InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court rules date on credit monitoring app report insufficient to prove FDCPA violation
On June 24, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action, holding that the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to prove her claim that the defendant violated FDCPA Section 1692e(8) by failing to communicate that her debts were disputed. According to the order, the plaintiff obtained a copy of her credit report and noticed that the defendant was reporting five debts that she allegedly owed to a healthcare provider. The plaintiff’s counsel sent the defendant a letter disputing the debts. While the defendant did not report to the credit bureaus that the debts were disputed, the defendant received instructions from the healthcare provider to remove all of its consumer debts from the national credit bureaus. The defendant subsequently instructed the credit bureaus to remove all of the accounts from their services. However, the defendant did not verify that the debts were removed, claiming that it did not recall ever having “‘an issue raised as a result of one of the credit bureaus not removing a debt as requested,’” and as such “had ‘no reason to confirm that its instructions to [the credit bureau] had been carried out.’” When the plaintiff checked her credit report nearly three months later using a credit monitoring app, she saw that the debts were still being reported and were not marked as being disputed. The app showed the information to be reported as of a date that was three weeks after the defendant asked to have the debts marked as disputed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to mark the debts as disputed and alleged that it communicated information to the credit bureaus without identifying the debts as being disputed. The defendant countered, arguing among other things, that it “‘has no control over when or how [the credit bureau] inputs data from [the defendant] or how [the credit bureau] describes the report date of the data that [the defendant] submits to it.’”
In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined that simply because the app used a date to indicate how current the information was does not mean that information was communicated to the credit bureaus by the defendant on that date. The app report relied upon by the plaintiff “does not indicate that [the defendant] communicated with [the credit bureau] on that date,” the court wrote. “It is simply silent on that question. It certainly gives rise to the possibility that [the defendant] communicated with [the credit bureau] on that date, but a possibility is not the same as probability.” As a result, the court found there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the plaintiff’s claims and it granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.
District Court says disputed tradeline is not misleading
On June 8, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted a defendant auto finance company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action concerning alleged violations of the FCRA. The plaintiff filed an action against the defendants (an auto finance company and a financial service company) alleging that her credit report included an inaccurate or misleading “Errant Tradeline” in violation of the FCRA because it identified a paid off loan as being “closed” with a “$0 balance,” but also indicated that the loan had a monthly payment amount of $669. The plaintiff argued that this created “the impression that she still ha[d] an outstanding loan” as well as upcoming payments and alleged that the inaccurate reporting caused her financial and emotional damages. The plaintiff also claimed that the auto finance company negligently or willfully violated the FCRA because it failed to conduct a proper investigation. Upon review, the court granted the motion by the auto finance company, finding that because the balance listed says “$0,” and the account is listed as “closed,” there is “little opportunity for confusion when the alleged Errant Tradeline is reviewed in context.” The court further noted that “the context of the report reveals that the monthly payment line is neither inaccurate nor misleading.”
FTC reaches $20 million settlement with company for misusing consumer credit reports
On April 29, the FTC announced a civil complaint and stipulated order filed by the DOJ on its behalf against a home security and monitoring company accused of allegedly violating the FCRA by improperly obtaining consumers’ credit reports to help potential customers qualify for financing for its products and services. According to the complaint, company employees allegedly engaged in a process known as “white paging,” in which the credit history of another individual with the same or similar name as the potential customer is used to qualify the potential customer for the company’s financing program. Additionally, the FTC claimed that company sales representatives allegedly added “impermissible co-signers” to accounts for unqualified customers by unlawfully using the credit history of the “co-signers” without their permission. In the event a customer defaulted on a loan, the company referred the impermissible co-signer to its debt buyer, potentially harming the co-signer’s credit score and subjecting the individual to debt collections, the FTC stated. According to the complaint, the company was aware of the misconduct, terminated hundreds of sales representatives as a result of these practices, but later rehired some of the same sales representatives because they generated millions of dollars in revenue.
