InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Satellite company to pay over $200 million for telemarketing violations
On December 7, the DOJ announced a settlement with a satellite service provider totaling over $210 million in penalties to be paid to the United States and four states for alleged violations of the TCPA, the FTC Act, and similar state laws. The settlement stems from an action brought by the United States against the satellite company in 2009 asserting that the company initiated millions of unlawful telemarketing calls to consumers and was responsible for millions of calls made by marketers of the company’s products and services. In 2017, a district court awarded the U.S. and the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio $280 million in civil penalties, with a record $168 million going to the federal government (covered by InfoBytes here). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed liability but vacated and remanded the monetary award for recalculation.
The stipulated judgment requires the satellite company to pay over $200 million in civil penalties, with $126 million going to the U.S. government, nearly $40 million to California, over $6.5 million to Illinois, nearly $14 million to North Carolina, and $17 million to Ohio.
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.”
FTC reaches $62 million settlement with student loan debt relief operation
On November 19, the FTC entered into a settlement with defendants accused of engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling student loan debt relief services. As part of its enforcement initiative, Operation Game of Loans (covered by InfoBytes here), the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, charging illegal up-front fees to enroll consumers in debt relief programs, accepting monthly payments that were not applied towards student loans, and collecting monthly fees that consumers believed were being applied to their loans but instead were going towards unrelated “financial education” programs (see previous InfoBytes coverage here). Under the terms of the order, the defendants are permanently banned from providing secured and unsecured debt relief products and services, and are prohibited from (i) engaging in unlawful telemarketing practices and violating the TSR; (ii) misrepresenting financial products and services; (iii) making unsubstantiated claims; and (iii) collecting, or assigning any right to collect, payments from consumers for products sold by the defendants. The defendants are also ordered to pay $62 million in monetary relief.
FTC says mobile banking app is deceptive
On November 18, the FTC filed a complaint against a mobile banking app operator alleging the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceiving users about their high-interest bank accounts and falsely promising users “24/7” access to their funds. The FTC’s complaint alleges 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. Additionally, the complaint claims that while the defendants promised users 24/7 access to their funds and represented they could make transfers out of their accounts and receive the requested funds within three to five business days, some users waited weeks or months to receive their funds despite submitting repeated complaints to the defendants. Other users claimed they never received their money. Moreover, some users claimed that the defendants blamed the failure to deliver the requested funds on “unspecified issues with unspecified ‘banking partners’ or ‘technology partners’ and promised the delays were temporary.
The FTC seeks an injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief including “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.”
FTC requires video conferencing provider to improve security safeguards
On November 9, the FTC announced a settlement with a video conferencing provider, resolving allegations that the company violated the FTC Act by misleading users about the levels of encryption and security offered for securing communications during meetings. The FTC’s complaint alleges that, since at least 2016, the company engaged in a series of deceptive and unfair practices by claiming it offered end-to-end encryption to secure users’ communications and—according to the FTC’s press release—“tout[ing] its level of encryption as a reason for customers and potential customers to use [its] videoconferencing services.” The FTC contends that the company actually maintained a lower level of security, which allowed the company access to the contents of users’ meetings, including sensitive personal information, and allegedly secured these meetings with a lower level of encryption than promised. Users who wanted to store recorded meetings using cloud storage provided by the company were told that the meetings were immediately encrypted, but in certain instances, unencrypted meeting recordings were allegedly stored on company servers for up to 60 days before being transferred to the secure cloud storage. In addition, the company allegedly compromised some users’ security by secretly installing software that would allow users to join a meeting by bypassing a browser safeguard designed to protect users from a common type of malware. According to the FTC, the company, among other things, failed to implement any measures to protect users’ security, failed to monitor service providers who had access to the network, lacked a systematic process for incident response, and allegedly increased users’ risk of remote video surveillance by strangers.
The proposed settlement order requires the company to (i) assess and document security risks; (ii) develop ways to manage and safeguard against such risks; (iii) deploy additional methods, including multi-factor authentication, to protect against unauthorized access of the network; and (iv) take other steps, such as implementing data deletion controls and preventing known compromised user credentials from being used. Company personnel must also review any software updates for security flaws to “ensure the updates will not hamper third-party security features.” Furthermore, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices, and is required to obtain biennial third-party assessments of its security practices (which the FTC has the authority to approve) and notify the FTC if it experiences a data breach.
FTC issues final order with skincare company for false reviews
On November 6, the FTC announced a final order with a skincare company, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers by posting fake reviews on a retailer’s website and failed to disclose company employees wrote the reviews. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2019, the FTC filed the complaint against the company asserting that (i) the product reviews posted on the company’s website were not “independent experiences or opinions of impartial ordinary users of the products” and therefore, were false or misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act; and (ii) the failure to disclose the reviews were written by the owner or employees constitutes a deceptive act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, because the information would “be material to consumers in evaluating the reviews of [the company] brand products in connection with a purchase or use decision.”
The Commission, in a 3-2 vote, approved the final order, which prohibits the company from misrepresenting the status of an endorser, including misrepresentations that the endorser or reviewer is an “independent or ordinary user of the product.” The order requires the company and owner to “clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to that representation, any unexpected material connection between such endorser and (1) any Respondent; or (2) any other individual or entity affiliated with the product.” The final order does not include any monetary relief for consumers.
