InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC charges healthcare company with fraud
On August 8, the FTC announced it has taken action against a healthcare company, two subsidiaries, and the former CEO and former vice president of sales (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly misleading consumers about their health insurance plans and using deceptive lead generation websites. According to the complaint, the defendants, along with their third-party partners, allegedly engaged in deceptive sales practices in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA). These practices included allegedly (i) lying to consumers about the nature of their healthcare plans; (ii) bundling and charging junk fees for unwanted products that were typically not clearly disclosed (consumers were often charged for these additional products after they cancelled their core healthcare plans); and (iii) making it difficult for consumers to cancel their plans. The FTC further alleged that the company (which sells association memberships and other healthcare-related products to consumers, often through telemarketing companies and lead generators), as well as the former CEO and former vice president of sales, were aware of the agents’ misconduct but allegedly “took steps to disguise and further the deception” instead of stopping the deceptive practices.
The FTC stated that the company and two of its subsidiaries have agreed to a proposed court order, which requires the payment of $100 million in consumer redress. The proposed order also requires the company to contact current customers and allow them to cancel their enrollment. The company is also required to send refunds to consumers who cancel right after their order is entered. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits the company from misleading consumers about their products, requires the disclosure of total costs and limitations prior to purchase, and requires consumers to provide express informed consent before they are billed. The company must also provide a simple and easy-to-use cancellation method and closely monitor other companies that sell its products.
The FTC also filed separate proposed court orders against the individual defendants (see here and here), which impose similar prohibitions and permanently bans them from playing any role in the sale or marketing of any healthcare-related product or service. The proposed orders also prohibit the former CEO from engaging in deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices, and bans the former vice president of sales from participating in any telemarketing whatsoever in the future.
FTC fines company $62 million for FTC Act violations
On August 1, the FTC announced a consent order against an online home buying firm for allegedly making misleading claims. According to the complaint, the company allegedly advertised to potential sellers using misleading and deceptive information. The complaint also alleged that the company violated provisions of the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting: (i) market value prices when making offers to buy homes by including downward adjustments to such values; (ii) the manner in which it made money on transactions; (iii) that consumers likely would have paid the same amount in repair costs whether they sold their home through the company or in traditional sale; and (iv) that consumers paid less in costs. The firm issued a statement regarding the FTC settlement stating that, among other things, it “strongly disagree[s] with the FTC’s allegations,” and that the FTC’s allegations “are related to activity that occurred between 2017 and 2019 and target marketing messages the company modified years ago.” The statement also noted that the settlement will allow the firm to “focus on helping consumers buy, sell and move with simplicity, certainty and speed.”
According to the consent order, the company is required to pay the FTC $62 million, which is expected to be used for consumer redress. The company is also prohibited from making deceptive, false, and unsubstantiated claims to consumers about how much money they will receive or the costs they will have to pay to use its service. Additionally, the company is required to have “competent and reliable evidence” to support any representations made about the costs, savings, or financial benefits associated with using its service, and any claims about the costs associated with traditional home sales.
FTC brings action against payment processor for misleading small businesses
On July 29, the FTC announced a settlement with a payment processing company and two of its sales affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) to resolve claims that they “trapp[ed] small businesses with hidden terms, surprise exit fees, and zombie charges.” The FTC alleged that the defendants made false claims about fees and cost savings, including “false and baseless claims about their processing services” to lure merchants, many of whom had limited English proficiency. According to the complaint, once merchants were enrolled, the defendants allegedly withdrew funds from their accounts without their consent and made it difficult and expensive for them to cancel the service. The complaint also alleged that the defendants violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to disclose material terms, by charging consumers without their express informed consent, and by failing to provide a simple mechanism for consumers to cancel the agreements.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants are, among other things, prohibited from making misrepresentations, making unsubstantiated claims, and using unfair debiting practices. The defendants will also be prohibited from making withdrawals from any of their customers’ bank accounts without authorization. The defendants must pay $4.9 million to the FTC, which will be used to provide refunds to affected businesses.
