InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants FDCPA defendant’s motion for summary judgment
On October 18, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a second summary judgment motion by a debt collection agency (defendant) in an FDCPA suit, after the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, ruling that a collection letter sent to the plaintiff was not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or unconscionable. According to the order, the plaintiff received two bills after being treated at a hospital for an automobile accident: one in the amount of $675, which was adjusted from $900 because the plaintiff lacked insurance, and a second bill from a doctor’s network for $468. The hospital placed the unpaid account with the defendant who in turn sent a collection letter to the plaintiff, which was the only contact between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law the defendant was permitted to attempt to collect only $141.15, and that its failure to do so violated the FDCPA. This value was based on the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code associated with the doctor’s network bill, but the hospital’s bill did not contain a CPT code. The district court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate any material issue of disputed fact that the services provided by the hospital were or should have been billed under the same CPT code as the doctor’s network bill, nor did the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove that the amount billed by the hospital violated state law, and therefore, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
7th Circuit: Plaintiff lacks standing to bring FCRA claim on credit report disputes
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FCRA action in favor of a defendant bank. According to the opinion, the plaintiff real estate investor obtained a loan secured by a mortgage from the defendant bank. The mortgage required the plaintiff to maintain a certain level of hazard insurance or the defendant bank could lender-place such insurance, with the cost of the lender-placed insurance amounts becoming additional debt secured by the mortgage. After the plaintiff underpaid on his flood insurance premiums, the defendant bank obtained lender-placed insurance. When the plaintiff did not pay the increased monthly payment associated with the lender-placed insurance amounts in full, the defendant bank informed the plaintiff that he was in default and that the entire amount of the loan would be accelerated if the default was not cured. While the plaintiff continued to submit partial payments, the defendant began reporting certain 2011 payments as 60 days or more late to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs). In 2012, the plaintiff disputed these purportedly late payments with the CRAs.
The plaintiff sued claiming, among other things, that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to responsibly investigate the 2012 disputes. On appeal, after determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to rely on unsupported statements in the plaintiff's affidavit, the 7th Circuit found that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiff to prove damages as an element of his FCRA claim. However, the appellate court held that the plaintiff ultimately lacked standing to bring a claim under the FCRA because, as the appellate court highlighted, the injury that the plaintiff alleged—a decrease in his credit score in November 2011—could not be fairly traced to the defendant’s alleged action—a failure to reasonably investigate credit reporting disputes in January 2012.
CFPB releases education ombudsman’s annual report
On October 20, the CFPB Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on consumer complaints submitted between September 1, 2021 and August 31, 2022. The report is based on approximately 8,410 complaints received by the Bureau regarding federal and private student loans—a 59 percent increase from the previous reporting period. Of these complaints, roughly 2,000 were related to debt collection, while approximately 900 mentioned Covid-19 (the categories increased by 122 and 23 percent, respectively). The report discussed certain risks raised in the consumer complaints, including difficulty pursuing claims and defenses against predatory institutions of higher learning, improper collection attempts on non-qualified private student loans that have been discharged in bankruptcy, and processing errors and servicer misrepresentations that have caused federal student loan borrowers to not be able to take full advantage of pandemic-related relief.
The report advised policymakers to consider several recommendations, including: (i) examining whether holders of private student loans originated to fund predatory for-profit schools are abiding by state and federal law; (ii) ensuring holders and servicers of private loans are not collecting on non-qualified discharged debt; and (iii) examining whether servicers may be creating barriers to pandemic-related relief. The Bureau also advised policymakers to consider whether to make loan forgiveness programs “opt out” rather than “opt in,” and whether simplifying consumer-facing incentives for consolidating commercial Federal Family Education Loan Program into Direct Consolidation Loans could benefit borrowers if made permanent.
