InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants final approval in usury class action settlement
On August 16, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving a purported scheme to unlawfully use tribe-owned firms to make online short-term loans and charge triple-digit interest rates. According to the memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and the stipulation and agreement of settlement, the district court previously approved two class settlements related to the lending enterprise. The first resulted in the purported lender and others: (i) repaying over $53 million dollars in cash; and (ii) forgiving over $380 million dollars of debt owed by consumers who took out loans with three lending companies. However, these settlements did not resolve every claim surrounding the purported scheme, and did not resolve claims with the settling defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that the settling defendant assisted the purported lender’s operations despite a corporate spinoff in May 2014, alleging that “[b]ecause many [of the purported lender’s] employees with institutional knowledge of and involvement in the company’s rent-a-tribe lending business were quickly transferred to [the settling defendant], [the purported lender] required and depended on continued involvement by [the settling defendant] and its employees in operating its rent-a-tribe lending business, which involvement was freely and often provided.” Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the settling defendant must provide monetary relief to class members totaling approximately $45 million.
District Court grants final approval of $10 million class action settlement
On April 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval to a $10 million class action settlement resolving allegations that a defendant bank breached its payment card processing servicing contracts with merchants by imposing excessive fees without contractually required notice. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was “unjustly enriched by imposing early termination fees that constituted unlawful penalties.” The settlement class includes over 200,000 merchants that entered into a payment card processing servicing contract with the defendant and who paid at least one of the fees underlying the litigation from October 2011 to the settlement date. Those fees include annual fees, early termination fees, and paper statement fees. According to the memorandum in support of the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, the deal would provide $10 million in cash to the settlement class, and attorneys representing the class can seek up to one-third of that fund in attorneys’ fees. In addition, each of the three class representatives will be granted $10,000 service awards, per the motion.
Massachusetts settles with financial company
On April 13, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a settlement with a California-based finance company (defendant) resolving allegations that it violated Massachusetts law by purchasing and collecting on dog leases – which are illegal in Massachusetts. The settlement also alleges that the company engaged in illegal debt collection practices such as calling debtors too frequently while attempting to collect on the leases. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant must pay over $930,000, which includes $175,000 in restitution to approximately 200 consumers, and a $50,000 fine. The defendant is prohibited from collecting on any active leases involving dogs in Massachusetts and must transfer full ownerships of the dogs to the consumers. The defendant must also cancel any outstanding amount owed on the leases, totaling approximately $700,000.
The Massachusetts AG has been investigating financial companies who originate or purchase dog leases – calling the practice “exploitive” because it uses “dogs as emotional leverage” over debtors – and encouraged consumers who are victims of dog leases to call the AG’s office or to file a complaint online.
District Court preliminarily approves TCPA class action settlement
On October 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a $14.1 million settlement in a class action against an affiliate of a real estate services company for allegedly violating the TCPA by soliciting calls to consumers. According to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, the plaintiff alleged that he received unwanted telephone solicitations on behalf of the defendant to his residential telephone lines that he had previously registered on the “Do Not Call” registry, in addition to alleging that he received repeated unwanted telemarketing calls even after he had requested that the defendant and/or its agents not call him back. Each member of the settlement class, which consists of individuals in the U.S. who received two or more calls since September 13, 2014 on their residential telephone number from the defendant’s affiliate that promoted the purchase of the defendant’s goods and services, will receive $350.00. The final settlement also includes $2.77 million in attorney fees and costs.
District Court approves $90 million settlement in data tracking suit
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a $90 million class action settlement resolving claims that a social media platform unlawfully tracked consumers’ browsing data. According to the settlement agreement, the defendant obtained and collected data from approximately 124 million platform users in the U.S. who visited websites that displayed the defendant’s “Like” button between April 22, 2010 and September 26, 2011. According to the settlement, in addition to paying a $90 million settlement, the company must delete the data it had collected from users during the class period.
OFAC reaches $78,750 settlement with financial analytics company
On April 1, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a roughly $78,750 settlement with a financial analytics company for allegedly processing transactions in violation of Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, in August 2016, the company (which had been recently acquired) reissued and re-dated an August 2015 invoice with a new date that was 374 days after the invoice for the debt was originally issued. After a partial payment, the company reissued the original August 2015 invoice creating two “new” invoices each reflecting half of the remaining balance and dated November 2016, both with payment due upon receipt. After another partial payment, the company reissued a fourth invoice with the remaining debt in September 2017, again altering the date. OFAC concluded that the company violated the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations “by dealing in new debt of longer than 90 days maturity when [it] extended the payment date of its invoices.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that (i) the company “failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care when it reissued and re-dated four invoices to extend the payment date of invoices far beyond the authorized debt tenor, knowing or having reason to know such conduct would violate U.S. sanctions regulations”; (ii) the company’s staff “were aware of and involved in the conduct giving rise to the Apparent Violations”; and (iii) the company “was a commercially sophisticated entity and considered a leader in global energy market analysis, with over 500 customers in 60 countries.” OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including, among other things, that the company (i) has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years; (ii) “took remedial measures by enhancing their compliance program to better ensure compliance with OFAC sanctions, creating more robust training, adding periodic testing to invoices involving SSI List entities, and adding additional staff to manage sanctions issues”; and (iii) cooperated during the investigation.