FTC, NLRB sign MOU to protect workers in gig economy
On July 19, the FTC announced that it is joining with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (collectively, “Parties”) in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) intended to protect workers by promoting competitive U.S. labor markets and putting an end to unfair practices that harm workers in the “gig economy” and other labor markets. The MOU provides ways for the Parties to work together to address key issues, such as labor market concentration, one-sided contract terms, and labor developments in the gig economy. According to the MOU, the Parties recognize that ongoing interagency collaboration regarding “issues of common regulatory interest will help to protect workers against unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and unfair labor practices.” The MOU also provides that the Parties will facilitate: (i) “information sharing and cross-agency consultations on an ad hoc basis for official law enforcement purposes, in a manner consistent with and permitted by the laws and regulations that govern the Parties”; (ii) “cross-agency training to educate each Party about the laws and regulations enforced by the other Party”; and (iii) “coordinated outreach and education as appropriate.” According to the FTC, the MOU “is part of a broader FTC initiative to use the agency’s full authority[.]” The announcement also described the FTC’s recent efforts to root out deceptive and unfair acts and practices aimed at workers, “particularly those in the ‘gig economy’ who often don’t enjoy the full protections of traditional employment relationship.”
Louisiana enacts student loan servicer provisions, establishes requirements for private education lenders
On June 18, the Louisiana governor signed HB 610, which defines terms and outlines provisions related to student loan servicers. Among other things, the act prohibits servicers from misleading student loan borrowers or engaging in any unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice. Servicers are also prohibited from making misrepresentations or omitting information related to fees, payments, repayment options, loan terms and conditions, or borrower obligations. Moreover, servicers may not “[a]llocate a nonconforming payment in a manner other than as directed by the student loan borrower” under certain circumstances. The act also outlines duties related the furnishing of information to consumer reporting agencies, providing that a servicer may not (i) submit inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency; (ii) refuse to correct inaccurately furnished information; (iii) fail to report a borrower’s favorable payment history at least once a year; (iv) refuse to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; and (v) make false statements or omit material facts connected to a state or local agency investigation. Additionally, the act specifies responsibilities related to responding to written inquires and complaints from consumers.
The same day, the governor also signed HB 789, which establishes a private student loan registry and outlines provisions related to private education lenders. The act stipulates that all private education lenders operating in the state must register with the commissioner, which may include the payment of fees and registration through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry. However, the act allows the commissioner to prescribe an alternative registration process and fee structure for postsecondary education providers. These registration requirements are not applicable to banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, or credit unions operating pursuant to authority granted by the commissioner. Private education lenders will also be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, including providing information related to the schools where the lender has made loans to students residing in the state, the total number and dollar amount of loans made annually, interest rate ranges, borrower default rates, copies of promissory notes and contracts, and cosigner loan statistics, among others.
Both acts take effect August 1.
FTC, Florida file complaint against grant funding operation
On June 27, the FTC and the Florida attorney general filed a complaint against a Florida-based grant funding company and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) alleging that the defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act, the FTC Act, and the Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the defendants deceptively marketed grant writing and consulting services to minority-owned small businesses by, among other things, (i) promising grant funding that did not exist and/or was never awarded; (ii) misleading customers about the status of grant awards; and (iii) failing to honor a “money-back guarantee” and suppressing customer complaints. The complaint also alleged that the owner relied on funds that she acquired through the federal Paycheck Protection Program Covid-19 stimulus program to start the company. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a restraining order with asset freeze, appointment of a temporary receiver, and other equitable relief order against the defendants, which also prohibits them from engaging in grant funding business activities.
