InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District court voids debt collectors’ $2.5 million jury award
On February 6, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated a jury award of $2.5 million in favor of two nationwide debt collection agencies (plaintiffs), in an action alleging fraud by a law firm and vendor (defendants) in their provision of credit repair services. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants ran “a fraudulent credit repair scheme” in which the defendants “prey[ed] on financially troubled consumers by drafting, signing, and mailing frivolous dispute correspondences—all using [the defendant’s] patented software that generates context-based unique letters—in the name of consumers, without the consumer’s specific knowledge or consent, and without identifying that the letters are from a law firm, rather than a consumer,” in violation of the FDCPA and the FCRA. The defendant law firm responded that all of its credit repair clients provided consent for the law firm to send the letters on their behalf in an effort to improve their credit. After a six day trial, the defendants filed an amended motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof on several elements of their fraud claims. The court “reserved ruling on the motion and stated that it would consider the arguments raised in the motion post-verdict, as necessary.” After the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $2.5 million in damages, the defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the plaintiffs had not shown any “material misrepresentation” or “material false statement” by the defendants, and further, that the plaintiffs did not show a “reasonable reliance” on such statements, or that the defendants had any duty to disclose facts to the plaintiffs.
According to the opinion, the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law called into question the “legal sufficiency” of the plaintiffs’ evidence in support of the jury’s verdict. In granting the motion and vacating the jury award in favor of the plaintiffs, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to show a material false statement by the defendants, and therefore the evidence could not support the jury’s fraud verdict.
CFPB issues semi-annual report to Congress
On February 3, the CFPB issued its semi-annual report to Congress covering the Bureau’s work from April 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019. The report, which is required by the Dodd-Frank Act, addresses, among other things, problems faced by consumers with regard to consumer financial products or services; significant rules and orders adopted by the Bureau; and various supervisory and enforcement actions taken by the Bureau. In her opening letter, Director Kathy Kraninger reported that she has focused, “whenever appropriate and possible” on two areas: (i) encouraging saving, by establishing a program called “Start Small, Save Up”; and (ii) unleashing innovation by reducing regulatory constraints and revising innovation policies and promoting cooperation between state and federal regulators, as demonstrated with the launch of the American Consumer Financial Innovation Network last year.
Among other things, the report highlights credit scores, credit reporting, and the consumer credit card market as areas in which consumers face significant problems. The report notes that credit reports and credit scores greatly affect credit available to consumers. With respect to the availability of general purpose credit cards the report cites Bureau findings that in 2018, consumers with high credit scores had an 83 percent approval rate, whereas consumers with subprime credit scores had only a 17 percent approval rate. In addition to these areas of focus, the report notes the issuance of one significant final rule—Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans; Delay of Compliance Date; Correction Amendments—last year. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Several less significant rules were also finalized, including (i) Technical Specifications for Submissions to the Prepaid Account Agreements Database; (ii) Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks (Regulation CC); and (iii) Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)–2019 Final Rule.
Michigan establishes provisions for credit services organizations
On January 27, the Michigan governor signed HB 4411, which establishes provisions for credit service organizations. Among other things, HB 4411 prohibits persons engaged in credit service activities from (i) charging or receiving money from a buyer seeking a loan, extension of credit, or other valuable consideration before closing; (ii) charging a buyer or receiving from a buyer money or other valuable consideration before completing all agreed upon services, or “for referral to a retail seller that will or may extend credit to the buyer if the credit that is or may be extended to the buyer is substantially the same as that available to the general public”; (iii) making or using false or misleading representations, or engaging in a fraudulent or deceptive act or practice connected with the offer or sale of a credit services organization, stating that the organization has the ability to delete adverse credit history, or guaranteeing that the organization can obtain an extension of credit regardless of the buyer’s credit history; (iv) failing to perform the agreed upon services within 90 days after the contract is signed by the buyer; (v) advising a buyer to make untrue or misleading statements to certain entities, including a consumer credit reporting agency; (vi) assisting in the removal of adverse credit information that is accurate and not obsolete, or assisting a buyer in creating a new credit record using alternative personal information; and (vii) submitting buyer disputes to consumer credit reporting agencies without a buyer’s knowledge. The act is effective immediately.
9th Circuit affirms FDCPA decision in favor of debt collector
On December 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court in favor of a debt collector in an FDCPA action brought by a consumer claiming that the debt collector used false, deceptive, or misleading means in attempting to collect a debt. The consumer, in 2006, opened a credit card account with a bank, but stopped sending payments in December of 2008, without paying off the balance. The bank later sold the consumer’s unpaid account to a debt collector in 2009, after which the debt collector sent a letter to the consumer in 2017 in an effort to collect the past due balance. The consumer filed a complaint against the debt collector, claiming that the debt was “time-barred” as the six-year statute of limitations had run and that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by not disclosing this in the letter to him. The district court granted the debt collector’s summary judgment motion.
