InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB’s Frotman speaks on medical debt collections and rental financial products
On April 11, the General Counsel of the CFPB, Seth Frotman, delivered a speech at the National Consumer Law Center/National Association of Consumer Advocates Spring Training, highlighting how the FDCPA and the FCRA cover often-overlooked sectors of consumer finance, including medical collections and landlord-tenant debts. As to medical billing, collections, and credit reporting, Frotman noted that the CFPB has received more than 15,000 complaints in the past two years, as explained previously in the CFPB’s most recent FDCPA annual report (covered by InfoBytes here). These complaints led to the CFPB initiating a rulemaking process to “remove medical bills from credit reports.” Frotman highlighted that many states have taken similar initiatives: Colorado and New York both enacted laws prohibiting the reporting of medical debt, and the CFPB encouraged more states to follow their lead; Connecticut recently introduced legislation banning medical debt in SB 395. Of interest, Frotman noted that when the CFPB contacted debt collectors about suspected bills, they often closed the account – suggesting that these collectors “do not have confidence that this money [was] actually owed,” indicating that collectors could be seeking to collect an invalid medical debt from consumers.
On rental collections and credit reporting, Frotman noted an increase in the “financialization” of the landlord and tenant relationship, such as products to finance security deposits or rent and offering rent-specific credit cards. Frotman also noted that corporate landlords, who have increased their share of the rental housing market, have increased the demand for “tenant screening” products that score prospective tenants. Frotman expressed concern that the algorithms relied on by these tenant screening products have been opaque and even discriminatory. The speech highlighted the CFPB’s focus on tenant screening as part of the Bureau’s increased attention toward debt collection and credit reporting companies generally in the rental industry. For instance, the CFPB noted that law firms that operate as “eviction mills” (i.e., firms that “rubber stamp” eviction actions without performing a meaningful review) could be held liable under the FDCPA.
CFPB reports on consumer reporting companies' compliance violations
On April 8, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights on consumer reporting companies (CRC) and furnishers from April to December 2023. With respect to CRCs, the CFPB found deficiencies related to (i) placing identity theft blocks on consumer reports, (ii) blocking adverse items identified by a consumer as the result of human trafficking, and (iii) the accuracy of information in consumer reports.
For identity theft, the CFPB noted that some CRCs automatically declined to implement identity theft blocks based on overly broad, disqualifying criteria that did not support a reasonable determination, in violation of the FCRA. CRCs also failed to properly notify these customers that they declined these identity blocks.
Regulation V required CRCs to block adverse items of information identified by a consumer from human trafficking. While CRCs must block these items within four business days of such request, the CFPB found CRCs either failed to timely block these items or that CRCs blocked some, but not all such items.
In failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports, the CFPB found that CRCs (i) inadequately monitored dispute metrics that may suggest a furnisher would not a reliable source of information about consumers, and (ii) failed to implement procedures to ensure the accuracy of information provided by unreliable furnishers and continued to include such information in reports.
With respect to furnishers, the CFPB similarly found deficiencies in accuracy, dispute investigation, and identity theft requirements. Specifically, CFPB examiners found that furnishers reported incomplete or inaccurate information for several months or even years after determining the information was incomplete or inaccurate. Additionally, furnishers that received direct disputes both continued to report such information and failed to notify CRCs of the disputed information. The report also noted that furnishers who received proper identity theft reports continued to furnish information regarding the consumer before confirming the accuracy of the information with the consumer.
District Court severs NJFCRA requirement that agencies must provide credit disclosures in 10 languages
On March 27, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part both the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey’s (AG) motion for summary judgment and a plaintiff international trade association’s motion for summary judgment. In particular, the court held that the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (NJFCRA) 2019 amendment requiring national consumer reporting agencies (NCRAs) to provide consumer reports in a language other than English (if requested) was not preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. However, the court stopped short of requiring NCRAs to provide the disclosures in “at least ten languages” in addition to Spanish on First Amendment grounds, explaining that the requirement imposed under the NJFCRA only required a rational basis and while a rational basis existed for Spanish (due to, among other things, the high percentage of Spanish speaking constituents in New Jersey), it did not exist for the additional languages given the relatively lower prevalence of those other languages. Accordingly, the court severed the provision that mandated that credit file disclosures be provided in at least 10 languages.