Under the terms of the stipulated order—the largest to date for an FTC FCRA action—the company is required to pay a $15 million civil money penalty, as well as $5 million to compensate harmed individuals. Additionally, the company must (i) implement an employee monitoring and training program to prevent further FCRA violations; (ii) establish and maintain an identity theft prevention program; (iii) establish a customer service task force to verify all accounts that reference more than one address or include a co-signer before referring the accounts to a debt collector and assist individuals who were improperly referred to debt collectors; and (iv) obtain biennial assessments by an independent third party to ensure compliance.
While the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the stipulated final order, Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a separate statement noting that he believes the FTC “should have also alleged that the company violated the FTC Act’s prohibitions on deceptive practices by falsifying credit applications,” and that because the company “turned a blind eye to obvious compliance failures by its sales force” it also allegedly “violated the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair practices.”
D.C. enacts law extending obligations for debt collection, credit reporting, mortgage servicing, and evictions
On March 17, the mayor of D.C. signed the Coronavirus Support Emergency Amendment Act of 2021. The act extends the most provisions of D.C.’s prior Covid-19 relief act (previously covered here and here) through June 15. Among other things, the act includes consumer protection provisions, including provisions regarding debt collection and credit reporting. It also provides housing and tenant protections, including in the areas of mortgage payment and late fee relief, and restrictions on evictions and foreclosures.
Florida reminds lenders of their credit reporting requirements under the CARES act
On February 10, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation released a set of “Compliance Tips” reminding lenders and their servicers that they may be required to report certain delinquent loans as “current” pursuant to the CARES Act. The guidance reminds lenders and loan servicers that under the federal CARES Act, those consumers who were not delinquent as of April 1, 2020 and who subsequently received an accommodation and are complying with the accommodation agreement should be reported as “current.” The tips also urged lenders to be proactive with borrowers to resolve credit reporting errors. Lastly, the tips advised lenders to seek out how reporting errors may have been made, and implement additional internal controls to ensure similar errors do not reoccur.
FTC charges company with passive debt collection
On November 30, the FTC announced a stipulated order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against a debt collection company and three of its officers (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in passive debt collection in violation of the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and the FCRA. According to the complaint, the defendants would place debts that consumers did not owe or the defendants were not authorized to collect on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumers about the debts. The complaint alleges further that consumers often did not discover these debts until they “threatened to interfere with an important, time-sensitive transaction.” The FTC alleges that each month, after receiving and investigating complaints from consumers, the defendants would determine between 80 to 97 percent of disputed debts were inaccurate or invalid. However, the defendants continued to collect on unauthorized debts “[d]espite the persistent inaccuracies.”
The defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations in the settlement order. In addition to the $24,300,000 in monetary relief, which is partially suspended due to the inability to pay (with one officer and corporate defendant required to pay over $56,000), the order also, among other things, (i) prohibits the defendants from furnishing credit information prior to communicating with the consumer; (ii) requires the defendants to request deletion of any debts reported prior to the order; and (iii) bars the defendants from engaging in unlawful debt collection practices.
The vote authorizing the complaint and settlement was 4-1, with Commissioner Chopra voting no, arguing that the agency should work “in concert” with the CFPB for debt collection enforcement in order to “help make victims whole through access to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund and reduce duplicative efforts.”
CFPB reports on payment information furnishing
On November 12, the CFPB released its latest quarterly consumer credit trends report on the prevalence of actual payment information in consumer credit reporting, concluding that actual payment furnishing for installment loan products has increased steadily between 2012 and 2020 while actual payment furnishing for credit card and retail revolving accounts has declined significantly. Specifically, the Bureau found that, between 2012 and 2020, shares of auto loan, student loan, and mortgage tradelines with actual payment amount information trended upward with over 90 percent of such tradelines reporting actual payment amount information by March 2020. In contrast, shares of revolving and credit card tradelines reporting actual payment data significantly declined over the same time period, falling from 95 percent to 71 percent and from 88 percent to 40 percent respectively. The Bureau also found that, for the nation’s largest credit card issuers, the decision to furnish actual payment information appears to be a binary one, with the issuers either furnishing actual payment information for nearly all accounts or not furnishing such information at all. As of 2020, only half of the nation’s largest credit card issuers furnished actual payment data for their accounts, down from 70 percent in 2013. The Bureau theorizes that the decline in reporting of actual payment data for both revolving and credit card accounts may reflect attempts to prevent account poaching by competitors.
