InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC seeks injunction against company posing as SBA lender
On April 17, the FTC filed a complaint against a Rhode Island-based company and its owner (defendants) for allegedly violating the FTC Act by claiming to be an approved lender for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) even though the defendants are neither affiliated with the SBA nor are they an SBA-authorized lender. The FTC alleges in its complaint that the defendants made deceptive statements on their websites, such as “WE ARE A DIRECT LENDER FOR THE PPP PROGRAM,” and directly contacted small businesses claiming to be representing the SBA in order to solicit loan applications on behalf of the businesses’ banks. The FTC states that the defendants have received hundreds, if not thousands, of loan applications from businesses and continue to claim they can make PPP loans despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month from the SBA. The FTC seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful acts and practices, as well as “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief” that the court deems necessary to redress any consumer harm, and an award of the costs for bringing the action.
FTC provides guidance on managing consumer protection risks when using AI and algorithms
On April 8, the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection wrote a blog post discussing ways for companies to manage the consumer protection risks of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and algorithms. According to the FTC, over the years the Commission has dealt with the challenges presented by the use of AI and algorithms to make decisions about consumers, and has taken many enforcement actions against companies for allegedly violating laws such as the FTC Act, FCRA, and ECOA when using AI and machine learning technology. Financial services companies have also been applying these laws to machine-based credit underwriting models, the FTC stated. To assist companies, the FTC has provided the following guidance:
- Be transparent. Companies should not mislead consumers about how automated tools will be used and should be transparent when collecting sensitive data to feed an algorithm. Companies that make automated eligibility decisions about “credit, employment, insurance, housing, or similar benefits and transactions” based on information provided by a third-party vendor are required to provide consumers with “adverse action” notices under the FCRA.
- Explain decisions to consumers. Companies should be specific when disclosing to consumers the reasons why a decision was made if AI or automated tools were used in the decision-making process.
- Ensure fairness. Companies should avoid discrimination based on protected classes and should consider both inputs and outcomes to manage consumer protection risks inherent in using AI and algorithmic tools. Companies should also provide consumers access and opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information used to make a decision that may be adverse to the consumer’s interest.
- Ensure data and models are robust and sound. According to the FTC, companies that compile and sell consumer information for use in automated decision-making to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit or other transactions (even if they are not a consumer reporting agency), may be subject to the FCRA and should “implement reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports and provide consumers with access to their own information, along with the ability to correct any errors.” The AI models should also be validated to ensure they work correctly and do not illegally discriminate.
- Accountability. Companies should consider several factors before using AI or other automated tools, including the accuracy of the data set, predictions based on big data, and whether the data models account for biases or raise ethical or fairness concerns. Companies should also protect these tools from unauthorized use and consider what accountability mechanisms are being employed to ensure compliance.
FTC provides advice to mortgage borrowers impacted by Covid-19
On April 14, the FTC released guidance entitled “Coronavirus and your mortgage” to provide financial information to consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance points out that many mortgage borrowers facing Covid-19-related financial hardships may benefit from CARES Act protections. Starting on March 18, borrowers with federally-backed mortgages cannot have foreclosure proceedings instituted against them for 60 days. The CARES Act also provides borrowers the right to request forbearance for up to 180 days in order to temporarily freeze or lower mortgage payments. After the forbearance period ends, borrowers may request an additional forbearance for up to 180 days if they are still having trouble making mortgage payments as a result Covid-19. The FTC’s guidance provides contact information for the GSEs so borrowers can determine if their mortgages are federally backed. In addition, the guidance encourages all borrowers to contact their servicers for available payment options and assistance. The FTC suggests that approved housing counselors may also help, and can be found on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s website here, while the Homeownership Preservation Foundation may be able to assist borrowers in making payment arrangements with their mortgage servicers. (See website here.) The FTC advises borrowers to check state government websites for state-specific information, though the agency warns borrowers to be wary of mortgage relief scams. Finally, the guidance reminds borrowers never to pay up-front for help with their mortgage payments and provides additional links for more detailed information.
FTC and FCC warn VoIP service providers about illegal Covid-19 robocalls
On April 3, the FTC and the FCC sent letters to three Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, warning the companies to stop sending spam robocall campaigns promoting Covid-19 related scams. According to the agencies, “routing and transmitting illegal robocalls, including Coronavirus-related scam calls, is illegal and may lead to federal law enforcement.” The agencies sent a separate letter to a telecommunications trade association thanking the group for its assistance in identifying the campaigns and relaying a warning that the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to begin blocking calls from the three companies if they do not comply with the agencies’ request within 48 hours after the release of the letter.
FTC and student loan debt relief operation agree to permanent injunction
On March 30, the FTC announced a settlement with three student loan debt relief companies and their owner for violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act by allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling their debt relief services. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, (i) falsely promised consumers that they could permanently lower or eliminate student loans by enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan for an upfront fee; (ii) offered consumers incentives for positive reviews; (iii) failed to advise consumers to state that they were offered payment for reviews, and failed to disclose that consumers were paid when responding to reviews; and (iv) incorrectly advised consumers on how to report family sizes on applications for student loan debt relief, or falsified consumers’ family size without their knowledge.
