InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC settlement requires retailer to provide transaction records to identity theft victims
On June 10, the FTC announced a settlement to resolve Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allegations against a Wisconsin-based retailer for failing to provide the proper transaction records to identify theft victims. According to the FTC, this is the first time the Commission has used its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to provide identity theft victims with “‘application and business transaction records’ evidencing any transactions that the victim alleges to be the ‘result of identity theft’” within 30 days of being requested. The FTC’s complaint alleged that from February 2017 through March 2019, the retailer implemented several changes to its policy, which limited the information that identity theft victims could obtain. The retailer also allegedly refused to directly provide victims with detailed order information, stating it would only share information if the request came directly from law enforcement. Moreover, the FTC claimed that the retailer did not provide the information it was supplying within the 30-day window required by the FCRA, and on several occasions, failed to issue a denial of a victim’s request within 30 days. These unlawful actions, the FTC alleged, violated the FTC Act and the FCRA, and only ended six months after the retailer received a civil investigative demand from the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, the retailer has agreed to pay a $220,000 civil penalty to settle the claims and must provide identify theft victims, within 30 days, valid verification of their identity and the identity theft, including business transaction records related to the theft. The retailer must also provide a notice on its website to provide identity theft victims information on how to obtain application and business records, and certify that it has provided all such records to victims who were previously denied access.
FTC charges small-business financing operation with deceptive and unfair practices
On June 10, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCAs), using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants purported “to provide immediate funds in a specific amount in exchange for consumers’ agreement to repay a higher amount from future business revenues” to be “remitted over time through daily debits from consumers’ bank accounts.” However, the defendants allegedly, among other things, (i) made false claims on their websites that their MCAs require “no personal guaranty of collateral from business owners,” when in fact, the contracts included such provisions; (ii) withheld various upfront fees ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars prior to disbursing funds to consumers (according to the complaint, these fees were either poorly disclosed in the contracts or not disclosed at all); (iii) directed agents to charge higher fees to consumers than permitted by the contracts; (iv) required businesses and their owners to sign confessions of judgment (COJs) as part of their contracts, and unlawfully and unfairly used the COJs to seize consumers’ personal and business assets, including in circumstances where consumers could not make payments due to technical issues outside their control, or in instances not permitted by the defendants’ financing contracts; (v) made threatening calls to borrowers, including threats of physical violence or reputational harm, to compel consumers to make payments; and (vi) made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC seeks a permanent 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.”
The same day, the FTC published a blog post highlighting the Commission’s ongoing efforts to combat questionable financing practices targeting small businesses. The FTC also held a forum in 2019 on marketplace lending to small businesses, which analyzed the potential for unfair and deceptive marketing, sales, and collection practices in the industry, and released a follow-up staff perspective paper earlier this year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here). In addition, over the past few years, several states have introduced legislation and advisories on MCAs and small business financing (see prior InfoBytes coverage here).
FTC, Ohio AG reach $8.6 million settlement with payment processor
On June 9, the FTC and the Ohio attorney general announced a settlement with a payment processor and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly facilitating payments for multiple scam operations. The FTC’s 2019 complaint claimed that the defendants, among other things, generated and processed remotely created payment orders or remotely created checks (RCPOs) that allowed third-party merchants—including deceptive telemarketing schemes—the ability to withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, even though the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) prohibits sellers and telemarketers from using RCPOs in connection with telemarketing sales, the defendants allegedly marketed their RCPO payment processing services to telemarketers and other merchants considered “high risk” by financial institutions and card networks, and used RCPOs to process millions of dollars for credit card interest reduction and student loan debt relief telemarketing schemes. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are permanently banned from participating in any payment processing activities and are prohibited from violating the TSR and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. The settlement also imposes a monetary judgment of over $8.6 million, which is mostly suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
FTC releases expanded data on consumer Covid-19 complaints
On June 11, the FTC released new interactive complaint data dashboards, which provide national and state-level breakdowns on consumer complaints related to Covid-19. The expanded reporting provides data on several categories, including fraud, identity theft, and unwanted calls. According to one of the dashboards, “of the total fraud reports indicating a dollar loss, 87.8% [also referenced] a payment method,” with credit cards, bank account debits, and internet/mobile methods representing the top three categories. The FTC reports that consumers have submitted over 91,000 Covid-19-related complaints during 2020 as of June 8, and reported losing almost $60 million to Covid-19-related fraud.
