InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC Files Complaint Against Debt Collection Business for Alleged Violations of FTC Act, FDCPA
On November 8, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against a Georgia-based debt collection business for allegedly violating the FTC Act by making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading claims to trick consumers into paying debt they did not actually owe. In the complaint, the FTC alleged defendants threatened legal action, garnishment, and imprisonment if the purported debt was not paid, and in other instances, attempted to collect debts after consumers provided proof the debt was paid off. Additionally, the defendants allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) by (i) making false, deceptive, or misleading representations, including withholding the true status of the debt, threatening legal action or imprisonment, and failing to disclose they were debt collectors; (ii) engaging in unlawful third-party communications without obtaining prior consumer consent; and (iii) failing to provide consumers written verification of their debt within the required time frame. According to the FTC, defendants have collected more than $3.4 million from consumers since January 2015. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has temporarily restrained and enjoined the defendants’ alleged illegal practices and frozen their assets.
District of Columbia Adopts Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights
On October 11, the District of Columbia (DC) released a student loan borrower bill of rights (Bill) pursuant to the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Amendment Act of 2016. The Bill sets out basic principles and protections for student loan borrowers, covering:
- Pricing and Terms. Lenders to comply with TILA; specifically, to focus on clear and plain-English disclosures of the APR and other key pricing terms.
- Loan Products. Lenders should avoid extending abusive loan products to borrowers; including, not extending new credit to borrowers who are unable to repay existing loans.
- Underwriting. Lenders should exercise fair and responsible underwriting; including offering loans that are affordable and meet the borrower’s needs. It also encourages lenders to engage in responsible credit reporting.
- Collection Activities. Lenders and servicers to abide by the spirit of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as, maintain accurate and complete information about borrowers’ loans.
- Customer Service. Servicers should have responsible complaint management, be easily accessible, and avoid discrimination of any protected borrower classification.
The Bill became effective on September 8.
CFPB Publishes Mortgage Servicing Small Entity Compliance Guide and Executive Summary
On October 19, the CFPB released version 3.0 of its mortgage servicing Small Entity Compliance Guide. The updated guide supports implementation of amendments to the Bureau’s mortgage servicing interim final rule issued October 4, which provides servicers, who are subject to a cease in communication request, a 10-day window to provide modified early intervention notices at the end of the 180-day period. The interim final rule takes effect October 19, at the same time the broader amendments to the early intervention requirements take effect. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) An updated Executive Summary, which highlights key changes to provisions of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule, the 2016 FDCPA Interpretive Rule, and the October 2017 interim final rule has also been released.
CFPB Issues Interim Final Rule Regarding Foreclosure Communications; Seeks Comment on Proposed Rule About Periodic Statements During Bankruptcy
On October 4, the CFPB announced one change and one proposed change to the amendments to its mortgage servicing rules under Regulations X and Z. These amendments, which were previously covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, are scheduled to take effect in two phases on October 19, 2017 and April 19, 2018.
First, the CFPB amended the amendments to Regulation X’s provision regarding early intervention notices in order to address timing issues that result when a borrower has invoked his or her cease in communication rights under the FDCPA. Had the most recent amendment not been made, a mortgage servicer subject to a cease in communication request would have been required to provide a modified early intervention notice to the borrower every 180 days but not more than once during any 180-day period, leaving no margin for error and creating operational challenges if the 180th day fell on a weekend or holiday. Based on concerns from the mortgage industry the CFPB issued an interim final rule without advance public comment to give servicers a 10-day window to provide the modified notices at the end of the 180-day period. The interim final rule becomes effective on October 19, 2017, at the same time the broader amendments to the early intervention requirements take effect.
Second, the CFPB proposed to update technical aspects of the upcoming periodic statement requirements for borrowers in bankruptcy. Specifically, the CFPB is seeking public comment on changes to the transition rules for borrowers who enter or leave bankruptcy, including replacing the single-billing-cycle exemption with a single-statement exemption for the next periodic statement the servicer would have to provide regardless of when in the billing cycle a triggering event occurs. The Bureau proposed that these amendments take effect on April 19, 2018, at the same time as the new periodic statement requirements for borrowers in bankruptcy.
The comment period on both the interview final rule and the proposed rule will close 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Eleventh Circuit Holds a Debt Collector’s Voicemail Qualifies as a “Communication” Under FDCPA
On September 22, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, while affirming in part, a lower court’s decision concerning whether a voicemail left by a debt collector constitutes a “communication” and how “meaningful disclosure” should be interpreted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The panel answered the first issue by noting that the FDCPA’s definition of “communication” includes “the conveying of information regarding a debt [either] directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” Therefore, the panel opined, under the statutory language, the only requirement for the voicemail to qualify as a communication was that it convey to the consumer that the call concerned a debt—which it did. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claim under section 1692e of the FDCPA and remanded for further proceedings consistent with their findings.
However, the panel agreed with the lower court’s interpretation of “meaningful disclosure” under section 1692d of the FDCPA—which protects consumers from “harassment and abuse” by prohibiting debt collectors from “placing telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity.” Specifically, the panel held that a debt collector need only provide the name of the company and the nature of its debt collection business on the call. The statute does not require disclosure of the individual employee’s name as this additional information would not be useful to a consumer. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the claim under section 1692d.