District Court grants MSJ in FCRA case in favor of defendant
Recently, a plaintiff sued under the FCRA, alleging that the defendant debt collector failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into a disputed credit report item. The plaintiff claimed to be a victim of identity theft and contended that an outstanding telephone debt should not have been listed on his credit report. The defendant maintained that it had performed its duties reasonably, relying on information from the phone company for which it acted as a debt collector. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had not provided any evidence to support the claim of an unreasonable investigation by defendant. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff had failed to provide any substantial evidence regarding how the defendant’s investigation was conducted or why it was unreasonable.
U.S. SDNY grants partial summary judgment in favor of bank’s FCRA case
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York opined on a bank’s motion for partial summary judgment, granting the motion as to whether the bank “knowingly” violated the FCRA but denying whether the bank acted “recklessly.” The complaint originated when the individual plaintiff opened a credit card and the plaintiff, along with other cardholders, was enrolled in a disaster relief program (DRP) that provided short-term relief for customers negatively impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The plaintiff alleged that the bank reported an outstanding account balance to the credit bureaus as delinquent despite promising that the balance would not be reported due to the protections of the DRP. Upon discovering this, the plaintiff disputed the reporting with the bank. The bank then investigated the plaintiff’s payment history, concluding that there had been no error because there was in fact an outstanding delinquent balance. The plaintiff eventually filed complaints with the CFPB in 2022 and proceeded to file suit later that year.
The plaintiff alleged that the Bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation by limiting the investigation to the plaintiff’s payment history, and by failing to consider whether the delinquent balance should have been reported due to the protections of the DRP. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine the bank recklessly reported the outstanding account balance to the credit bureaus without performing a reasonable investigation, and thus denied summary judgment. The court noted that the bank’s investigation relied on automated computer programs as to some items, and a manual review that was limited to the account history as to other items.
The bank argued it did not “knowingly” violate the FCRA. The court agreed and found the bank could not be “consciously aware” that a violation would come about as a result of its investigation, concluding the bank is entitled to summary judgment on whether it “knowingly” violated § 1681s-2(b) of FCRA.
Supreme Court agrees with Third Circuit that consumers may sue “any” government entity under FCRA
On February 8, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided that a consumer can sue any government agency—in this case the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—for damages for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (the Act). The court found that government agencies are expressly included in the definition of any “person” who violates the statute. On appeal from the 3rd Circuit, the case involved an individual who sued the USDA for monetary damages under FCRA, alleging that the USDA furnished incorrect information to a credit reporting company stating that his account was past due, damaging his credit score and impairing his ability to access affordable credit.
In affirming the 3rd Circuit’s reversal of the lower court’s dismissal of the case, the Supreme Court noted that, while the U.S. is “generally immune” from monetary judgment suits as a sovereign body, Congress can waive this immunity. Applying a “clear statement” rule, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act’s statutory language that authorizes consumer suits for money damages against “[a]ny person” who willfully or negligently fails to comply with [the law]” to constitute a clear waiver of federal government sovereign immunity. As the Court explained, “the Act defines the term ‘person’ to include “any . . . governmental . . . agency,” therefore “FCRA clearly waives sovereign immunity in cases like this one.”
District Court: Plaintiff has standing but still dismisses FCRA case
On January 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a bank’s motion to dismiss an FCRA case. According to the opinion, after plaintiff’s credit report revealed monthly payments towards previously closed accounts with defendant, plaintiff alleged that because the accounts were closed, the entire balance was due and that she had neither the right nor the obligation to pay defendant in monthly installments. Plaintiff then disputed the debt with a credit reporting agency, which forwarded the dispute to defendant, but ultimately plaintiff’s credit report was never updated to $0 monthly payments as she requested. Three days later, plaintiff filed suit alleging defendant violated the FCRA by failing to investigate the dispute and failing to direct the credit reporting agency to report the tradelines with $0 monthly payments. Although plaintiff does not assert in her complaint that her credit reports have been distributed to any potential lender, plaintiff alleged that the tradelines listed in her credit report are inaccurate and “create a misleading impression of her consumer credit file.”