On appeal, the consumer again claimed that the debt collector’s language is “deceptive or misleading,” specifically in the debt collector’s disclosure in the letter that read, “[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt and how long a debt can appear on your credit report. Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau.” The court disagreed. According to the opinion, even though the six-year statute to sue in order to collect had expired, “nothing in the letter falsely implies that [the debt collector] could bring a legal action against [the consumer] to collect the debt.” Further, the court determined that the “least sophisticated debtor would [not] likely be misled” by the debt collector’s disclosure, because the “natural conclusion” that could be drawn from the collector’s language was that the debt was time-barred. Additionally, the court rejected the consumer’s contention that the debt collector’s letter was “deceptive or misleading” because it failed to warn the consumer that in some states, the statute of limitations to sue on a debt may be revived if the debtor promises to pay or makes a partial payment on the debt. The court stated that the FDCPA does not require a debt collector to “provide legal advice” about specific issues such as a revival provision in a state statute of limitations. The panel also pointed out that although the statute may have run for the debt collector to take legal action in order to recover the outstanding debt, as long as it complies with the law and does not use misleading, false, or deceptive means, the FDCPA allows it to continue its efforts to collect on a lawful debt.
District Court’s reversal of jury verdict in FDCPA case overturned
On December 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling overturning a jury verdict in favor of the consumer for a debt collection company’s (company) violation of the FDCPA and the Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Texas Act). The consumer sued the company claiming that after she sent the company a letter disputing a debt, the company failed to report to the credit bureaus that the debt was “disputed.” At trial, the jury awarded the consumer $61,000 for the company’s alleged FDCPA and Texas Act violations. Afterwards, the district court granted the company’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturned the jury’s verdict, and dismissed the case, ruling that the consumer failed to provide evidence that the disputed debt was a consumer debt.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit held that it is within the jury’s discretion to make credibility determinations and that it was permissible for the jury to credit the consumer’s testimony about the consumer nature of the debt—a determination which cannot be disturbed unless it is impossible that the testimony is true. In addition, the appellate court noted that the jury has discretion to draw inferences and that it reasonably inferred that the disputed debt was, in fact, a consumer debt, as the consumer claimed.
CFPB issues Supervisory Highlights special edition on consumer reporting
On December 9, the CFPB released a special edition of its fall 2019 Supervisory Highlights, focusing on recent supervisory findings in the areas of consumer reporting and information furnishing to consumer reporting companies (CRCs). This is the second special edition to focus on consumer reporting issues, and follows a report that the Bureau released in March 2017 covered by InfoBytes here. According to the Bureau, recent supervisory reviews of FCRA and Regulation V compliance have identified new violations as well as compliance management system (CMS) weaknesses at CFPB-supervised institutions. However, the Bureau noted that examiners have also observed significant improvements, such as continued investment in FCRA-related CMS.
Highlights of the supervisory findings include:
- Recent examples of CMS weaknesses and FCRA/Regulation V violations (where corrective action has either been taken or is currently being taken) in which one or more (i) mortgage loan furnishers did not maintain policies and procedures “appropriate to the nature, size, complexity, and scope of the furnisher’s activities”; (ii) auto loan furnishers’ policies and procedures failed to provide sufficient guidance for investigating indirect disputes containing allegations of identity theft; (iii) debt collection furnishers’ policies and procedures failed to differentiate between FCRA disputes, FDCPA disputes, or validation requests, leading to a lack of consideration for applicable regulatory requirements when handling these matters; and (iv) deposit account furnishers lacked written policies and procedures for furnishing or validating the information provided to specialty CRCs.
- Examiners found that one or more furnishers provided information they knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, was inaccurate. Examples include inaccurate derogatory status codes due to coding errors and unclear addresses for consumers to submit disputes.
- Examiners discovered several instances where furnishers failed to send prompt notifications to CRCs after determining that information previously furnished was inaccurate, including situations where furnishers failed to promptly update or correct information after consumers paid charged-off balances in full or discharged them in bankruptcy.
- Examiners found that some furnishers reported the incorrect date of the first delinquency in connection with their responsibility to provide notice of delinquent accounts to CRCs.
- Examiners found several instances where furnishers failed to investigate disputes, complete investigations in a timely manner, or notify consumers of certain determinations related to “frivolous or irrelevant” disputes.
The Bureau also discussed supervisory observations concerning CRC compliance with FCRA provisions, and commented that CRCs continue to (i) improve procedures concerning the accuracy of information contained in consumer reports; (ii) implement improvements to prevent consumer reports from being furnished to users who lack a permissible purpose; (iii) strengthen procedures to “block information that a consumer has identified as resulting from an alleged identity theft”; and (iv) investigate and respond to consumer disputes.