NYDFS Announces Settlement to Provide Restitution and Loan Forgiveness to Consumers Affected by Payday Lending Practices
On September 25, New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Superintendent Maria T. Vullo announced the Department had entered into a consent order with a payday loan debt collector and payday loan servicer (together, “defendants”) for allegedly collecting on illegal payday loans made to New York consumers between 2011 to 2014. Payday lending, according to NYDFS’ press release, is illegal in the state, and debt collectors who “collect or attempt to collect outstanding payments from New Yorkers on payday loans violate debt collection laws.” The consent order notes that in 2013, NYDFS circulated a guidance letter to all debt collectors operating in the state to remind them that usurious loans made by non-bank lenders with interest rates exceeding the statutory maximum—and the attempts to collect debts on these types of loans—are “void and unenforceable and violate state and federal law.” However, one of the defendants continued to collect on payday loans for more than a year. The alleged actions, NYDFS asserted, are violations of the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, New York Debt Collection Procedures Law, and New York General Business Law.
Pursuant to the consent order, which includes a notice letter to be sent to affected consumers, the debt collector defendant must comply with the following: (i) cease all collection on payday loans in New York; (ii) release and discharge more than $11.8 million in outstanding applicable payday loan debts; (iii) move to vacate any judgments obtained on payday loan accounts; and (iv) “[r]elease any pending garnishments, levies, liens, restraining notices, or attachments relating to any judgments on New Yorkers’ payday loan accounts.” The loan servicer defendant must close any pending accounts in the state and cease communications with consumers regarding their accounts.
FTC Launches Military Task Force Website, CFPB Blog Post Discusses Servicemember Debt Collection Rights
On September 25, the FTC launched a new website to showcase the work of the agency’s Military Task Force. The Military Task Force identifies the needs of military consumers and their families and develops initiatives such as workshops that examine financial issues and scams more likely to affect military consumers or training for military attorneys, law enforcement personnel, and financial advisors. (See previous InfoBytes summaries here and here.) The FTC reported in a press release that in 2016, servicemembers, their dependents, military retirees, and veterans submitted more than 100,000 consumer complaints, with retirees and veterans comprising approximately two-thirds of the complaints. The top complaints were imposter scams, identity theft, and debt collection. The new webpage includes links to resources for servicemembers and veterans, workshops, related FTC cases and other initiatives, and congressional testimony.
On September 22, the CFPB published a blog post to discuss servicemembers’ debt collection rights and resources. According to the Bureau, as of August 1, 41 percent of servicemember complaints were related to debt collection, as compared to 26 percent of non-servicemember complaints. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) protects servicemembers from debt collectors who use abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices to collect debts, but according to the Bureau, some military consumers claim they have received threats from debt collectors stating that they will report the debt to their commanding officer, have their rank reduced, or put their security clearance up for review. As the post notes, making false threats or disclosing debts to third parties without permission are violations of the FDCPA.
FTC Enters Consent Order with Final Defendant in Alleged 2015 Debt Collection Scheme
On August 30, the FTC announced a settlement banning the final defendant who had participated in a debt collection scheme from debt collection activities. The settlement stems from a 2015 action against three groups of defendants who allegedly violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in the following activities, among others: (i) attempting to collect debts consumers claimed they did not owe; (ii) impersonating law enforcement to threaten non-compliant consumers with arrests and lawsuits; (iii) harassing friends, family members, and employees in an attempt to collect debts; and (iv) failing to identify themselves as debt collectors. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) In 2016, the FTC reached separate settlements (here and here) against two of the three groups of debt collectors. In addition to banning the final defendant from debt collection activities, the 2017 action also imposes a $9.39 million judgment to be suspended due to the defendant’s inability to pay. However, the judgment will become immediately due if the defendant is found to have misstated his financial condition.
FTC Files Complaint Against Debt Collection Operation for FTC Act and FDCPA Violations
On August 29, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against a North Carolina-based debt collection business (defendants) for allegedly using a variety of “trade names” that sound like law firms to threaten individuals if they failed to pay debt they did not actually owe or that the defendants had no right to collect. According to the complaint, the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations regarding debt owed on payday loans or other debts and threatening legal action. Additionally, the defendants allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by: (i) communicating with consumers “at times or places known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer” or “at the consumer’s place of employment when Defendants knew or had reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications”; (ii) engaging in “unlawful third-party communications” without obtaining prior consumer consent; (iii) participating in harassing and abusive collection practices; (iv) making false, deceptive, or misleading representations, including by withholding the true status of the debt, impersonating attorneys, threatening legal action, and failing to disclose they were debt collectors; and (v) failing to provide consumers written verification of their debt within the required time frame. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has temporarily restrained and enjoined the defendants’ alleged illegal practices and frozen their assets.
District Court Dismisses CFPB Lawsuit Against Payment Processors, Cites “Blatant Disregard” for Discovery Order
On August 25, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia filed an order dismissing claims brought by the CFPB against four payment processors for allegedly engaging in an illegal robocall phantom debt collection operation involving certain payment processors and a telephone broadcast service provider (defendants). (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to a complaint filed in 2015, the defendants “knew, or should have known” that the debt collectors were contacting millions of consumers in an attempt to collect debt that consumers did not owe or that the collectors were not authorized to collect by using threats, intimidation, and deceptive techniques in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the order, however, the CFPB displayed a “blatant disregard” for the court’s instructions when asked repeatedly to identify the factual bases for its claims, and willfully failed to present a knowledgeable 30(b)(6) witness during depositions. As examples of “willful disregard,” the court noted that the CFPB’s approach was to first “bury the Defendants in so much information that [they] cannot possibly identify, with any reasonable particularity, what supports the CFPB’s claims,” and second, to “assert privilege objections to questions that the Court … repeatedly ordered to be answered.” The court also indicated that Bureau witnesses relied on “memory aids”—which the court characterized as “scripts”—to provide answers to the defendants’ questions and were unable to testify beyond what was stated on the memory aids. This behavior made the court “not optimistic that reopening the depositions would be fruitful.” As a result, the court dismissed the defendants from the action, granting sanctions under Rule 37, which permits “a district court [to] impose sanctions upon a party for failure to comply with a discovery order,” which may include striking pleadings in whole or in part.