CFPB reports on debt trends for young veterans leaving service
On November 9, the CFPB released a report highlighting credit record trends for young enlisted servicemembers during the first year after separation. According to the CFPB, a large number of these servicemembers become delinquent on debt payments or have severe derogatories appear on their credit records around the time they leave active duty. The report analyzes a sample of 10,872 servicemembers and finds that, for servicemembers who serve at least 7 months, “delinquencies and defaults are between two and 10 times more like to appear on a credit record in the six months after separation as compared to the six months before.” In addition, servicemembers who have negative outcomes show declines in their credit scores just after separation, with recovery not occurring until at least one year after leaving the military. Credit score declines are most severe for those who serve between 7 and 35 months as well as “for those who exit with a Near prime credit score or below, as opposed to a Prime score or better.” Among other things, the report focuses on several categories of young veterans and identifies the following three types of credit accounts to be the most likely sources of delinquencies and defaults: auto loans, credit cards, and personal or retail installment loans. The report also addresses several credit outcomes: credit scores, third-party collections debt (medical and non-medical debt), 90-day delinquencies, and severe derogatory outcomes. While the report’s data does not specifically indicate reasons for a servicemember’s separation, the Bureau reports that part of the cause may be attributed to financial difficulties, and that assisting servicemembers make better financial decisions may increase retention for service branches.
CFPB will not alter credit reporting guidance deadline relief
On November 9, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger sent a letter to the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) stating that the Bureau is not planning to make any changes to the guidance it issued in April (covered by InfoBytes here), which informed furnishers that the Bureau will refrain from taking enforcement actions and citing during exams in certain situations as long as furnishers make “good faith efforts” to investigate consumer disputes as quickly as possible. The letter was sent in response to a request made by the NCLC and several other consumer advocacy groups in September, which urged the Bureau to revoke the policy based on an alleged rise in consumer complaints received by the Bureau about dispute investigation delays. The advocacy groups claimed that the significant increase was “likely as a result of the CFPB guidance,” and requested that—at a minimum—the Bureau “limit the extra time provided to the CRAs and furnishers to 15 days, or at most 30 days beyond the FCRA-mandated 30-day deadline for investigation disputes.”
“I want to make clear that all companies continue to remain responsible for FCRA compliance with dispute resolutions in a timely fashion,” Kraninger responded. “However, during the extraordinary times in which we find ourselves, the Bureau does not intend to cite in an examination or bring an enforcement action against firms who exceed the deadlines to investigate such disputes—but only as long as efforts are made in good faith to do so as quickly as possible.” (Emphasis in the original.)
District court: Credit reporting restrictions preempted by FCRA
On October 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a trade association’s motion for declaratory judgment against the Maine attorney general and the superintendent of Maine’s Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (collectively, “defendants”) after it sued the state for enacting amendments to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act. The trade association—whose members include the three nationwide consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs)—filed the lawsuit concerning 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 federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The parties’ main contention was over how broadly the language under FCRA Section 1681t(b)(1)(E) concerning “subject matter regulated under . . . [15 U.S. C. § 1681c] relating to information contained in consumer reports” should be understood. Plaintiffs argued that the language should be read to encompass all claims relating to information contained in consumer reports. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that § 1681c should be read “as an itemized list of narrowly delineated subject matters, some of which relate to information contained in consumer reports, and only find preemption where a state imposes a requirement or prohibition that spills into one of those limited domains,” which in this case, the defendants countered, the amendments do not.
The court disagreed, concluding 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.”