9th Circuit allows FCRA action to move forward against national bank
On October 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a split panel decision, reversed the district court’s dismissal of a consumer’s FCRA action against a national bank alleging the bank obtained her credit report for an impermissible purpose. According to the opinion, the consumer filed the complaint against the bank after reviewing her credit report and noticing the bank had submitted “numerous credit report inquiries” in violation of the FCRA because she “did not have a credit relationship with [the bank]” as specified in the FCRA and, therefore, the inquiries were not for a permissible purpose. The bank moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the consumer did not suffer any injury from the credit inquiries. The district court agreed, and dismissed her claim with prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the majority disagreed with the district court, concluding that (i) a consumer suffers a concrete injury in fact when a credit report is obtained for an impermissible purpose; and (ii) a consumer only needs to allege that her credit report was obtained for an impermissible purpose to survive a motion to dismiss. The appellate majority emphasized that the consumer does not have the burden of pleading the actual purpose behind the bank’s use of her credit report; the burden is on the defendant to prove the credit report was obtained for an authorized purpose. Moreover, the majority noted that the consumer alleges she only learned about the bank’s inquiry after reviewing her credit report and, therefore, it is implied “that she never received a firm offer of credit from [the bank],” and taken together with the fact that the bank actually obtained her credit report, she stated a plausible claim for relief.
One panel judge concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the consumer had standing but failed to state a plausible claim. Specifically, the judge argued that “the majority characterize[d] [the] plaintiff’s claim in terms of ‘possibility,’” but “mere possibility of liability does not plead a plausible claim.” Moreover, the judge disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant bears the burden of proof in these instances, stating “the Supreme Court has expressly placed the burden of pleading a plausible claim squarely on the plaintiff rather than on the defendant.”
CFPB files claims against Maryland debt collectors
On September 25, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the FCRA, FDCPA, and the CFPA. In the complaint, the Bureau alleges that the defendants violated the FCRA and its implementing Regulation V by, among other things, failing to (i) establish or implement reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies; (ii) incorporate appropriate guidelines for the handling of indirect disputes in its policies and procedures; (iii) conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes; and (iv) furnishing information about accounts after receiving identity theft reports about such accounts without conducting an investigation into the accuracy of the information. The Bureau separately alleges that the violations of the FCRA and Regulation V constitute violations of the CFPA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts. The Bureau is seeking an injunction, damages, redress to consumers, disgorgement, the imposition of a civil money penalty, and costs.
6th Circuit: FCRA claims require consumer to notify consumer reporting agency of dispute
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a bank was not obligated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to investigate a credit reporting error because the consumers failed to ever notify a consumer reporting agency. According to the opinion, after plaintiffs paid off their line of credit, the bank (defendant) continued reporting the plaintiff as delinquent on the account. After plaintiffs contacted the bank regarding the reporting error, the bank employee ensured plaintiffs that the defendant submitted amendments to the credit reporting bureaus to correct the situation. However, the plaintiffs claimed the error was not corrected until almost a year later. Plaintiffs also alleged that they did not contact the credit reporting bureau in reliance on the bank employee’s statements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, concluding that the FCRA requires that notification of a credit dispute be provided to a consumer reporting agency as a prerequisite for a claim that a furnisher failed to investigate the dispute. Since the plaintiffs failed to trigger the defendant’s FCRA obligations because they never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, the defendant’s responsibility to investigate was never activated.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court that direct notification to the furnisher of the inaccurate credit report does not meet the FCRA’s prerequisite. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ state common law claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual relationships were preempted by the FCRA, and their fraudulent misrepresentation claim was forfeited on appeal.
Accurate adverse reporting not a violation of FCRA, says 3rd Circuit
On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a credit reporting agency (CRA), concluding that the CRA did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting past negative incidents. According to the opinion, after struggling financially, a married couple missed payments on at least five credit accounts. The consumers allegedly resolved the late payments and filed complaints with the CRA arguing the continued presence of the late payments misrepresented the “real status of their credit.” Additionally, the consumers argued some of the “key factors” the CRA discloses to credit providers, “such as ‘[s]erious delinquency’ or ‘[a]mount owed on revolving [a]ccounts is too high,’ are misleading.” The consumers filed suit against the CRA, alleging a variety of federal and state law claims, including violations of the FCRA for failing to maintain reasonable procedures and failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the CRA and the consumers appealed their FCRA claims.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding the consumers must show their credit report contains inaccurate information to prevail on their claims, which the consumers failed to do. The panel noted the consumers admitted they made the late payments and did not allege the adverse information is more than seven years old. The panel concluded the consumers’ claim “is not that the information in their credit reports and disclosures is inaccurate, but rather that it is irrelevant,” which does not support their claims for a violation under the FCRA.