InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
11th Circuit vacates punitive damages award against CRA for FCRA violation
On June 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a magistrate judge’s final judgment in an FCRA action, concluding that there was no competent proof of a willful violation of the Act on the part of a consumer reporting agency (CRA). According to the opinion, a consumer brought an action against the CRA and other defendants alleging, among other things, that the CRA “negligently and willfully” violated the FCRA by not reinvestigating an item on his credit report he alleged was reported in error. Approximately 75 days after a small claims debt against the consumer was dismissed with prejudice, the consumer and his attorney ran his credit report and finding the debt still reported, wrote to the CRA with the dismissal order and requested that it reinvestigate the debt listing and remove it. The CRA diverted the letter under its suspicious mail policy for unknown reasons (since the CRA did not have a system to record the reason a letter was marked as suspicious), and sent a letter to the consumer informing him that it had determined the letter was suspicious and was not sent by him, but suggesting he call if he believed his credit report was in error. Less than two months later, the CRA removed the credit line after receiving a communication from the debt holder, but the consumer had already filed the action five days prior to that time. A jury trial found that the CRA’s “negligent failure to reinvestigate” caused harm to the consumer and awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages and further concluded that the violation of the FCRA was willful, assessing $3 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the magistrate judge remitted the punitive damages to $490,000 on due process principles.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit vacated the magistrate judge’s final judgment on the willfulness claim, noting that the consumer “offered no evidence of a broad or systemic problem with [the CRA]’s suspicious mail policy,” and that the consumer did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the CRA “ran an unjustifiably high risk of violating its duties under the FCRA.” Moreover, the actions of the CRA “had a foundation in the statutory text,” even if the policy’s application was negligent when applied to the consumer. Because the appellate court concluded the violation was not willful, the punitive damages judgment was eliminated.
Kraninger emphasizes need for FCRA and CARES Act compliance
On June 19, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger spoke during a Consumer Data Industry Association webinar, warning information furnishers and consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) that the Bureau has dedicated significant resources toward enforcement of certain provisions of the CARES Act and the FCRA. Specifically, Kraninger emphasized the Bureau’s reliance on consumer complaint data to inform its supervisory and enforcement activity and noted that April and May had the highest monthly complaint volumes in the Bureau’s history, with approximately 7,200 complaints mentioning Covid-19 related terms during that time. Kraninger referenced the Bureau’s April policy statement, which stated the Bureau would take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the [FCRA] and Regulation V” (covered by InfoBytes here). However, Kraninger warned that furnishers are still required to comply with the CARES Act, and that the “Bureau expects CRAs and furnishers to make good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible.” According to Kraninger, due to the unique challenges the Covid-19 pandemic has created, the Bureau will evaluate each CRA and furnisher’s respective efforts and circumstances on an individual basis to determine whether it made the good faith effort to investigate as quickly as possible.
CFPB issues CARES Act credit reporting FAQs
On June 16, the CFPB released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) concerning the Bureau’s previously issued policy statement addressing consumer reporting agencies’ (CRAs) and furnishers’ credit reporting responsibilities under the CARES Act amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The policy statement also emphasized that the Bureau is taking a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the [FCRA] and Regulation V,” including refraining from citing in examinations or bringing enforcement action against CRAs or furnishers acting in good faith. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Addressed within the FAQs are topics for furnishers to consider when complying with the CARES Act requirements. These include: (i) reporting as current certain accounts for consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic; (ii) citing or suing furnishers that violate the FCRA by failing to investigate disputes; (iii) defining an “accommodation” for purposes of the FCRA amendments, and clarifying whether furnishers are required to provide accommodations to impacted consumers, and if so, what their consumer reporting obligations will be; (iv) clarifying that “using a special comment code to report a natural or declared disaster or forbearance” is not a substitute for complying with the CARES Act credit reporting requirements; (v) warning that reporting forbearances on accounts that are not delinquent, or for which a consumer has not requested a forbearance, “increases the risks of inaccurate reporting and consumer confusion”; and (vi) specifying account status reporting requirements after a CARES Act accommodation ends.
