InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
1st Circuit vacates ruling in Maine FCRA case
On February 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a district court’s ruling that the FCRA preempts amendments to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act that govern how certain debts are reported to credit reporting agencies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a trade association—whose members include the three nationwide consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs)—sued the Maine attorney general and the superintendent of Maine’s Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (collectively, “defendants”) for enacting the 2019 amendments, which, among other things, place restrictions on how medical debts can be reported by the CRAs and govern how CRAs must investigate debt that is allegedly a “product of ‘economic abuse.’” The trade association argued that the amendments, which attempt to regulate the contents of an individual’s consumer report, are preempted by the FCRA, and contended that language under FCRA Section 1681t(b)(1)(E) should be read to encompass all claims relating to information contained in consumer reports. The district court agreed, ruling that, as a matter of law, the amendments are preempted by § 1681t(b)(1)(E). According to the court, Congress’ language and amendments to the FCRA’s structure “reflect an affirmative choice by Congress to set ‘uniform federal standards’ regarding the information contained in consumer credit reports,” and that “[b]y seeking to exclude additional types of information” from consumer reports, the amendments “intrude upon a subject matter that Congress has recently sought to expressly preempt from state regulation.” The defendants appealed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the phrase “relating to information contained in consumer reports” broadly preempts all state laws, but the appellate court was not persuaded and concluded that the broad interpretation “is not the most natural reading of the statute’s syntax and structure.” The 1st Circuit found “no reason to presume that Congress intended, in providing some federal protections to consumers regarding the information contained in credit reports, to oust all opportunity for states to provide more protections, even if those protections would not otherwise be preempted as ‘inconsistent’ with the FCRA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(a).” In addition, the court reminded the plaintiff that “even where Congress has chosen to preempt state law, it is not ousting states of regulatory authority; state regulators have concurrent enforcement authority under the FCRA, subject to some oversight by federal regulators.” As such, the appellate court held that the FCRA did not broadly preempt the entirety of Maine’s amendments, and remanded the case back to the district court to determine the scope under which the amendments may be preempted by the FCRA.
CFPB publishes list of consumer reporting companies
On January 27, the CFPB released its annual list of consumer reporting companies, which identifies reporting companies that collect and sell access to people’s data. According to the CFPB, the list can be used “to see what information these firms have, dispute inaccuracies, and file lawsuits if the firms are violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” The list also, among other things, permits people to identify which companies provide this information at no cost, as well as search for those that provide specialized reporting by certain markets, including employment, tenant, insurance, and medical. According to a blog post published by the CFPB, features of the list include, among other things: (i) information on how to request a report; (ii) tips for checking specialty reports; and (iii) identity verification information. The CFPB also noted that it previously highlighted consumer complaints concerning nationwide reporting companies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB released a report, pursuant to Section 611(e)(5) of the FCRA, covering certain consumer complaints transmitted by the Bureau concerning the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies.
FTC alleges UDAP violations by credit report provider
On January 13, the FTC announced a proposed order to be entered into with a business credit report provider (respondent) alleging that the respondent engaged in deceptive and unfair practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the respondent failed to provide businesses with a clear, consistent, and reliable process to fix errors in their credit reports even though the respondent was selling those businesses products that purported to help them improve their reports. The FTC’s complaint also alleged that the respondent’s telemarketers deceptively pitched another service to businesses and falsely claimed that the businesses had to purchase the service for the respondent to complete the business’s credit profile. In addition, the respondent allegedly did not disclose to businesses that the service’s subscription is automatically renewed each year, nor did it properly disclose other renewal practices that led to increasing costs. Under the terms of the proposed order, the respondent would be required to, among other things: (i) comply with specific periods of time within which to promptly investigate and correct errors; (ii) inform businesses of the results of their investigations; (iii) provide businesses with free access to the revised information; and (iv) either delete the disputed information or perform a reinvestigation of the information to confirm its accuracy when a business informs the respondent of incorrect information in its report. Additionally, the proposed order would require the respondent to provide refunds to certain businesses that purchased its service products between April 2015 and May 2020, and to provide opportunities for many current customers to cancel their services and obtain refunds.
Democratic senators ask CFPB to reconsider the credit reporting process
On November 10, seven democratic senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra requesting that the Bureau reform the credit reporting industry by improving credit reporting accuracy and updating the process on dispute resolutions, among other things. The senators recommended that the Bureau examine persistent errors in credit reporting “and how CRAs [(credit reporting agencies)] consistently fail to resolve these errors, especially by failing to devote sufficient personnel and resources for dispute resolution—a shortcoming the CFPB could use its supervisory authority to remedy.” Among other things, the senators requested that the Bureau (i) establish an ombudsperson position to facilitate the dispute resolution process; (ii) require nationwide CRAs to match an individual’s full Social Security number; (iii) consider requiring nationwide CRAs to perform accuracy audits on information furnishers periodically; and (iv) “codify provisions of the nationwide CRAs’ settlement with state attorneys general that delayed reporting of medical debt for six months and removed debts paid by insurance.” The senators noted that their requests were not exhaustive, and asked for immediate action to be taken to protect consumers and establish “much-needed accountability into the credit reporting system.”
