InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC brings first action under Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act
On April 15, the FTC announced a civil complaint filed by the DOJ on its behalf, against a St. Louis-based company and its owner for violating the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act and the FTC Act by making deceptive marketing health claims about their products. (See also DOJ press release here.) This is the first action the FTC has brought under the new law, which makes it unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act “for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce . . . that is associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19” or “a government benefit related to COVID–19.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants deceptively marketed their products as being an effective treatment for Covid-19 based on the results of certain scientific studies, even though they “lacked any reasonable bases” for their claims. According to the FTC’s announcement, the defendants also allegedly advertised—without scientific support—that their products were equally, or more, effective than the currently available vaccines. The FTC seeks an injunction against the defendants, along with monetary penalties and other civil remedies to prevent harm caused by the defendants’ misrepresentations.
FTC settles with sellers of antennas, signal amplifiers
On April 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a nearly $32 million judgment against the owners and operators of a New York-based enterprise that sells antennas and amplifiers (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly misleading customers about the quality of their products. The agency alleges in its complaint that the defendants violated the FTC Act by “making deceptive performance claims for their over-the-air television antennas and related signal amplifiers, using deceptive consumer endorsements, and misrepresenting that some of their web pages were objective news reports about the antennas.” Under the terms of the order, the company is barred from making misleading claims about the products’ quality, the number of channels users can acquire, or any other claims about its ranking compared to other products. While the order imposes a $32 million judgment against the defendants, the full judgment will be suspended upon payment of $650,000, subject to certain conditions.
CFPB settles with California-based company for debt collection violations
On April 6, the CFPB announced a consent order against a California-based debt collector and its former owner for allegedly harassing consumers and threatening to take legal action if they did not pay their debts. According to the CFPB, the respondents violated the FDCPA and the CFPA’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices by mailing letters to consumers printed with “Litigation Notice” that threatened recipients with legal action if they did not repay their debts. However, the Bureau stated that the respondents did not file lawsuits against the consumers, nor did they hire law firms or lawyers to obtain any judgments or collect on any such judgments. Under the terms of the consent order, the respondents are permanently banned from the debt collection industry and are ordered to pay $860,000 in redress to its victims, which has been suspended due to an inability to pay, as well as a $2,200 civil money penalty. This is the CFPB’s latest action taken against debt collectors that have used false threats to collect debts. As previously covered in InfoBytes, in 2019 the CFPB and New York attorney general announced proposed settlements with a network of New York-based debt collectors to resolve allegations that the defendants engaged in improper debt collection tactics in violation of the CFPA, the FDCPA, and various New York laws. Also, in 2018, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Kansas-based company and its former CEO and part-owner that allegedly engaged in improper debt collection tactics in violation of the CFPB’s prohibitions on engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC to ban “deceptive” mobile-banking app
On March 29, the FTC announced a proposed stipulated final order against the operators of a mobile banking app to settle allegations that the defendants deceived users about their supposedly high-interest bank accounts and falsely promised users “24/7” access to their funds. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC alleged, among other things, that the defendants represented that users would receive “‘minimum base’ interest rates” of at least 0.2 percent or 1.0 percent, but that users actually received a starting interest rate of 0.04 percent and stopped earning any interest if they requested that their funds be returned. The FTC also claimed that while the defendants promised users 24/7 access to their funds and represented they could make transfers out of their accounts and receive requested funds within three to five business days, some users waited weeks or months to receive funds despite repeated complaints to the defendants, while other users stated they never received their money.
The proposed stipulated final order bans the defendants from operating or advertising a mobile banking app or any other product or service that can be used to deposit, store, or withdraw funds, and prohibits them from misrepresenting the interest rates, restrictions, and other aspects of any financial product or service. Additionally, the defendants must issue full refunds, including interest, to all customers. The FTC vote approving the stipulated final order was 3-1, with Rohit Chopra, President Biden’s nominee to head the CFPB, voting no. Commissioner Chopra has not published a statement explaining his vote.
CFPB declines to stay $51 million order for online payday lender
On March 9, the CFPB denied a request made by a Delaware online payday lender and its CEO (collectively, “respondents”) to stay a January 2021 final decision and order requiring the payment of approximately $51 million in restitution and civil money penalties, pending appellate review. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the Bureau filed a notice of charges alleging the respondents (i) continued to debit borrowers’ accounts using remotely created checks after consumers revoked the lender’s authorization to do so; (ii) required consumers to repay loans via pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; and (iii) deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans by providing them with contracts that contained disclosures based on repaying the loan in one payment, while the default terms called for multiple rollovers and additional finance charges. Former Director Kathy Kraninger issued the final decision and order in January, affirming an administrative law judge’s recommendation that the respondents’ actions violated TILA, EFTA, and the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices by, among other things, deceiving consumers about the costs of their online short-term loans.