FTC shares 2019 enforcement report with CFPB
On June 4, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2019 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report covers the FTC’s enforcement activities regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Highlights of the enforcement matters covered in the report include:
- TILA and CLA. FTC enforcement actions concerning TILA/Regulation Z and CLA/Regulation M include: (i) efforts to combat deceptive automobile dealer practices; (ii) a payday lending action involving undisclosed, inflated fees; (iii) credit repair and debt relief schemes, including the failure to make clear, conspicuous written disclosures for closed-end financing; and (iv) consumer electronics financing.
- EFTA. The FTC reported 12 new or ongoing cases related to EFTA/Regulation E. These include: (i) negative option plans involving, among other things, companies applying recurring charges to consumers’ debit or credit card numbers for goods or services without obtaining proper written authorization; and (ii) unfair loan servicing practices.
Additionally, the report addresses the FTC’s research and policy efforts related to truth in lending and leasing, and electronic fund transfer issues, including (i) a study of consumers’ experiences in buying and financing automobiles at dealerships; (ii) a small business financing forum to examine “trends and consumer protection issues in the small business marketplace, including. . .online loans and alternative financing products”; and (iii) the FTC’s Military Task Force’s work on military consumer protection issues. The report also outlines the FTC’s consumer and business education efforts, which include several blog posts warning of new scams and practices.
FTC settles with app developer for COPPA violations
On June 4, the FTC announced that a children’s mobile application developer agreed to pay $150,000 and to delete the personal information it allegedly unlawfully collected from children under the age of 13 to resolve allegations that the developer violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the developer, without notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent, allowed third-party advertising networks to use persistent identifiers to track users of the child-directed apps in order to send targeted advertisements to the children. The proposed settlement requires the developer to destroy any personal data collected from children under 13 and notify and obtain verifiable consent from parents for any child-directed app or website they offer that collects personal information from children under 13. A $4 million penalty is suspended upon the payment of $150,000 due to the developer’s inability to pay.
In dissent, Commissioner Phillips argued that the fine imposed against the developer was too high, noting that having children view advertisements based on the collection of persistent identifiers “is something; but it is not everything,” under COPPA. Commissioner Phillips argued that because the developer did not “share[] sensitive personal information about children, or publicize[] it” nor did the developer expose children “to unauthorized contact from strangers, or otherwise put [the children] in danger,” the assessed penalty was too large in comparison to the harm.
In response to the dissent, Chairman Simons argued that while “harm is an important factor to consider…[the FTC’s] first priority is to use [] penalties to deter [] practices. Even in the absence of demonstrable money harm, Congress has said that these law violations merit the imposition of civil penalties.”
FTC reaches settlement with payment processor
On June 1, the FTC announced a settlement with a payment processor that the FTC alleged had engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act by ignoring warnings that its client was operating a scheme through which it persuaded consumers to pay thousands of dollars each for worthless business coaching and investment mentoring services. (See InfoBytes coverage on the affiliate marketer settlements here.) The FTC’s complaint provides that the company’s processing data, which showed a large number of charges and associated refunds and chargebacks, immediately raised red flags regarding the client’s business model. According to the FTC, the company failed to adequately investigate why the client “greatly exceeded its approved processing volumes and accrued significant chargebacks,” and that while some of the client’s accounts were terminated, the company continued to provide processing services for five other accounts. In addition, the FTC states that the company failed to monitor both the products sold and claims made by the client. The settlement imposes a monetary judgment of over $46.7 million, which is suspended due to the company’s inability to pay. The company is also required to surrender any claims to the client’s assets, which are being held in receivership in a separate action.