House fintech task force examines buy now/pay later industry
On November 2, the House Financial Services Committee’s Task Force on Financial Technology held a hearing titled “Buy Now, Pay More Later? Investigating Risks and Benefits of BNPL and Other Emerging Fintech Cash Flow Products,” urging regulators to examine the BNPL industry. The committee memorandum highlighted the rise in consumers products offered by fintechs, such as BNPL, earned wage access, and overdraft avoidance products, and warned that while these products may help consumers manage their personal cash flow, they also have the potential to create unsustainable levels of debt. FSC staff noted that many lending disclosure requirements, including those under TILA, may not apply to several of these products, thus creating concerns regarding consumers’ understanding of the associated risks. Pointing out that payments made on many of these products are not reported to credit bureaus, FSC staff raised the issue of whether consumers are missing out on opportunities to build credit.
The task force heard from several industry witnesses who discussed, among other things, current federal and state consumer protection regulations that apply to BNPL products. One witness stressed the importance of “balanced and thoughtful regulation” that benefits consumers and merchants using these new payment solutions, and noted that the industry is actively working with credit bureaus on ways to share repayment data. House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-CA) also urged the CFPB to “look[ ] deeply” at these emerging products to gain a better understanding of how they may impact low- and moderate-income consumers and borrowers of color. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) noted, however, that these products “allow[] people to purchase products, [and] pay for them in a timely manner as they can afford them.” Representative Warren Davidson (R-OH) agreed, stressing that policymakers need to “avoid punishing new products for not fitting within regulatory buckets that were already built” and “should avoid overly impairing consumer choices on how they spend money.”
CFPB reaches $850,000 settlement with debt collectors
On October 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a stipulated final judgment and order against defendants (a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner) in an action alleging FCRA and FDCPA violations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed a complaint against the defendants in 2019 with alleged violations that included, among other things, the defendants’ failure to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies (CRAs), failure to conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes, and failure to conduct investigations into the accuracy of information after receiving identity theft reports before furnishing such information to CRAs. The Bureau separately alleged that the FCRA violations constitute violations of the CFPA, and that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts.
Under the terms of the order, the defendants—who neither admitted nor denied any of the allegations except as specified in the order—are required to, among other things, (i) update existing policies and procedures to ensure information is accurate before it is furnished to a CRA or before commencing collections on an account; (ii) ensure policies and procedures are designed to address trends in disputes; and (iii) hire an independent consultant, subject to the CFPB Enforcement Director’s non-objection, to conduct a review to ensure management-level oversight and FCRA and FDCPA compliance. The defendants must also submit a compliance plan and pay an $850,000 civil money penalty.
CFPB releases report on consumer credit disputes
On November 2, the CFPB released a report on credit report disputes that outlined the demographic characteristics of disputers and the outcomes for accounts with dispute flags. The report highlighted that consumers in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, as well as younger consumers and those with low credit scores, are far more likely to have disputes on their credit reports. The post—part of a series documenting trends in consumer credit outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic (the first covered by InfoBytes here)—used data on auto loan, student loan, and credit card accounts opened between 2012 and 2019. Among other things, the report found that majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods continue to face significant challenges with credit records; for example, in almost every credit category outlined in the report, consumers residing in majority Black areas were more than twice as likely to have disputes on their credit reports compared to consumers residing in majority white areas. For auto loans, consumers in majority Black areas were more than three times as likely to have disputes appear on their credit reports compared to majority white areas. The report also noted that approximately 40 percent of student loans with dispute flags are deleted within four years of the dispute, although this represents less than 0.2 percent of all student loans opened between 2012 and 2019.
According to Director Rohit Chopra, “[e]rror-ridden credit reports are far too prevalent and may be undermining an equitable recovery.” The report noted that “an important subject for future research is whether these patterns are driven by differences across groups and credit types in the type or frequency of the underlying issues that result in a dispute flag, or whether they are driven by furnishers’ practices for reporting dispute flags or responding to disputes.” Additionally, the Bureau said in its press release that it “is committed to further researching the root causes of credit information disputes, as well as investigating the reasons for the demographic disparities found in the report.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the FTC and the North Carolina Department of Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of the consumer plaintiffs in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data, L.P., arguing that a public records website, its founder, and two affiliated entities cannot use Section 230 liability protections to shield themselves from credit reporting violations.