In dissent, two Commissioners objected to the final order, stating that the agency is “doubling down on its no-money, no-fault settlement with [the company], who was charged with egregious fake review fraud.” The dissent urged the Commission to publish a statement on monetary remedies in order to restate “legal precedent into formal rules” and designate specific misconduct as penalty offenses through Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency “to seek penalties against parties who engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the Commission.”
Merchant cash advance providers move to dismiss FTC allegations of deceptive and unfair conduct
On October 23, defendants in an FTC lawsuit filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss allegations claiming they misrepresented the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCA), used unfair collection practices, made unauthorized withdrawals from consumer accounts, and misrepresented collateral and personal guarantee requirements in advertisements. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint in August against the defendants—two New York-based merchant cash advance providers and two company executives—alleging deceptive and unfair conduct in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Earlier in October, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the FTC “lack[ed] the statutory authority to bring its claims in federal court” under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act because “none of the challenged conduct, to the extent it even occurred or was actionable, is plausibly alleged to be ongoing or ‘about to’ occur.” The FTC countered that it “need only allege” that it had “reason to believe Defendants are violating or are about to violate” Section 5 in order to file suit in federal district court. The FTC further contended that it had also alleged facts sufficient for individual liability.
The defendants responded to the FTC’s opposition to dismissal, arguing, among other things, that even if the FTC invoked the statutory authority under Section 13(b) to have the court hear its claims, the claims fail for other reasons, including that the complaint fails to state a claim under Section 5 by (i) only providing “fragments of advertisements without necessary context”; (ii) ignoring “the express fee disclosures in the MCA agreement” that outline the fees to be paid by a merchant; and (iii) ignoring the fact that “so-called ‘unauthorized’ ACH withdrawals were “explicitly authorized under the MCA agreement.” The defendants further argued that the individual liability claims should also be dismissed because the FTC failed to sufficiently allege that the individual defendants directly participated in or had authority over the alleged conduct.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful debt collection operation
On October 15, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a temporary restraining order against a debt collection operation for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things, (i) posing as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys, mediators, investigators, or process servers when calling consumers to collect debts; (ii) using profane language and threatening consumers with arrest or serious legal consequences if debts were not immediately paid; (iii) threatening to garnish wages, suspend Social Security payments, revoke drivers’ licenses, or lower credit scores; (iv) attempting to collect debts that were either never owed or were no longer owed; (v) unlawfully contacting third parties, such as family members or employers; and (vi) adding unauthorized or impermissible charges or fees to consumers’ debts. The complaint asserts that the operation also refused to provide written verification about the alleged debts as required by the FDCPA. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, contract rescission or reformation, restitution, disgorgement, the appointment of a receiver, immediate access to business premises, an asset freeze, and other equitable relief.
The action is part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established last month by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to address illegal debt collection practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
3rd Circuit: Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not give the agency restitution power
On September 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a district court’s order of $448 million in disgorgement, concluding that disgorgement is not a remedy available under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. According to the opinion, the FTC brought an action against the owners of a testosterone treatment patent (defendants) for allegedly “trying to monopolize and restrain trade over [the treatment],” in violation of Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. The district court dismissed the FTC’s claims related to the reverse-payment agreement the defendants entered into with another pharmaceutical company but held the defendants liable for the FTC’s sham-litigation allegations and ordered the defendants to pay $448 in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The district court denied the FTC’s request for an injunction.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit concluded, among other holdings, that the court erred by ordering disgorgement, as it lacked the authority to do so under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. Specifically, the appellate court noted that Section 13(b) “authorizes a court to ‘enjoin’ antitrust violations,” but is silent on disgorgement. The appellate court rejected the FTC’s contention that Section 13(b) “impliedly empowers district courts” to order disgorgement as well as injunctive relief, concluding that “the context of Section 13(b) and the FTC Act’s broader statutory scheme both support ‘a necessary and inescapable inference’ that a district court’s jurisdiction in equity under Section 13(b) is limited to ordering injunctive relief.” Thus the appellate court reversed the order of $448 million in disgorgement.
In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court noted its determination was consistent with the 7th Circuit’s decision FTC v. Credit Bureau Center (covered by InfoBytes here), which also held that the FTC does not have the power to order restitution under Section 13(b). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. Supreme Court granted consolidated review in Credit Bureau Center and in the 9th Circuit’s decision in FTC v. AMG Capital Management (covered by InfoBytes here). The Court will decide whether the FTC can demand equitable monetary relief in civil enforcement actions under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
CFPB, FTC, and states announce debt collection enforcement operation
On September 29, the CFPB, FTC, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners announced a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort titled “Operation Corrupt Collector” to address illegal debt collection practices. As of the date of the announcement, according to the CFPB, the operation includes five cases by the FTC, two cases by the CFPB, and three criminal cases by the DOJ and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Moreover, 16 states have also reported actions as part of the operation. Among the five cases brought by the FTC, two were announced in conjunction with the operation. In the first, the FTC brought charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that a debt collection operation (consisting of five entities and three persons) used deceptive tactics to threaten false legal action through the use of robocalls in order to collect debts consumers did not owe or the operation did not have the legal right to collect. In the second, filed with the same district court, FTC alleges a company and its operators, with the assistance of the defendants in the first action, falsely claimed to represent a law firm and threatened consumers with arrest if the debts were not paid. According to the FTC, the district court granted temporary restraining orders against the defendants in both actions.