The Bureau’s March 9 administrative order determined that respondents (i) failed to show they have a substantial case on the merits with respect to their argument regarding ratification as an appropriate remedy for the respondents’ alleged constitutional violation; (ii) failed to show they “suffered irreparable harm” because the Bureau’s final decision does not infringe on the respondents’ constitutional rights and merely requires them to pay money into an escrow account; and (iii) failed to demonstrate that staying the final decision would not harm other parties and the public interest because the respondents might “dissipate assets during the pendency of further proceedings,” potentially impacting future consumer redress. The administrative order, however, granted a 30-day stay to allow respondents to seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
FTC settles with income scam operation targeting Latina consumers
On March 2, the FTC announced a settlement with a company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) that used Spanish-language ads targeting Latina consumers with false promises of large profits reselling luxury products. The action—a part of the FTC’s “Operation Income Illusion” sweep (covered by InfoBytes here)—alleged the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims when marketing work-at-home opportunities. The FTC also claimed the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, misrepresenting material aspects of the investment opportunities and routinely using threats or intimidation “to coerce consumers to pay Defendants, including but not limited to threatening consumers with damage to consumers’ credit history, false legal actions, and reports to federal government authorities.” The proposed settlement imposes a $7 million judgment, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The defendants are also permanently banned from (i) selling any goods or service that is represented as a means for consumers to make money working from home or elsewhere; (ii) making any deceptive claims about the risk, liquidity, earnings potential, or profitability of any goods or services, and making such claims through telemarketing; and (iii) using threats or intimidation to coerce consumers to pay for goods or services.
CFPB sues payment processor for fraudulent practices
On March 3, the CFPB filed a complaint against an Illinois-based third-party payment processor and its founder and former CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in unfair practices in violation of the CFPA and deceptive telemarketing practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. According to the complaint, the defendants knowingly processed remotely created check (RCC) payments totaling millions of dollars for over 100 merchant-clients claiming to offer technical-support services and products, but that actually deceived consumers—mostly older Americans—into purchasing expensive and unnecessary antivirus software or services. The tech-support clients allegedly used telemarketing to sell their products and services and received payment through RCCs, the Bureau stated, noting that the defendants continued to process the clients’ RCC payments despite being “aware of nearly a thousand consumer complaints” about the tech-support clients. According to the Bureau, roughly 25 percent of the complaints specifically alleged that the transactions were fraudulent or unauthorized. The Bureau noted that the defendants also responded to inquiries from police departments across the country concerning consumer complaints about being defrauded by the defendants. Further, the Bureau cited high return rates experienced by the tech-support clients, including an average unauthorized return rate of 14 percent—a “subset of the overall return rate where the reason for the return provided by the consumer is that the transaction was unauthorized.” The Bureau is seeking an injunction, as well as damages, redress, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.
FTC adds two defendants to real estate investment scheme suit
On February 25, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection announced the addition of two additional defendants in an action taken against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection claimed that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law by marketing real estate events with false claims and using celebrity endorsements. The defendants allegedly promised consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “a minimum of three times” the price of the workshop within six months. In October 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants, prohibiting the defendants from continuing to make unsupported marketing claims and from interfering with consumers’ ability to review their products.
CFPB, states sue defendants for predatory immigrant-services scam
On February 22, the CFPB and state attorneys general from Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia filed a complaint against a group of defendants that provide immigration bond products or services for non-English speaking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. The Bureau alleges that the defendants engaged in deceptive and abusive acts and practices in violation of the CFPA, while the states bring related claims that the defendants violated their respective consumer-protection laws, by, among other things, (i) representing that they paid the detainees’ bonds and that monthly payments go towards repaying the defendants for doing so (the Bureau and states allege that the monthly payments are actually “rental fees for a GPS device that do not go to repaying consumers’ bonds”); (ii) making false threats that detainees will be re-arrested, detained, or deported if they do not make the monthly payments or remove the defendants’ GPS devices, many of which, the complaint claims, do not actually work; (iii) threatening to send detainees’ accounts to collection, representing that failing to make payments could harm their credit, or threatening to sue detainees or their families for non-payment; (iv) representing that collateral payments would be refunded once the detainees’ proceedings were resolved but in many cases failing to do so; (v) presenting detainees, most of whom cannot read or understand English, with a series of English-only contracts requiring the payment of large upfront fees plus $420 per month to “lease” GPS-tracking ankle monitors until their cases are resolved; (vi) creating the illusion that defendants are affiliated with ICE, even though they have no affiliation with authorities; and (vii) offering financial rewards to employees who sign up new customers and collect payments. The Bureau is seeking an injunction, as well as damages, redress, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.
FTC settles with payday lender
On February 11, the FTC announced a settlement with the owners and operators of a payday lending enterprise (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly deceptively overcharging consumers and withdrawing money from consumers’ accounts without permission. The FTC filed a complaint against the defendants last year claiming, among other things, that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TILA/Regulation Z, and EFTA/Regulation E, by advertising loans with fixed payback terms and promising consumers that their loans would be repaid after a pre-determined number of payments. However, the FTC claimed that in many cases the payback terms defaulted to debiting the financial fee only, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants (covered by InfoBytes here). Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the FTC ordered that any consumer debt for loans issued and assigned to the defendants are “deemed paid in full to the extent that such [e]xisting [d]ebt exceeds the amount financed plus one finance charge. . . .” The defendants are also (i) permanently banned from the payday lending industry, including making loans or extending credit of any kind; (ii) prohibited from making any misrepresentations related to the collection of any debt; (iii) prohibited from making unauthorized electronic fund transfers from consumers’ bank accounts; and (iv) permanently banned from creating, or causing to be created, any remotely created payment orders. A $114 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.