6th Circuit reverses FCRA ruling over misreported debt
On September 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant mortgage servicer, holding that a jury could find the defendant “willfully and negligently” violated the FCRA by incorrectly reporting a past due account status to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) for over a year after the plaintiff’s mortgage loan was discharged in bankruptcy. The plaintiff discovered the loan was being mis-reported as past due when he checked his credit score in advance of buying a car and found it to be lower than expected. The plaintiff disputed the tradeline, and the CRAs forwarded his dispute to the mortgage servicer. In response to the dispute, the servicer changed the plaintiff’s account status from past due to “no status”—which meant the status had not changed from the prior month—and continued reporting it to the CRAs.
The plaintiff sued the servicer for violating the FCRA, claiming the defendant knew the loan had been discharged but still reported it as past due for more than a year. The defendant countered, among other things, that because the plaintiff “chose not to apply for a car loan” he could not prove that he was harmed by negligence due to the mis-reporting. The district court ultimately ruled that (i) the plaintiff did not have standing to allege a negligent violation of the FCRA, and (ii) no “reasonable jury” would find that the defendant had willfully violated the statute.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit disagreed, finding that the plaintiff had standing to assert a negligence claim under FCRA and that a reasonable jury could find a negligent and willful violation. The court pointed out that the plaintiff’s credit score increased by almost 100 points once the tradeline was removed, suggesting the servicer’s mis-reporting did harm the plaintiff and gave him standing to sue in negligence. The court also found the defendant “knew that [the plaintiff’s] loan had been discharged but for more than a year told the credit-reporting agencies that the loan was past due. A jury could therefore find that [the defendant] was either incompetent or willful in its failure to correct its reports sooner.” The 6th Circuit added that the defendant’s implementation of policies to guide its analysts through resolving credit disputes “hardly disproves as a matter of law that [the defendant] acted willfully.” The court held the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
District Court grants CFPB’s motion to strike affirmative defenses in FCRA, FDCPA action
On June 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a memorandum opinion granting the CFPB’s motion to strike four out of five affirmative defenses presented by defendants in an action alleging FCRA and FDCPA violations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed a complaint against the defendants (a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner) for allegedly violating the FCRA, FDCPA, and the CFPA. The alleged violations include, among other things, the defendants’ failure to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies, failure to conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes, and failure to conduct investigations into the accuracy of information after receiving identity theft reports before furnishing such information to consumer-reporting agencies. The Bureau separately alleged that the FCRA violations constitute violations of the CFPA, and that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts.
After the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the CFPB was unconstitutional and therefore lacked standing, the defendants filed an amended affirmative defense asserting the following: (i) the alleged FDCPA violation was a bona fide error; (ii) the Bureau was “barred from seeking equitable relief by the doctrine of unclean hands”; (iii) the Bureau’s leadership structure was unconstitutional under Article II at the time the complaint was filed, thus the actions taken at the time were invalid; (iv) the Bureau structure is unconstitutional under Article I and therefore the Bureau lacked standing because “it is not accountable to Congress through the appropriations process”; and (v) the statute of limitations on the alleged violations had expired. The Bureau asked the court to strike all but the statute of limitations defense. Concerning the bona fide error defense, the defendants contended the alleged violations were not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of “detail[ed] policies and procedures for furnishing accurate information to the consumer reporting agencies,” but the court ruled this defense insufficient because the defendants failed to identify “specific errors [and] specific policies that were maintained to avoid such errors” and failed to explain their procedures. With respect to the unclean hands defense, the court ruled to strike the defense because it found that the defendants had not “alleged ‘egregious’ conduct or shown how the prejudice from that conduct ‘rose to a constitutional level’” when claiming the Bureau engaged in “duplicitous conduct” by allegedly disregarding its own NORA process or by serving multiple civil investigative demands. Finally, the court further decided to strike the two constitutional defenses because it found that allowing those defenses to proceed “could ‘unnecessarily consume the Court’s resources.’” The court granted the defendants 14 days to file an amended affirmative defense curing the identified defects.
CFPB reports on trends in commercial and consumer credit
On June 30, the CFPB released a report highlighting relationships and trends in commercial and consumer credit for small businesses. The report analyzes the frequency and types of commercial credit commonly found on consumer credit reports and the inconsistencies in reporting practices and strategies. The report uses a longitudinal sample of about 5 million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide credit reporting companies. According to the report, “over 2.8 million consumers have an active commercial credit tradeline on their consumer credit report.” The report also notes that about 1,300 entities furnished information on commercial credit products in an average quarter. In comparing the number of bank furnishers with the known number of banks with commercial credit on their balance sheet, the report finds that at least 89 percent of banks are not furnishing information on commercial loans to consumer bureaus. Further, furnishers who do report their commercial accounts may not report all of their business accounts and products to consumer bureaus. According to the CFPB, “[t]his research is among some of the first to explore the relationship between commercial and consumer credit reporting,” and can be utilized as a “base understanding” for future research on commercial credit, including alterations in reporting due to the Covid-19 pandemic.