous 2013 lawsuit, the FTC obtained judgments and settlements of over $7.3 million (covered by InfoBytes here). The complaint alleged that respondents violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by helping the scammers launder millions of dollars of consumers’ credit card payments from 2012 to 2013 and ignoring warning signs that the merchants were fake. The FTC claimed that the respondents, among other things, (i) opened merchant accounts based on “vague” business descriptions; (ii) ignored the fact that for most of the merchants, the principals or business owners had poor credit ratings, which should have raised questions about the financial health of the merchants; (iii) neglected to obtain merchants’ marketing materials or follow up on signs that the merchants were engaged in telemarketing; and (iv) ignored inconsistencies related to the bank accounts listed on several of the merchants’ applications. The FTC further claimed that the respondents created 43 different merchant accounts for fictitious companies on behalf of the scam and even provided advice to the organizers of the scam on how to spread out the transactions among different accounts to evade detection.
Under the terms of the proposed consent order (which is subject to public comment and final FTC approval), the respondents would be prohibited from engaging in credit card laundering, as well as any other tactics to evade fraud and risk monitoring programs. The respondents would also be banned from providing payment processing services to any merchant that is, or is likely to be, engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct, and to any merchant that is flagged as high-risk by credit-card industry monitoring programs. Furthermore, the respondents would be required to screen potential merchants and monitor the sales activity and marketing practices of current merchants engaged in certain activities that could harm consumers. The FTC noted that it is unable to obtain a monetary judgment due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, which held 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.)
FTC settles action against e-commerce platform for data breach cover up
On March 15, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with two limited liability companies, the former and current owners, of an online customized merchandise platform (collectively, “respondents”) for allegedly failing to secure consumers’ sensitive personal data and covering up a major breach. According to the complaint, the respondents allegedly violated the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting that they implemented reasonable measures to protect the personal information (PI) of customers against unauthorized access and for misrepresenting that appropriate steps to secure consumer account information following security breaches were taken. The complaint further alleged that respondents failed to apply readily available protections against well-known threats and adequately respond to security incidents, which resulted in the respondents' network being breached multiple times. Notably, one of the breaches involved a hacker gaining access to “millions of email addresses and passwords with weak encryption; millions of unencrypted names, physical addresses, and security questions and answers; more than 180,000 unencrypted Social Security numbers; and tens of thousands of partial payment card numbers and expiration dates.” The complaint goes on to allege that the online customized merchandise platform failed to properly investigate the breach for several months despite additional warnings, including failing to promptly notify its customers of the breach. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the respondents are: (i) ordered to pay $500,000 in redress to victims of the data breaches: (ii) prohibited from making misrepresentations about their privacy and security measures, among other things, and (iii) required to have a third party assess their information security programs and provide the Commission with a redacted copy of that assessment suitable for public disclosure.
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.