FTC finalizes action against e-commerce platform for data breach cover up
On June 24, the FTC announced a final decision and order against two limited liability companies (respondents) accused of allegedly failing to secure consumers’ sensitive personal data and covering up a major breach. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the respondents—former and current owners of an online customized merchandise platform—allegedly violated the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting that they implemented reasonable measures to protect customers’ personal information against unauthorized access and misrepresenting that appropriate steps were taken to secure consumer account information following security breaches. The complaint further alleged that respondents failed to apply readily available protections against well-known threats or adequately respond to security incidents, which resulted in the respondents’ network being breached multiple times. Under the terms of the final settlement, one of the respondents is required to pay $500,000 to victims of the data breaches. The other respondent is required to provide notice to consumers impacted by a 2019 data breach. Among other things, the order prohibits respondents from misrepresenting their privacy and security measures and requires that respondents implement comprehensive information security programs that are assessed by an independent third party.
FDIC updates Consumer Compliance Examination Manual’s UDAAP provisions
On June 17, the FDIC announced updates to its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual (CEM). The CEM includes supervisory policies and examination procedures for FDIC examination staff when evaluating financial institutions’ compliance with federal consumer protection laws and regulations. The June update modifies Section VII Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices to reflect the FDIC’s existing supervisory authority regarding UDAP and UDAAP under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Act, respectively. Among other updates, the new Section VII changes language related to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act to add a reference to Dodd-Frank UDAAP provisions. The updated section provides the following:
ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction against persons on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract), the fact that an applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program, and the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The FHA prohibits creditors involved in residential real estate transactions from discriminating against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. FTC UDAPs and Dodd-Frank UDAAPs that target or have a disparate impact on consumers in one of these prohibited basis groups may violate the ECOA or the FHA, as well as the FTC Act or the Dodd-Frank Act. Moreover, some state and local laws address discrimination against additional protected classes, e.g., handicap in non-housing transactions, or sexual orientation. Such conduct may also violate the FTC Act or the Dodd-Frank Act.
With respect to the legal standards for “unfair” and “deceptive” under the FTC Act and Dodd-Frank, Section VII notes that these standards are “substantially similar.”
FTC bans MCA providers, returns $2.7 million to consumers
On June 6, the FTC obtained a stipulated court order permanently banning a company and owner from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last June the FTC filed an amended 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, deceiving consumers about personal guarantees, forcing consumers and businesses to sign confessions of judgment, providing less funding than promised due to undisclosed fees, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. Under the terms of the stipulated order, the settling defendants are required to pay a more than $2.7 million monetary judgment to go towards refunds for harmed consumers and must vacate any judgments against former customers and release any liens against their customers’ property. The announcement notes that the settling defendants are also “prohibited from misleading consumers about any key facts about any good or service, including any fees, the total cost of the product, and other facts that reflect their deceptions in this case.”
Earlier in January, a stipulated order was entered against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here), which permanently banned them from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries and required the payment of a $675,000 monetary judgment.
FTC shares 2021 enforcement report with CFPB
On June 3, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2021 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report covers FTC enforcement activities regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Highlights of the enforcement matters covered in the report include, among other things:
- Automobile Credit and Leasing. The report discussed the FTC’s July 2021 settlement with the owners of car dealerships in Arizona and New Mexico (collectively, “defendants”) resolving claims that the defendants misrepresented consumer information on finance applications and misrepresented financial terms in advertisements in violation of TILA and CLA (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report highlighted the FTC’s settlement against a payday lending enterprise for allegedly overcharging consumers millions of dollars, deceiving them about the terms of their loans, and failing to make required loan disclosures. According to the report, the owners and operators of the settling entities are banned from making loans or extending credit, nearly all debt held by the company will be deemed paid in full, and the companies involved are being liquidated, with the proceeds to be used to provide redress to consumers harmed by the company.
- Credit Repair and Debt Relief. The report discussed the FTC’s settlement with the operators of a student loan debt relief scheme, who were charged with falsely promising consumers the company could lower or eliminate student loan balances, illegally imposing upfront fees for credit repair services, and signing consumers up for high-interest loans to pay the fees without making required loan disclosures in violation of TILA. The order bans the defendants from providing debt relief services and collecting any further payments from consumers who purchased the services, and requires the defendants to return money to be used to refund consumers.
Additionally, the report addressed the FTC’s research and policy efforts and highlighted the FTC’s Military Task Force’s work on military consumer protection issues.