Senators urge CFPB to increase transparency on “Remittance Rule”
On October 19, a group of five Democratic senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra requesting that the Bureau strengthen its rule regarding remittances transfers. According to the letter, though remittance providers are required to display the exchange rate and fees associated with a transaction, as required by a May 2020 final rule (covered by InfoBytes here), some providers collect additional revenue by increasing exchange rates. The senators explained that because of various “loopholes in the rules, remittance providers may technically comply with the CFPB’s remittance rule requirements while providing insufficient price transparency to allow consumers to make informed comparisons and choose the lowest-cost provider.” The senators requested that the Bureau “strengthen the remittance rule to ensure greater transparency” so that remittance providers are not able to “advertise ‘no-fee remittances’ while simultaneously inflating exchange rates without limit or without providing accurate third-party costs.” Additionally, the senators stressed that the Bureau “should require remittance providers to display mid-market exchange rates, while only collecting revenue through added costs, including fixed third-party fees, openly displayed as ‘total cost,’ as recommended by the Remittance Community Task Force.” The senators also recommended that the Bureau “rescind the permanent exemption for non-covered third-party fees and encourage the adoption of new technology that would provide transparent, pre-transfer cost information.”
CFPB discusses impact of overdraft fees on seniors
On October 19, the CFPB released an issue brief, Overdraft Fees and Economically Insecure Older Adults, examining the economic effects of overdraft fees on economically insecure older adults. The Bureau noted that older adults of color, older women, LGBTQ+ older adults, and retirees are more likely to be economically insecure and may face greater challenges with overdraft fees. The brief also found that older adults pay fees for overdraft services less frequently than other age groups but stated that the economically insecure could be “particularly impacted” because “they are often unable to adjust their carefully managed budgets” when they incur fees. Among other things, the brief provided recommendations to financial institutions for implementing age-friendly banking practices, such as offering view-only account access and/or convenience accounts for financial caregivers. The brief also noted that financial institutions should provide customer service to respond to consumers’ concerns about bank fees in person, by phone, and online. The Bureau stated that it will “track the impact of overdraft fees on older adults” through analysis of consumer complaints, among other things.
CFPB opines on junk data in credit reports
On October 20, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion, Fair Credit Reporting; Facially False Data, as part of a series of actions being taken by the Bureau to ensure consumer reporting companies comply with consumer financial protection laws. The advisory opinion emphasizes, among other things, that “a consumer reporting agency that does not implement reasonable internal controls to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logically inconsistent information, in consumer reports it prepares is not using reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under section 607(b) of the [FCRA].” According to the Bureau, consumer reporting companies are legally required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information that they collect and report. As part of that requirement, companies must implement policies and procedures to screen for and eliminate junk data, including being able to detect and remove inconsistent account information and information that cannot be accurate. Additionally, companies’ internal controls must also be able to identify and prevent reporting of illegitimate credit transactions for a minor.
For more details on the CFPB’s advisory opinion program, please see InfoBytes coverage here.
District Court rules FCRA allegation filed before expiration of 30-day investigation period is not ripe
On October 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant accused of violating the FCRA. According to the plaintiff’s amended complaint, the plaintiff opened a loan with the defendant and later entered into a modified agreement that reduced his monthly payments and the future projected balance. He later noticed that his credit report showed (i) the reported balance for his account to be higher than it should have been under the terms of the modified agreement, and (ii) three months of late payments. The plaintiff filed a dispute with the credit reporting agency (CRA) arguing, among other things, that the balance was being misstated. The plaintiff filed another dispute with the CRA regarding the late payments. Plaintiff filed the instant action before the end of the 30-day investigation period for disputes regarding the late payments. The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment be granted to defendant related to claims alleging violation of Section1681s-2b for both (i) the claim predicated on the restated balance, and (ii) the claim predicted on the late payments, but for different reasons. The “late payment” claim “was not ripe when the action was filed” because the 30-day investigation period had not yet expired when the plaintiff filed his amended complaint. For the “restated balance” claim, the magistrate judge’s report found that the parties had a genuine legal dispute over their interpretations of the modified agreement—whether the balance due should be reduced at the time of the modification agreement or at the end of the modification term, which was not a factual inaccuracy: “the Report found violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681a-2(b) must be based on factual inaccuracies, not legal disputes, and as Plaintiff bases his claim on a legal dispute, he cannot prevail on his FCRA claim.” This district court agreed noting that the plaintiff did not appear to object to the legal determination that “as a matter of a law a violation of a §1681s-2(b) could not be based on a legal dispute over the terms of a contract[.]” The report also noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to actual damages—a requirement for a negligent violation of the FCRA—nor did he show that the defendant willfully violated the FCRA in order to be entitled to statutory or punitive damages. The district court agreed with the report and recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice.
