InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Indiana appellate court finds debt company violated FDCPA and Indiana’s deceptive consumer sales act
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a state trial court’s decision concluding that the defendant was a debt collector under both the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the FDCPA when it purchased and collected defaulted debt. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument in its motion for partial summary judgment arguing it was not a debt collector under both statutes because the plaintiff’s debt was owned by it and due to it, and it did not collect debts owed by another. The court reviewed the evidence that the defendant purchased defaulted debt and utilized agencies to contact consumers as its primary business pursuit. The court found the defendant was a “person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts” or a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). It likewise concluded that the defendant was a “debt collector under” the state statute because Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-2(a)(13) incorporated the FDCPA’s definition of debt collector and “[t]he term includes a debt buyer (as defined in IC 24-5-15.5).”
District Court grants full remedies to CFPB, State AGs
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order granting the plaintiff state attorneys general and CFPB’s requested remedies in full against a defendant accused of violating consumer protection laws in administering “immigration bonds” for indigent consumers facing deportation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2021 the CFPB, and the Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia State Attorneys General filed a 17-count complaint against the defendant, a subsidiary of a bond service for non-English speaking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. The complaint accused the defendant of misrepresenting the cost of immigration bond services and deceiving migrants into continuing to pay monthly fees by making false threats of deportation for failure to pay. Last May, the court entered default judgment against defendants (covered by InfoBytes here). In the court’s most recent order, it granted the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, stating that the CFPB met the standard for injunctive relief under the CFPA, and it would “undoubtedly serve the public interest.” The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ claims supported injunctive relief under state laws as well. The order also included (i) $230.9 million in restitution to the CFPB; (ii) a $111 million civil money penalty to the CFPB; (iii) a $7.1 million civil money penalty to Virginia; (iv) a $3.4 million civil money penalty to Massachusetts; and (v) a $13.89 million civil money penalty to New York.
CFPB sends letters of support for New York’s pending unfair and abusive conduct prohibition
On March 19, the CFPB published a blog post providing input on New York State’s proposed prohibition on unfair and abusive acts, urging passage of A 7138 and S 795, companion bills that are titled the “Consumer and Small business Protection Act” (the “Acts”). The blog post followed the CFPB’s delivery of letters in support of the Act to Governor Hochul, state senators, and state assembly members.
The Acts would expand Section 349 of New York’s general business law to prohibit unfair or abusive acts or practices, in addition to the existing prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Acts would also give the New York attorney general authority to bring an action for unfair, unlawful, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, “regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is directed at individuals or businesses, is consumer-oriented, or involves the offering of goods, services, or property for personal, family or household purposes,” and would give “any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” authority to bring “an action to recover one thousand dollars and his or her actual damages, if any, or both such actions, … regardless of whether or not the underlying violation is consumer-oriented, has a public impact or involves the offering of goods, services or property for personal, family or household purposes.”
The Acts defined an act or practice as unfair “when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury, the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits.” They provided that an “act or practice is deceptive when the act or practice misleads or is likely to mislead a person and the person’s interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances,” and that an act or practice is abusive when “it materially interferes with the ability of a person to understand a term or condition of a product or service,” or “takes unreasonable advantage of: (A) a person’s lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service; (B) a person’s inability to protect his or her interests in selecting or using a product or service; or (C) a person’s reasonable reliance on a person covered by this section to act in his or her interests.” The Bureau’s letters to the state governor and legislature noted that the “reasonable reliance” component of the Acts is “critical,” and like the federal prohibition that “recognizes that people often reasonably expect that certain businesses will help them make difficult financial decisions, and there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of that trust.” The CFPB also mentioned that it has brought numerous actions based on that particular component.
The Acts provided that “standing to bring an action under this section, including but not limited to organizational standing and third-party standing, shall be liberally construed and shall be available to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law.” Further, “[a]ny individual or non-profit organization entitled to bring an action” under the Acts “may, if the prohibited act or practice has caused damage to others similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of himself or herself and such others to recover actual, statutory and/or punitive damages or obtain other relief as provided for in” the Acts. A nonprofit also may bring an action on behalf of itself, its members, or members of the public that have been injured by a violation of the Acts. Nonprofits may seek the same remedies and damages as individuals.
CFPB warns lead generators, digital comparison-shopping tool operators of potential CFPA violations
On February 29, the CFPB issued a circular to law enforcement agencies and regulators explaining how operators of digital comparison-shopping tools or lead generators can potentially violate the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices by steering consumers towards options that best serve the operator or the lead generator. The circular further discussed “how law enforcement agencies and regulators can evaluate operators of comparison-shopping tools… to manipulate results” to appease consumer preferences.
The Bureau explained that while consumers often use these tools to research, compare, and select financial products, some intermediaries also functioned as lead generators that sold consumer information to lenders. These intermediaries may have received compensation, the CFPB said, often termed as “bounties,” from financial providers for preferential treatment or lead generation. The circular recognized that operators of these tools may have engaged in commercial arrangements with financial providers and may have received compensation based on user actions or bids.
The CFPB stated that both digital comparison-shopping tool operators and lead generators can qualify as “covered persons” under CFPA section 1031(d)(2)(C) which prohibits them from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, particularly those that “take unreasonable advantage” of consumers so they may act in the “covered person’s” best interests. The circular outlined elements of CFPA Section 1031(d)(2)(C) and applied the elements including reasonable reliance by consumers on covered entities to act in their interests, to an evaluation of the operator or lead generator activities. Notably, the circular warned that reasonable consumer reliance could be created based on the representations of the tool operator or lead generator, as well as implicit or explicit communications. Further, the Bureau added that steering consumers towards certain products or providers for the financial benefit of the operator or lead generator, rather than consumer interest, constituted unreasonable advantage-taking.