In determining Article III standing, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged injury in fact because defendant’s “false and misleading reporting to a credit bureau about Plaintiff’s obligation on a debt has a close relationship to reputational harms such as defamation and common law fraud.” The court acknowledged, however, that “[l]ower courts have split on the issue of whether dissemination of a defamatory statement to a credit reporting agency, as opposed to the potential creditors at issue.” On one hand, the U.S. Supreme Court found that class members whose misleading credit reports were not disseminated to a third party did not suffer concrete harm. In another case, the Seventh Circuit concluded that plaintiffs adequately proved third-party dissemination by presenting evidence that debt collectors reported false information about them to a credit reporting agency, dismissing any interpretation precedent that would demand the plaintiffs to additionally demonstrate that the third party shared the false information. The court agreed with the latter decision, citing that “dissemination to a credit reporting agency suffices to establish defamatory publication for standing purposes.”
Although plaintiff established Article III standing, the court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the FCRA because she failed to allege that the tradelines issued by defendant contain inaccurate information. Furthermore, the court found that a report, as plaintiff requested, showing $0 monthly payments on the account would be more misleading, because it would purport that plaintiff does not owe a balance to defendant.
Massachusetts State Appeals Court orders a consumer has standing to sue in state court under the FCRA without federal standing
On January 11, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals ordered that an employee has standing to sue in state court, despite lacking standing to sue in a federal court. The employee (plaintiff) sued a prospective employer for allegedly conducting a background check in a manner that violated the FCRA. The defendant successfully sought to have the case moved from state court to federal court. In federal court, the defendant was granted a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing under Article III, which requires that the plaintiff allege a “concrete” injury. Ultimately, the case was remanded to state court, where the Superior Court dismissed the FCRA claims. The plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to support standing to sue in state court, as the applicable standard did not require a showing of “concrete” harm.
CFPB fines and shuts down debt collector for alleged FDCPA, FCRA violations
On December 15, the CFPB announced a consent order against a Pennsylvania-based nonbank medical debt collection company for alleged violations of the FCRA and FDCPA. According to the order, the company failed to (i) establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; (ii) conduct reasonable investigations into direct and indirect consumer disputes about furnished information; (iii) report direct dispute investigation results to consumers; and (iv) indicate disputed items when furnishing information to reporting agencies. The company also allegedly lacked a reasonable basis for debt-related representations made to consumers and engaged in collection activities after receiving a written dispute within 30 days of the consumer’s receipt of a debt validation notice but before obtaining and mailing a verification of the debt.
The consent order permanently bans the company from involvement or aid in debt collection, purchasing or selling of any debts, or any consumer reporting activities. The company must also request credit reporting agencies to delete all collection accounts previously reported by the company. Additionally, the company is obligated to pay a $95,000 civil money penalty and must display on its website information that informs consumers about the option to file a complaint with the CFPB.
CFPB report on FDCPA highlights medical debt collection issues
On November 16, the CFPB released its annual Fair Debt Collection Practices Act report, which highlighted challenges specific to medical debt collection. For example, 8,500 complaints were submitted in 2022 related to medical debt collection and described problems such as collectors billing for services never received, collecting the wrong amounts, miscommunication with insurance companies or financial assistance programs, or placing bills on credit reports without prior consumer contact. The report emphasized collectors may violate federal law when they pursue inaccurate medical bills and stressed the need for medical debt collectors to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the No Surprises Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The report also includes developments in state law regarding medical debt collection, including recent legislation in Colorado, New York, Maine, and Nevada. Additionally, the report contains sections related to supervision of debt collection activities, enforcement actions, education and outreach initiatives, rulemaking, and research and policy initiatives.