InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC takes action against debt collection schemes
On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina lifted the temporary seal of two FTC complaints (available here and here) filed against two groups of debt collection companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”), alleging that the defendants’ debt collection practices violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA. According to both complaints, which were filed on July 13, the FTC alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to collect payments from consumers for debts that they did not actually owe or that the defendants had no authority to collect. Specifically, the defendants used a “two-step collection process,” in which they used robocalls with prerecorded messages to tell consumers they were subject to “an audit or other proceeding.” After the consumers contacted the defendants about the information in the robocalls, the defendants “falsely represent[ed] that they are representatives of a law firm or a mediation company” and falsely alleged that the consumers would be subject to legal action, including arrest, on a delinquent debt if it was not paid. The FTC asserts that the defendants collected over $17 million from the alleged scheme and is seeking, among other things, restitution, injunctions, and asset freezes.
District court certifies class in a lawsuit against an unlicensed debt collector
On August 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah certified two classes related to a debt collector’s efforts to pursue judgments on defaulted debts without being appropriately registered with the state. The order certified two classes: one for class claims arising under the FDCPA, and another for class claims brought under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA). The court certified the UCSPA class for liability purposes only, as the statute does not allow a plaintiff to seek statutory damages on behalf of a class, leaving “issues related to what relief may be available for which class members to subsequent proceedings.” According to the order, the lead plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant after it attempted to collect unpaid medical debt. The defendant obtained a judgment but was not registered as a debt collector in the state when it filed the action. The defendant argued that Utah’s registration requirement did not apply to it and filed a motion for summary judgment, but the court disagreed and allowed the plaintiff to seek certification for two classes of individuals who had debt collection lawsuits filed against them in Utah by the defendant while it was unlicensed. Among other things, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s proposed class included individuals without an underlying consumer debt, which destroyed commonality under Rule 23. The court agreed and limited the proposed FDCPA class to individuals who were sued for a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). However, the court stated that the need for individualized determinations concerning each class member’s debt did not upset Rule 23’s predominance requirement, and concluded that the issue does not predominate over the question of whether the failure to register as a debt collector was a violation of the FDCPA and UCSPA. The court also disagreed with the defendant’s res judicata argument to defeat the certification request, ruling that even though the defendant ultimately obtained a judgment against the lead plaintiff—which it also allegedly did for at least 645 other members of the class—that was not enough to prove a conflict existed between the lead plaintiff and the other unaffected members of the class.
9th Circuit: No bona fide error defense when relying on creditor to provide information
On August 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a debt collector (defendant) accused of violating the FDCPA, determining the district court erred in concluding that the defendant qualified for the bona fide error defense. According to the opinion, the plaintiff incurred a debt to a medical provider (creditor), who eventually placed the debt with the defendant for collection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA when it miscalculated the interest on the unpaid debt. While the parties did not dispute the issue of whether the defendant unintentionally violated the FDCPA when it miscalculated interest on the debt, the issue remained as to whether the defendant had reasonable procedures in place to qualify for the bona fide error defense. The defendant argued that it has reasonable procedures in place because its agreement with the creditor contained a requirement that the creditor supply it with accurate information for collection. The defendant argued “that this procedure was reasonably adapted to avoid violations of the FDCPA,” and that it should be entitled to the bona fide error defense. The district court agreed with the defendant and granted its request for summary judgment.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit determined that relying on creditor-clients to provide accurate information is insufficient to establish a bona fide error defense. Moreover, a “boilerplate agreement” between the creditor and the defendant “effectively outsourced the defendant’s statutory duty under the FDCPA,” the appellate court held, noting that defendants are not allowed to simply rely on the information they are being provided.
24 state attorneys general reject CFPB’s time-barred debt proposal
On August 4, twenty-four state attorneys general responded to the CFPB’s request for comments on its proposed supplemental debt collection rule (the “Supplemental Proposed Rule”) arguing it does not “adequately protect[] consumers’ rights.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Supplemental Proposed Rule— which adds to the CFPB’s May 2019 proposed rule (InfoBytes coverage here) — proposes (i) certain disclosures required to be included in communications where a third-party debt collector knows or should know that a debt is time-barred; and (ii) model language and forms that debt collectors may use to comply with such disclosure requirements.