FTC takes action against auto dealer over deceptive advertising and pricing practices
On October 18, the FTC announced an action against an auto dealer group and two of its officers (the owner/president and the vice president) for engaging in deceptive advertising and pricing practices and discriminatory and unfair financing. According to the complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceptively advertising cars as “certified,” “inspected,” or “reconditioned” at specific prices, but then charged customers fees above the advertised price for costs related to “inspection,” “reconditioning,” or “certification.” The FTC also alleged that the defendants “unlawfully discriminate[d] on the basis of race, color, and national origin by imposing higher borrowing costs on Black and Latino consumers than non-Latino White consumers,” in violation of ECOA. Specifically, the FTC claimed that the defendants charged a higher markup to the interest rate for Black and Latino consumers than to non-Latino White consumers. Black and Latino consumers paid on average about $291 and $235, respectively, more in interest than non-Latino White consumers did. The FTC also alleged that Black and Latino consumers paid on average at least one extra fee 24 percent and 42 percent more often, respectively, than non-Latino White consumers. In addition to alleging that this conduct violated ECOA, the FTC also alleged that this discriminatory practice was an unfair act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. According to the order, the defendants are required to establish a fair lending program to ensure they do not discriminate in the future, including a provision that will require each associated dealership to either charge no financing markup or charge the same markup rate to all consumers, and must pay the FTC $3.38 million to refund harmed consumers. Among other things, the defendants are also prohibited from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. Two of the commissioners issued dissenting statements (see here and here), challenging the fair lending claims being brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the imposition of liability against the individual officers.
CFPB sues payment processor over junk fees and dark patterns
On October 18, the CFPB filed a complaint against a Texas-based payment processing service platform (primarily related to collecting and processing event fees) for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and the EFTA by engaging in deceptive and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau alleged that the defendant enrolled consumers in, and charged them, for discount club memberships without their consent that were largely unrelated to the event the consumers were signing up for. The complaint noted that although the defendant’s memberships had a 30-day free “negative option trial membership,” the memberships automatically begin charging the membership fees at the end of the trial period. The Bureau also alleged that the defendant deployed dark patterns, which “are hidden tricks or trapdoors that companies build into their websites to get consumers to inadvertently click links, sign up for subscriptions, or purchase products or services.” The Bureau further alleged that the defendant violated the EFTA and Regulation E by increasing consumers’ membership fees without sending the consumer written notice of the new amount and the date of the new payment at least 10 days before initiating the new payment, which also constitute violations of the CFPA. The Bureau is seeking permanent injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and other relief.
According to a statement by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the Bureau is “closely watching whether financial services firms are deploying digital dark patterns,” and is “looking at a range of ways to reduce unwanted junk fees.” He also added that the Bureau is “working to ensure our payments system is working safely and fairly” and that it “will continue to look at how payment platforms extract data and fees from their users.”
FTC reports on actions to protect seniors
On October 18, the FTC issued a report titled Protecting Older Consumers, 2021-2022, A Report of the Federal Trade Commission on measures taken to protect older adults from scams. Using data from the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network, which is a secure online database that provides law enforcement agencies with access to reports from consumers about fraud and other consumer problems, the report generally found that older adults reported significantly higher losses to investment, business impersonation, and government impersonation scams in 2021 as compared to 2020. Among other things, the report noted that: (i) the FTC sent thirty-one cease and desist demand letters regarding potentially false or deceptive advertising or marketing actions related to the Covid-19 pandemic; (ii) FTC enforcement actions have resulted in relief of more than $462 million to consumers of all ages in the last fiscal year; and (iii) scams where older adults were contacted on social media are increasing. In addition to describing three rulemakings that focused on key actions that the FTC has taken to protect older consumers, the report mentioned enforcement actions impacting older consumers. The report also provided details about the FTC’s outreach and education efforts through such programs as the Pass it On campaign, which focuses on providing fraud prevention resources to older adults so they can help protect their communities by sharing information and materials with family and friends.