According to the FTC, the defendants agreed to a pending stipulated final order that would, among other things, permanently ban the defendants from providing unsecured debt relief services and from making misrepresentations or unsubstantiated claims related to any products and services. However, the defendants will be allowed to continue to assist existing consumers prepare and submit applications to the Department of Education as part of the yearly recertification process, provided the consumers have provided an opt-in confirmation. The stipulated order also requires the defendants to pay $350,000, with the total judgment of approximately $23.9 million suspended due to inability to pay.
FTC issues statement on consumer protection during Covid-19 crisis
On March 26, the FTC Chairman issued a statement reiterating that the FTC is working closely with federal and state law enforcers and other stakeholders and is “devoting significant resources to tackling scammers and unfair and deceptive business practices” particularly with respect to the Covid-19 outbreak. The FTC notes that while it will remain flexible and reasonable in enforcing compliance requirements that may hinder the provision of important goods and services to customers, it will not “tolerate companies deceiving consumers, using tactics that violate well-established consumer protections, or taking unfair advantage of these uniquely challenging times.”
CFPB extends comment period for proposed rulemaking on time-barred debt disclosures; CFPB and FTC release 2019 FDCPA report
On March 20, the CFPB announced it was extending the comment period on its Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to time-barred debt disclosures (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) for an additional 30 days. Given the challenges created by Covid-19, the comment period will now end June 5.
The same day, the CFPB and FTC released their annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA, which highlights the 2019 efforts of the agencies. Under a memorandum of understanding, the agencies are provided joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts. Among other things, the report provides general demographic and economic data about consumer debt and the debt collection industry, and highlights enforcement actions, education efforts, and supervisory findings. The report also notes that the CFPB handled roughly 75,000 complaints filed by consumers about first- and third-party debt collectors in 2019, down from the 81,500 it received in 2018, and engaged in five public enforcement actions arising from alleged FDCPA violations. Judgments resulting from these actions yielded nearly $50 million in consumer redress and $11.2 million in civil money penalties.
With respect to the FTC, the report states that in 2019 the agency obtained approximately $25 million in judgments and permanently banned 23 companies and individuals that engaged in serious and repeated violations of law from working in the debt collection industry. The report also highlights the FTC’s comment letter on the Bureau’s May 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the FDCPA and to address other debt collection issues, in which the agency stated that it “has long advocated for amendments and clarifications to existing laws to account for changes in the debt collection marketplace and consumer technology” (covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC obtains default judgment in student debt relief operation
On March 10, the FTC announced that it obtained default judgments of over $10.7 million against three defendants in a student loan debt relief operation that the FTC alleged violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Act. The defendants were alleged to have deceptively marketed services to reduce or eliminate student loan debt and to have tricked borrowers into paying illegal upfront fees for these services. In its order granting the default judgment, in addition to the monetary penalties, the court permanently enjoined the defendants from (i) participating in telemarketing; (ii) selling secured and unsecured debt relief products and services; and (iii) making misrepresentations related to financial products and services.
FTC files “piggybacking” charges against credit repair operation
On March 9, the FTC filed a complaint against a Colorado-based credit repair company and its owner for allegedly making false representations to consumers regarding their ability to improve credit scores and increase access to mortgages, personal loans, and other credit products in violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the FTC Act, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants charged consumers illegal, upfront fees ranging from $325 to $4,000 per tradeline with the deceptive promise that they could “piggyback” on a stranger’s good credit, thereby artificially inflating their own credit score in the process. As the FTC explained, “piggybacking” occurs when a consumer pays to be registered as an “additional authorized user” on a credit card held by an unrelated account holder with positive payment histories. The FTC alleged that the defendants’ practices did not, in fact, significantly improve consumers’ credit scores as promised, and that while the defendants claimed on their website that their piggybacking services were legal, the FTC “has never determined that credit piggybacking is legal” and the practice does not fall within the protections of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants will be banned from selling access to another consumer’s credit as an authorized user and from collecting advance fees for credit repair services. The defendants will also be required to pay a $6.6 million monetary judgment, which be partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
FTC reaches settlements with affiliate marketers
On March 5, the FTC announced settlements with four groups of affiliate marketers that, among other things, allegedly violated the FTC Act by using deceptive marketing tactics and earnings claims to persuade consumers to pay thousands of dollars each for business coaching and investment “mentoring” services. The FTC alleged in the first complaint that certain defendants sold membership packages for an online business coaching scheme, and then, when the business coaching scheme went out of business, created their own branded programs and systems that claimed consumers would be able to start their own online marketing businesses and earn substantial income. The defendants also allegedly encouraged consumers to open multiple credit lines to finance the purchases of these programs. The FTC claimed that the defendants “used straw signers and shell companies and provided banks and payment processors with ‘dummy’ websites to evade scrutiny by bank underwriters and obtain multiple merchant accounts to process credit card payments from consumers.” According to the FTC’s second complaint, the other defendants made deceptive earnings claims in order to recruit consumers into the now-defunct business coaching scheme and earned millions of dollars as a reward. In both complaints, the FTC claimed that most consumers who purchased the products suffered large losses and mounting debts.
Under the terms of the settlements, each of the defendants is permanently banned from selling or marketing any business coaching programs or money-making methods, and must pay judgments of (i) $3.35 million to be paid in full for potential consumer redress (order here); and (ii) monetary judgments totaling $38.1 million, which will be partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay (orders here, here, and here).