Among other things, the attorneys general disagree with the “know or should know” standard, arguing that the Bureau should “adopt a strict-liability standard, which would be in line with what the FDCPA intends to accomplish.” Moreover, the attorneys general assert that the model disclosures (i) were not adequately tested; (ii) do not account for the variations in state laws as to the potential revival of time-barred debt; and (iii) provide a safe harbor that is inconsistent with the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank Act. Lastly, the attorneys general express concerns that the Supplemental Proposed Rule conflicts with state laws that require state disclosures to be on the front side of debt collection notices and fails to address “obsolete debt.”
7th Circuit: Separately reporting multiple debts is not a violation of the FDCPA
On July 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an FDCPA action claiming a collection agency (defendant) unfairly reported debts separately to a consumer reporting agency (CRA) instead of aggregating all of them into one debt. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs each defaulted on multiple medical services from their healthcare provider. The defendant eventually reported each debt separately to a consumer reporting agency. An amended complaint was filed alleging the defendant violated FDCPA Section 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt because the debts were reported separately rather than aggregated together. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the argument was “unsupported by the FDCPA’s prohibition of ‘unfair or unconscionable’ means to collect a debt.” The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they owed a single debt to the healthcare providers.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit examined how the FDCPA defines a “debt,” and determined that its use in the statute is on a “per-transaction” basis”—which meant that the separate debts did not comprise a “single debt” under the FDCPA. The appellate court also determined that none of the eight examples of “unfair or unconscionable to collect or attempt to collect” a debt in the FDCPA addressed the “separate-versus-aggregate reporting of debts.” Thus, the 7th Circuit concluded, “It is reasonable, and not at all deceptive or outrageous, for a collector to report individually debts that correspond to different charges, thereby communicating truthfully how much is owed on each debt.” Moreover, the appellate court noted that “[s]ome consumers may prefer to have their debts reported in a way that conceals debt-specific information, like how much is owed on individual debts, when specific debts were incurred, and which debts are stale. Those consumers may be willing to forego the more detailed information on their credit reports if the aggregated reporting increases their credit scores. But a preference does not necessarily equal an injustice, partiality, or deception.”
District court preliminarily approves $6.8 million TCPA settlement
On July 6, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval to a nearly $6.8 million settlement between class members and a collection agency that allegedly violated the TCPA, FDCPA, and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by making calls using an autodialer or prerecorded voice in an attempt to collect purported debts. The lead plaintiff filed a proposed class action suit in 2016 against the collection agency claiming he received at least 25 calls to his cell phone even though he never consented to receiving such calls in the first place and had instructed the collection agency to stop calling him.
According to the court’s order, the settlement consists of two sub-classes: (i) one class of individuals from anywhere in the U.S. who subscribed to call management applications and received automated calls from the defendant without providing the proper consent; and (ii) another class of individuals living in California who received automated calls from the defendant regarding their purported debts. The terms of the settlement provides for a $1.8 million cash fund and requires the forgiveness of nearly $5 million in outstanding debts for class members with existing accounts owned by either the collection agency or one of its affiliates.
4th Circuit holds FDCPA’s limitation period restarts at each new violation
On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of an action alleging violations of the FDCPA, concluding that each violation of the FDCPA is governed by its own limitation period. According to the opinion, in April 2018, homeowners filed a complaint against a law firm retained by their homeowners’ association for allegedly violating various provisions of the FDCPA for collection actions taken between April 2016 and February 2018. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the entire complaint was time-barred because the “FDCPA’s limitations period runs from the date of the first violation, and that later violations of the same type do not trigger a new limitations period under the Act.”
On appeal, the 4th Circuit disagreed with the lower court. Specifically, the appellate court noted that “nothing in the FDCPA suggests that ‘similar’ violations should be grouped together and treated as a single claim for purposes of the FDCPA’s statute of limitations.” And, similar to holdings of other circuits, the 4th Circuit stated that the “FDCPA’s limitations period runs anew from the date of each violation.” While the homeowners did not dispute that several alleged violations fall outside of the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period, the appellate court agreed that the district court erred in dismissing the entire complaint, because it contained at least two potential violations occurring within one-year of the April 2018 filing date.
