InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fifth Circuit Affirms Debt Collector Violation of FDCPA
On July 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to notify credit reporting agencies that a consumer had disputed a debt. The Fifth Circuit further determined that this failure was sufficient to comprise a concrete injury conferring standing for the consumer to sue.
In its opinion, the appellate court focused on FDCPA § 807(8) and § 809(b), since the debt collector argued that the requirements in § 809 apply to § 807(8), relieving it of its notification duty under § 807(8). Although the appellate court found that the consumer had not disputed his debt under § 809, it agreed with the district court that this failure did not obviate the debt collector’s responsibility under § 807(8). The appellate court found that the debt collector was in violation of the FDCPA for passing on “credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure” to notify credit agencies of consumer’s disputed debt. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the debt collector’s violation of § 807(8) “exposed [the consumer] to a real risk of financial harm caused by an inaccurate credit rating.”
Special Alert: CFPB Issues Arbitration Rule Banning Future Use of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
On July 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its Arbitration Agreements Rule (Rule), which prohibits the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in certain contracts for consumer financial products and services. The Rule is a product of the CFPB’s rulemaking process, which received more than 110,000 comments on its May 2016 proposed arbitration rule, and the CFPB’s March 2015 Arbitration Study. The Rule is set to take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and will generally apply to contracts entered into on or after the 241st day after publication in the Federal Register. The Rule has the potential to profoundly impact the way disputes concerning consumer financial products and services are resolved. Thus, today’s action by the CFPB will likely lead to an effort pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Rule before it becomes effective.
***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the rule or other related issues, please visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Focuses on State-Level Consumer Complaints
On June 27, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report, highlighting complaints from around the country. According to the Bureau, it has handled over 1.2 million complaints from 2011 through June 1 of this year. The report shows nationwide complaint statistics and statistics for service members and older consumers. In addition, the report breaks down statistics on the state level covering financial products and services, company responses to complaints, as well as number of complaints. The vast majority of consumers report high company response rates to complaints averaging in the high 90 percent range, although the volume of complaints is trending upward. The top five products receiving complaints across the country in descending order are: (i) debt collection; (ii) mortgages; (iii) credit reporting; (iv) credit cards; and (v) bank accounts or services.
Buckley Sandler Insights: CFPB Releases Proposed Changes to Final Rule on Prepaid Accounts
On June 15, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released proposed changes (Proposal) to its final rule, published last November, which created consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E and Regulation Z (Final Rule). The CFPB is proposing these revisions because of feedback it received through its outreach to industry participants regarding the Final Rule combined with comments received in response to its effective date proposal (which was later finalized and which delayed the effective date by six months to April 1, 2018). Comments on the Proposal must be received by August 14, 2017.
The CFPB also released an updated version of its Small Entity Compliance Guide. The update reflects the effective date delay as well as other clarifications on the Final Rule. The update does not include any of the proposed changes included within the June 15, 2017 Proposal.
North Carolina Changes Retail Installment Sales Act Default Fee
On June 12, the General Assembly of North Carolina ratified Senate Bill 577, which amends the North Carolina Retail Installment Sales Act. Specifically, Senate Bill 577 modifies the late charge on an installment sale contract to be a flat fee of fifteen dollars, which is an increase from the prior limit of the lesser of five percent of the installment payment amount or six dollars. The amendment became effective on June 26 and applies to defaults from that day forward.
Texas Passes Law Repealing Vehicle Protection Product Regulatory Act
On June 15, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 2065. The law modifies a number of motor vehicle-related regulations and licensing requirements. Specifically, the law:
- eliminates the Vehicle Protection Product Act;
- abolishes the Vehicle Protection Product Warrantor Advisory Board;
- requires the warrantor of a vehicle protection product to pay expenses to the person who purchases the product or system if loss or damage occurs due to failure of the product or system;
- prohibits a retail seller from requiring a vehicle buyer—“as a condition of a retail installment transaction or the cash sale of a commercial vehicle”—to buy a vehicle protection product that is not installed on the vehicle at the time of the transaction, classifying this violation as a “false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice” actionable under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act; and
- eliminates the licensing requirements for boot operators and boot companies, but requires a booting company to remove a boot within an hour of being contacted by the owner or forfeit all removal fees.
The law takes effect September 1.
CFPB Sues Credit Repair Companies for $2 Million
On June 27, the CFPB filed two complaints in the District Court for the Central District of California against several credit repair companies and affiliated individuals. The CFPB alleged that these defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protect Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by charging consumers illegal fees and misleading consumers about services (see complaints here and here).
According to a CFPB press release, the defendants allegedly “[c]harged illegal advance fees” such as initial consultation fees, and set-up fees prior to providing certain services. Defendants also allegedly “[f]ailed to disclose limits on ‘money-back guarantees’” and “[m]isled consumers about the benefits of their services” by suggesting they could remove negative information from credit reports and “substantial[ly] increase” credit scores.
The CFPB submitted a proposed final judgment for each suit. In the first suit, the CFPB proposed a civil money penalty of over $1.5 million, and restrained defendants from working in credit repair services or maintaining an ownership interest in any company that provides credit repair services for a period of five years. In the second suit, the CFPB sought similar injunctive relief, and also proposed “equitable monetary relief in the form of disgorgement . . . in the amount of $500,000.”
Ohio Enacts Consumer Installment Loan Act
On June 13, Ohio Governor John R. Kasich signed into law S.B. 24, the Ohio Consumer Installment Loan Act (CILA). According to a blog post on the Ohio senate majority caucus’ website, CILA aims to “clarify Ohio's installment lending laws to help eliminate confusion for consumers and lenders as well as simplify the role of industry regulators.” CILA applies to loans that, among other requirements, exceed a term of six months, generally require equal monthly payments, are not secured by real property, are not covered by any other Ohio loan laws, and have a maximum interest rate of 25 percent (or 28 percent for an open-end loan). CILA also provides for regulation and lender licensing by the state’s Division of Financial Institutions in the Department of Commerce. The law goes into effect on July 1.
CFPB Issues Semi-Annual Report to Congress
On June 26, the CFPB issued its eleventh semi-annual report to Congress, covering the period October 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. The report highlights various supervisory and enforcement actions, regulations, and other guidance. The report focuses on Regulations E and Z, which “create a comprehensive set of consumer protections for prepaid products.” In addition, the report notes ongoing efforts to develop rules with respect to payday loans, auto title loans, installment loans, arbitration agreements, and overdraft programs.
Data Breach Lawsuit Settled for $115 Million
On June 23, one of the nation’s largest health insurers agreed to pay $115 million to settle a data breach class action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2015, the insurer announced that it had been hacked and that customer information had been compromised. On June 23, Plaintiffs submitted to the court a memorandum in support of the settlement. The settlement, if approved by the court, will provide almost 80,000 proposed class members with extended credit monitoring for at least two years. Additionally, the settlement will require the insurer to “implement or maintain meaningful, specific changes to its data security practices that directly address the security elements that Plaintiffs believe contributed to the breach,” including hiring independent consultants to perform annual IT risk assessments and compliance reviews, and providing the results of those audits to Plaintiffs’ counsel.