FTC settlement requires retailer to provide transaction records to identity theft victims
On June 10, the FTC announced a settlement to resolve Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allegations against a Wisconsin-based retailer for failing to provide the proper transaction records to identify theft victims. According to the FTC, this is the first time the Commission has used its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to provide identity theft victims with “‘application and business transaction records’ evidencing any transactions that the victim alleges to be the ‘result of identity theft’” within 30 days of being requested. The FTC’s complaint alleged that from February 2017 through March 2019, the retailer implemented several changes to its policy, which limited the information that identity theft victims could obtain. The retailer also allegedly refused to directly provide victims with detailed order information, stating it would only share information if the request came directly from law enforcement. Moreover, the FTC claimed that the retailer did not provide the information it was supplying within the 30-day window required by the FCRA, and on several occasions, failed to issue a denial of a victim’s request within 30 days. These unlawful actions, the FTC alleged, violated the FTC Act and the FCRA, and only ended six months after the retailer received a civil investigative demand from the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, the retailer has agreed to pay a $220,000 civil penalty to settle the claims and must provide identify theft victims, within 30 days, valid verification of their identity and the identity theft, including business transaction records related to the theft. The retailer must also provide a notice on its website to provide identity theft victims information on how to obtain application and business records, and certify that it has provided all such records to victims who were previously denied access.
7th Circuit: CRAs not required to determine legal validity of disputed debt
On May 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action, holding that the FCRA does not compel a consumer reporting agency (defendant) to determine the legal validity of a debt when investigating a dispute. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained payday loans with allegedly usurious interest rates from online entities affiliated with Native American tribes. After both plaintiffs stopped making monthly payments, the lenders reported the delinquent amounts to the defendant. One of the plaintiffs disputed the accuracy of his credit report, arguing that because the loan was “illegally issued” he was not obligated to make payments. The defendant conducted an investigation and verified the furnished information was accurate. However, the defendant did not investigate whether the debt was legal. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging two FCRA violations: (i) Section 1681e(b) which requires consumer reporting agencies “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” contained in credit reports; and (ii) Section 1681i(a) which “requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate disputed items.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant’s credit reports “contained ‘legally inaccurate’ information because they posted ‘legally invalid debts.’” The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendant, ruling that the plaintiffs’ FCRA claims fell short because they never alleged that the information that was reported was factually inaccurate and, “until a formal adjudication invalidates the plaintiffs’ loans,” the reported information would not be factually inaccurate.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit held, among other things, that only furnishers—“such as banks, credit lenders, and collection agencies”—are required under the FCRA to correctly report liability, stating it is not the defendant’s responsibility to determine the enforceability of the debt because the “power to resolve these legal issues exceeds the competencies of consumer reporting agencies.” Moreover, the appellate court determined that the defendant cannot be liable under either of the plaintiffs’ FCRA claims if it did not report inaccurate information.
CFPB reaches $18 million settlement in credit-report scheme
On May 14, the CFPB filed a proposed stipulated final judgment and order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a mortgage lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in January claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products, but instead, the defendants allegedly resold or provided the reports to companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services. The CFPB further alleged that defendants violated the TSR and CFPA when they used telemarketing sales calls and direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, and falsely represented that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and change their servicer to the Department of Education.
If approved by the Court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would (i) impose an $18 million redress judgment against the mortgage lender, of which all but $200,000 would be suspended due to the lender’s limited ability to pay; (ii) require one of the individuals and his company to disgorge $403,750 in profits to provide redress; (iii) impose a $406,150 judgement against a second individual and his company, which will be suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay; (iv) impose a total $450,001 civil money penalty against the defendants; (v) permanently ban the defendants from the debt-relief industry and from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports; and (vi) prohibit the defendants from on using or obtaining consumer reports for “any business purpose other than underwriting or otherwise evaluating mortgage loans.”
Fannie and Freddie offer new Covid-19 payment deferral
On May 13, the FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, announced a new Covid-19 payment deferral option that will be available starting on July 1. According to Fannie Mae Lender Letter LL-2020-07 and Freddie Mac Bulletin 2020-15, the new Covid-19 payment deferral is “a new workout option specifically designed to help borrowers impacted by a hardship related to Covid-19 return their mortgage to a current status after up to 12 months of missed payments.”
The new option is for borrowers who (i) are on a Covid-19 related forbearance plan, or (ii) have a resolved financial hardship due to Covid-19. Specifically, the servicer is required to confirm that the borrower is now able to continue making the full monthly contractual payment of their loan but is unable to reinstate the mortgage loan or afford a repayment plan to cure the previous delinquency. If a borrower is eligible for the Covid-19 payment deferral, the servicer must allow the borrower to resume their contractual monthly payments; however, the delinquency amount (which includes up to 12 months of past-due principal and interest payments; out-of-pocket escrow advances paid to third parties; and servicing advances paid to third parties in the ordinary course of business) must be deferred as a non-interest bearing balance, due and payable at liquidation, refinance, or maturity. Among other requirements detailed by the Lender Letter and Bulletin, servicers must report the loan in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the CARES Act, which requires lenders to report as current any loans subject to Covid-19 forbearance or other accommodation. Additionally, servicers must waive all late charges, penalties, and fees upon completing the Covid-19 payment deferral.