FTC reaches settlement with dealership to resolve UDAP and fair lending allegations
On May 27, the FTC announced settlements with a New York City auto dealer and its general manager (collectively, “defendants”) to resolve allegations that the defendants engaged in illegal auto financing sales practices and maintained a policy of charging African-American and Hispanic car buyers more for financing that similarly situated non-Hispanic white consumers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act, TILA, and ECOA. According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by, among other things, allegedly (i) advertising low sales prices but failing to honor them; (ii) inflating the cost through a variety of methods, including telling buyers that they had to pay unnecessary charges to purchase “certified pre-owned” cars, double-charging consumers for taxes and fees without their consent, and altering the terms in the middle of a sale; and (iii) charge higher financing “markups” and fees to African-American and Hispanic customers.
The defendants—who neither admit nor deny the allegations—have each agreed under the terms of the settlements (see here and here) to pay $1.5 million in consumer redress. The orders also prohibit the defendants from misrepresenting the cost or terms to purchase, lease, or finance a car, and require the defendants to obtain express, informed buyer consent for all charges and provide clear financing disclosures. The defendants are also banned from engaging in unlawful credit discrimination, and are prohibited from engaging in credit transactions unless they establish a fair lending program that will, among other things, provide training for employees and cap the allowed rate markups.
The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the complaint and stipulated final order was 5-0. Commissioner Chopra issued a concurring statement addressing disparate impact and unfair discrimination in the auto industry, and emphasized it is time for the FTC to use its rulemaking authority to establish protections for car buyers and honest auto dealers. Commissioner Slaughter agreed that there is a need for auto financing and sales market reform, and suggested that the FTC can begin by initiating a rulemaking under Dodd-Frank to regulate dealer markups.
Credit repair trade association sues CFPB over TSR six-month waiting period
On May 21, a credit repair trade association filed a complaint against the CFPB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging the Bureau violated the credit repair organizations’ First Amendment rights under the Constitution by enforcing a six-month payment waiting period in the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The association is challenging Section 310.4(a)(2)(ii) of the TSR, which prohibits credit repair organizations from requesting or receiving payment for services rendered for a minimum of six months after the services have been performed. The complaint alleges that the prohibition (i) exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act; (ii) conflicts with the Credit Repair Organizations Acts (CROA); and (iii) is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of credit repair organizations by improperly impairing fully protected speech. Specifically, the association argues that the TSR is only applicable to credit repair organizations in certain situations, and the CROA—which does not require the six-month waiting period nor proof that “results were achieved”—is “the final and decisive law concerning credit repair organizations, including the time and manner of their billing practices.” Moreover, the complaint argues that the Bureau does not have the authority to enforce the TSR against credit repair organizations, as the Dodd-Frank Act did not explicitly transfer the authority from the FTC. The complaint is seeking a declaratory judgment that the TSR is unenforceable, invalid, and unlawful.
FTC temporarily halts payday lending enterprise
On May 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted a temporary restraining order against a group of 11 defendants operating a payday lending enterprise for allegedly deceptively overcharging consumers and withdrawing money from consumers’ accounts without permission. According to the complaint filed by the FTC, the defendants advertised loans with fixed payback terms, but in many cases, the payback terms would default to debiting the financial fee only. In some circumstances, consumers would receive an email with payback options, including “full payoff, loan extension, and loan buy down,” but the defendants would still require the consumer to notify them three days in advance if they wanted to pay off the entire loan amount, if not, only the “financial fee” would be debited. The FTC argues that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TILA/Regulation Z, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act/Regulation E by, among other things, (i) marketing loan products as having a fixed number of payments when funds were only being applied to finance charges and payment withdrawals continued beyond the promised number of payments; (ii) failing to make the required loan disclosures; (iii) failing to obtain proper authorization for reoccurring bank account withdrawals; and (iv) unlawfully using remotely created checks. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, contract rescission, restitution, and disgorgement.