Providing context for the settlement, OFAC stated that this “case underscores the importance of careful adherence to OFAC regulations, including in cases where counterparties may make compliance challenging.”
Social networking apps settle minors' data claims for $1.1 million
On March 25, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a $1.1 million class action settlement resolving claims that the operators of two video social networking apps (defendants) “‘surreptitiously tracked, collected, and disclosed the personally identifiable information and/or viewing data of children under the age of 13,’ ‘without parental consent’” in violation of federal and California privacy law. Specifically, plaintiffs asserted violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the California constitutional right to privacy, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act. Defendants countered that plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and that, furthermore, the “alleged conduct is not within the scope of VPPA or the cited state consumer protection laws” and “does not amount to a common law invasion of privacy or a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the California Constitution.” Moreover, defendants argued that plaintiffs could not recover actual damages. According to plaintiffs’ supplemental motion for final approval, following months-long negotiations, the parties agreed to settle the action on a class-wide basis.
The settlement requires defendants to pay $1.1 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund, to be dispersed pro rata to class members (anyone in the U.S. who, prior to the settlement’s effective date and while under the age of 13, registered for or used the apps) who submit a valid claim after the payment of settlement administration expenses, taxes, fees, and service awards. The court’s order, however, declined to award an objector’s counsel any attorneys’ fees for his efforts to negotiate modified relief because the agreement was negotiated in a separate proceeding in related multidistrict litigation. The court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against the objector’s law firm.
District Court approves $50 million class action settlement over recorded calls
On Auguts 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved a class action settlement, resolving allegations that a call center hired by a national bank and its merchant processing servicer (collectively, “defendants”) violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by recording calls without receiving customers’ permission. According to the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, a lawsuit was filed in 2016 on behalf of a proposed class of small businesses in California who received calls from call center companies attempting to sell credit and debit card payment processing services, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were in a principal-agent relationship with the companies that violated the CIPA by recording telemarketing calls without any warning that the recording was occurring. As previously covered by InfoBytes, class members, comprising California businesses who did not sign a contract for merchant processing services with the servicer, filed suit against another national bank in 2016 claiming the call center placed sales appointment calls to the businesses without disclosing that the calls were being recorded. The preliminarily approved settlement in that case required the defendants to pay $28 million, of which up to $5,000 was paid for each eligible call that a class member received during the class period, which was estimated to be 192,836 individuals. The recent preliminarily approved settlement will require the defendants to pay $50 million, of which up to $5,000 will be paid for each eligible call that a class member received during the class period.
District Court enters $2.8 million judgment in CFPB student debt relief action
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. Amended complaints (see here and here) also added new defendants and included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, among other things. A stipulated final judgment and order was entered against the named defendant in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states. The court also previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants and a settlement with two non-parties (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, here, and here).
The final judgment issued against the settling defendant, who neither admitted nor denied the allegations except as specifically stated, permanently bans the defendant from participating in telemarking services or offering or selling debt-relief services, and prohibits it from misrepresenting benefits consumers may receive from a product or service. The defendant is also permanently restrained from violating applicable state laws, and may not disclose, use, or benefit from customer information obtained in connection with the offering or providing of the debt relief services. The settlement orders the defendant to pay more than $2.8 million in consumer redress, as well as a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau and $5,000 to each of the three states.
District Court grants final approval in data breach case
On January 4, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted final approval of a settlement in a class action resolving claims that a software company and its subsidiary (collectively, “defendants”) failed to properly safeguard customers' personally identifiable information (PII). According to the memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, the plaintiffs filed suit after a data breach of the defendant’s systems, alleging that defendant violated numerous states’ privacy and other laws by failing to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained. According to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, the settlement establishes a settlement class of approximately 4,341,523 members whose PII was potentially compromised by the breach. The settlement would provide $2,000 for each named plaintiff and reimbursement of up to $5,000 of out-of-pocket expenses per class member, including up to eight hours of lost time at $25 per hour and 12 months of financial fraud protection. Additionally, more funds will be given to the California subclass, comprised of 318,091 individuals, who will receive between $100 and $300 in relief each. The defendants are also be required to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and expenses.