9th Circuit: Judicial foreclosure not debt collection under FDCPA
On June 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that the FDCPA does not apply when a creditor is enforcing a security interest through a foreclosure, but is not seeking a deficiency judgment. According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed an action against Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae’s loan servicer, the law firm that represented Fannie Mae in the foreclosure proceeding, and the firm’s attorneys (collectively, “defendants”) for, among other things, violating the FDCPA when seeking to foreclose on his residential property. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the FDCPA did not apply because the defendants had not engaged in any debt collection behavior by initiating the judicial foreclosure. In 2018, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but subsequently ordered a supplemental briefing based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (which held that law firms performing nonjudicial foreclosures are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, covered by InfoBytes here).
After the supplemental briefing, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action. The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the letter sent by the defendants when initiating the judicial foreclosure, which included monetary amounts owed, amounted to debt collection activity under the FDCPA. The appellate court noted that the defendants were merely fulfilling a procedural requirement (that has since been amended) of Oregon foreclosure law, and “in no event would a money award have been enforceable against [the plaintiff],” because of Oregon’s anti-deficiency judgment law. Thus, the appellate court concluded that a judicial foreclosure is not considered a debt collection activity when it does not “include a request for a deficiency judgment or some other effort to recover the remaining debt,” and therefore, the district court properly dismissed the action.
7th Circuit dismisses FDCPA action over interest accrued post-write off
On June 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an action alleging a debt collector violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect interest that accrued on a debt after the creditor wrote off the debt but before the collector acquired it. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs’ original unpaid debt was $3,226.35 before the original creditor ceased collection efforts and stopped sending monthly statements. Approximately two years later, the creditor sold the debt to the collection agency, and approximately two years after that, the debt collector sent a demand letter seeking payment of $5,800, which included around $1,600 in interest for the months after the original creditor ceased collection efforts. The debt collector sent a second letter two months later, and a third letter the following year to their attorney in response to the attorney’s request to verify the debt, but the third letter did not explain how much of the debt was interest. The plaintiffs filed the action against the debt collector, alleging the collector violated the FDCPA’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with collection of a debt by demanding interest that accrued between charge-off and sale. The district court dismissed the action as untimely.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal, but determined the suit was filed timely. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the one year statute of limitations applied to the third letter the debt collector sent to the plaintiffs’ lawyer in response to a demand for debt verification. However, the appellate court concluded that the third collection letter did not violate the FDCPA, arguing the plaintiffs “promised to pay interest, and [the debt collector]’s computer used the correct rate.” Moreover, the appellate court stated that “[a] statement is false, or not, when made; there is no falsity by hindsight,” and previous instances in the circuit “in which a letter was deemed to have falsely stated the amount of the debt dealt with errors known or readily knowable when the letter was sent.” Lastly, the appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ post-argument submission that the debt collector “must openly state the legal position behind its calculation” in order to avoid having the letter be misleading, noting that the third letter was sent to their lawyer, and it “would not have misled a competent lawyer.”
D.C. Circuit says consumer failed to show injury in FDCPA action
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of a consumer, concluding that the consumer failed to demonstrate a concrete injury-in-fact traceable to the FDCPA violations she alleged. According to the opinion, the consumer brought the putative class action against the debt collector after the collector sued the consumer to collect an outstanding auto loan debt. The collector allegedly used affidavits in its lawsuit against the consumer that were signed by an agent of the collector, not by an employee as attested. As requested by the debt collector, the action was then dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the consumer filed the putative class action against the debt collector and its agent alleging various violations of the FDCPA. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, which the district court denied. Subsequently, the district court granted their motion for summary judgment, concluding that any “any falsehoods in the [] affidavits were immaterial—and thus not actionable—because they ‘had no effect on [the consumer]’s ability to respond or to dispute the debt.’”
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the district court, concluding that the consumer lacked standing to sue the defendants altogether. Specifically, the appellate court held that the consumer failed to identify a traceable injury to the “false representations” made in the affidavits, citing to the fact that the consumer “testified unequivocally that she neither took nor failed to take any action because of these statements.” Moreover, citing to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the appellate court emphasized that “[n]othing in the FDCPA suggests that every violation of the provisions implicated here…create[] a cognizable injury.” The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.