Finally, the circular included a non-exhaustive list of examples of preferencing or steering arrangements and advised law enforcement agencies and regulators to scrutinize bounty or bidding schemes and decision-making processes to identify abusive conduct.
FTC takes action against tax prep company for alleged unfair and deceptive practices
On February 23, the FTC announced an action against a tax preparation company for alleged unfair and deceptive acts and practices related to the sale of tax preparation products and services. The FTC alleged in its redacted administrative complaint that the defendant unfairly pushed consumers into paying for more expensive tax preparation products. The FTC further alleged the company made it unnecessarily difficult to downgrade the consumer’s tax preparation plan, both by requiring the consumer to first speak with a representative and by requiring the consumer to re-input the data if the consumer chooses to downgrade to the lower-priced product. The FTC also stated that the company’s upgrade policy, in contrast, is notably simple compared to its downgrade policy, and consumers’ “data seamlessly moves to the more expensive product instantly.” The FTC also claimed that the company’s “file for free” advertisements are deceptive because not all consumers’ tax situations are eligible for the free service.
This action follows the FTC’s action against another tax preparation software provider last month (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC, Connecticut file complaint against auto dealer for deceptive and unfair practices
On January 4, the FTC and the State of Connecticut issued a joint complaint against an auto dealer and its owner for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the dealership allegedly imposed additional fees, including certification fees, add-on charges, and government charges, without consumers’ explicit consent. The FTC alleged that the dealership made misrepresentations regarding advertised prices, charging consumers additional fees when they would attempt to purchase vehicle, and charged customers for certification fees for vehicles that had been advertised as “certified.” The complaint also alleged that the dealership would charge consumers for add-ons, such as GAP insurance, service contracts, maintenance contracts, and total loss protection with or without express consent, and at times after the consumer specifically declined the add-on. The complaint further alleged that the dealership often stated in advertisements that a vehicle was certified but did not report the sale of that vehicle or pay the certification fee to the manufacturer, so consumers did not receive the actual benefits. The complaint seeks consumer redress, disgorgement of ill-gotten money, civil penalties, and a permanent injunction.
FTC temporarily halts business opportunity scheme
On December 19, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a temporary restraining order against a business opportunity scheme for allegedly engaging in deceptive acts. The court’s order barred the defendants from making misrepresentations about any business or money-making opportunity and froze the defendant’s assets. According to the FTC’s complaint, the business opportunity scheme violated the FTC Act’s prohibition of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, (i) making misrepresentations regarding earnings from their products and services; (ii) furnishing “success coaches” with marketing materials to be used for new member recruitment, thus providing the means for the commission of deceptive acts or practices; (iii) making misrepresentations regarding profitability to persuade consumers to pay for membership, digital products, and marketing packages; (iv) making misrepresentations regarding material aspects of an investment opportunity; and (v) facilitating outbound calls that deliver prerecorded messages to encourage consumers to purchase its products, also known as robocalls. Beyond the temporary restraining order and asset freeze, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction and other equitable relief.
Mass AG proposes legislation to combat “junk fees”
On November 30, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office proposed regulations to combat so-called “junk fee” practices and make business payment methods more transparent, according to this press release
The purpose of the new rules is to help define unfair and deceptive practices for imposing fees as well as establishing standards for automatic renewal or continuous service contracts. Under the proposed regulations, the following acts performed by a business would be considered an “unfair and deceptive practice”: failing to disclose the total price of a product; failing to disclose any fees, interest, charges, or other expenses related to a product; and failing to disclose the total price before requiring a consumer to provide any personal information. The proposed regulations also state that, for recurring fees and trial offers, companies must provide a means of contact so that a consumer may cancel and must offer a way for a consumer to terminate a trial period in the same way it was entered.
The AG’s office will be holding a public hearing on the proposal on December 20 and is accepting public comments until then. If enacted, Massachusetts would be only the second state (following California) to issue a rule specifically targeting “junk fees.”
FTC, Florida AG settle with “chargeback mitigation” company
On November 7, the FTC and the State of Florida settled with a chargeback company to prevent it from deceiving any consumers who seek to dispute credit card charges. Back in April 2023, the FTC and the State of Florida sued the chargeback company under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Chapter 501, Part II, as previously covered by InfoBytes here. A chargeback is a system for consumers to get their money returned when they have a problem with a purchase. The proposed court order was agreed to by the defendants but, before it can go into effect, the order first must be approved by a federal judge. The final judgment totals $150,000 and prevents the defendants from working with several high-risk clients.
DFPI orders deceptive debt collectors to desist and refrain, pay penalties
On October 23, DFPI announced enforcement actions against four debt collectors for engaging in unlicensed debt collection activity, in violation of Debt Collection Licensing Act and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, in violation of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. In its order against two entities, the department alleged that the entities contacted at least one California consumer and made deceptive statements in an attempt to collect a payday loan-related debt, among other things. In its third order against another two entities, DFPI alleged that a consumer was not provided the proper disclosures in a proposed settlement agreement to pay off their debts in a one-time payments. Additionally, DFPI alleged that the entity representatives made a false representation by communicating empty threats of an impending lawsuit.
Under their orders (see here, here, and here), the entities must desist and refrain from engaging in illegal and deceptive practices, including (i) failing to identify as debt collectors; (ii) making false and misleading statements about payment requirements; (iii) threatening unlawful action, such as a lawsuit, because of nonpayment of a debt; (iv) contacting the consumer at a forbidden time of day; (iv) making false claims of pending lawsuits or legal process and the character, amount, or legal status of the debt; (v) failing to provide a “validation notice” ; and (vi) threatening to sue on time-barred debt.
The entities are ordered to pay a combined $87,500 in penalties for each of the illegal and deceptive practices.