In addition to the new Covid-19 payment deferral, borrowers will continue to have other hardship options including repayment plans, lump-sum repayment, or permanent modification. Servicers must begin evaluating borrowers for the Covid-19 payment deferral beginning July 1.
FTC reports on FCRA education and enforcement
On May 5, the FTC released a report updating Congress on the agency’s FCRA education and enforcement efforts. The report, titled “Efforts to Promote Consumer Report Accuracy and Disputes,” was requested by Congress as part of the 2020 spending bill that funds the FTC. The report details the agency’s efforts to inform consumers and businesses regarding their rights and obligations under the FCRA, including educating consumers on disputing errors and identity theft. For businesses, the report discusses the guidance provided by the FTC for furnishers and users, including the 2016 publication Consumer Reports: What Information Furnishers Need to Know. The report notes that over the last decade. the FTC has brought over 30 enforcement actions under the FCRA against consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), users of consumer reports, and furnishers of information to CRAs. The FTC notes that once supervisory authority over the nationwide CRAs was transferred to the CFPB in 2011, the FTC has focused its FCRA enforcement on other entities in the credit reporting area, noting that 14 of its FCRA cases involved allegations related to handling consumer disputes of inaccurate information or procedures for ensuring the accuracy of information furnished in reports. A complete list of the 14 cases can be found in the report’s Appendix B. The FTC states that it will continue to look for education and enforcement opportunities, citing a joint workshop with the CFPB held last December, which discussed current trends in consumer reporting accuracy and sought public comments to assist the agency in targeting its efforts in the future.
5th Circuit: Non-signatories not compelled to arbitrate FCRA claims
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order denying a plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that two credit reporting agencies (CRAs) are not subject to arbitration because of their contractual relationships with a bank. The plaintiff sued the bank and the CRAs, alleging violations of the FCRA and that the bank additionally violated the TCPA and the Fair Credit Billing Act in connection with disputed, unfamiliar charges that appeared on his credit card. The bank moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in its credit card agreement, and the CRA defendants moved to stay the claims against them pending the outcome of the arbitration between the plaintiff and the bank. While the plaintiff opposed the bank’s motion to compel arbitration, he simultaneously moved to compel the CRAs to arbitration in the event that the bank’s motion was granted. The district court granted the bank’s motion to compel arbitration and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel the CRAs to arbitration, reasoning that “‘there is a rebuttable presumption that non-signatories to a contract cannot be bound by arbitration agreements.’”
On appeal, the 5th Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding that because the CRAs were not signatories to the credit card agreement and were neither expressly nor implicitly parties to the agreement, they could not be compelled to arbitrate the plaintiff’s FCRA claims. Furthermore, while Alabama law governed the agreement, the appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that equitable estoppel and third-party beneficiary theories under Alabama common law required the CRAs to arbitrate the claims.
9th Circuit: Providing disclosure with employment documents does not violate FCRA
On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that an employer that obtained a consumer report for employment purposes did not violate the FCRA when it provided disclosure simultaneously with other documents and failed to use a standalone document for the FCRA authorization. The plaintiff, a former employee, alleged that during the hiring process, applicants were presented with employment documents and were required to sign two forms related to consumer reports: (i) a separate “disclosure” form that informed applicants that the employer could obtain reports pertaining to their employment record, drug tests, and driving record; and (ii) an “authorization” form appearing at the end of the application, which authorized the employer or its agent or subsidiary to investigate the applicant’s previous employment record. The plaintiff’s suit alleged that the forms violated the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement because the defendant presented the forms at the same time as other application materials and failed to place the authorization on a standalone document. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument, concluding that there is nothing that prohibits an employer from “providing a standalone FCRA disclosure contemporaneously with other employment documents.” While the 9th Circuit acknowledged that the FCRA requires a disclosure form to contain nothing more than the disclosure itself, “no authority suggests that a disclosure must be distinct in time, as well.” With respect to the authorization, the appellate court rejected the argument that it violated the FCRA because “the authorization subsection of FCRA lacks the disclosure subsection’s standalone document requirement” and only requires that the authorization be in writing.