InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Announces Complaint and Proposed Consent Order Against Massachusetts Debt Collection Firm
On December 7, the CFPB announced the filing of a complaint and a proposed consent order against a Massachusetts-based debt collection firm for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Dodd-Frank Act. In 2012, the firm’s subsidiary purchased a debt portfolio from a telephone service provider containing over three million defaulted, and predominantly outdated, cellphone accounts. The firm and its subsidiary entered into a collection services agreement, with the firm agreeing to remit money collected from consumers, less fees and expenses, to its subsidiary. According to the CFPB, the firm, having prior experience in the collection of telecommunications debt, knew that the portfolio likely contained defects, including inaccurate and incomplete dispute histories and unverified documentation. Still, even after customers disputed certain debt, the firm continued to report the debt to credit reporting companies and to collect on time-barred, disputed, fraudulent, and settled or paid debts. The CFPB further alleges that the firm reported faulty information to the credit reporting companies by initially reporting that the entire debt portfolio was disputed, and then removing and subsequently reinserting the dispute flags on the entire portfolio. The firm’s purportedly deceptive practices resulted in the collection of about $743,000 on more than 2,000 disputed accounts, where the debt was not verified.
Under the proposed consent order, the firm would be required to: (i) refund to customers the payments that it received for disputed debt that was not verified; (ii) cease collecting and reporting on unverified, disputed debt, and request the removal by the credit reporting companies of such reported information from customer files; (iii) for five years, review original account-level documents to verify a debt before collecting on it; (iv) for five years, refrain from reselling its purchased debt to other debt collectors; and (v) pay a penalty of $1.85 million.
CFPB Takes Action Against Nationwide Credit Reporting Company and Owner
On December 3, The CFPB took action against a nationwide credit reporting company and its owner over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the CFPB, the defendants (i) obtained consumer reports, without permissible purpose, from third-party CRAs to generate marketing presentations for prospective clients; and (ii) failed to investigate consumer disputes, including those relating to identity theft. The CFPB further alleged that the company “routinely failed” to provide consumer dispute information to furnishers. In addition to an $8 million civil money penalty, the consent order requires the defendants to submit to the CFPB a compliance plan that ensures their “practices for obtaining Consumer Reports and conducting reinvestigations of disputes [comply] with all applicable federal consumer financial laws, as defined in the CFPA.” Finally, the order prohibits the company from engaging in certain practices, such as the selling or reselling of any consumer report to any person whose purpose for obtaining the report is to consider purchasing any service provided by the defendants, or to generate a lead.
CFPB Enforcement Action Targets Background Check Company's Screening Practices
On October 29, the CFPB announced a consent order with a national employment background screening provider and its affiliate for alleged violations of the FCRA. According to the CFPB, the company and its affiliate failed to (i) use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in reports that they provided to employers; (ii) take appropriate measures to ensure that non-reportable information, such as civil suits and civil judgments older than seven years, was not included in reports; and (iii) comply with the requirement to maintain “strict procedures” to ensure complete and up to date information in reports or notify consumers when the reported information was likely to have an adverse effect on their ability to obtain employment. Under the terms of the consent order, the company and its affiliate are required to provide $10.5 million in relief to consumers and pay a $2.5 million civil money penalty. In addition, the company and its affiliate must revise their compliance procedures and hire an independent consultant to assess their policies, procedures, staffing levels, and systems.
FTC Announces Proposed Settlement with Telecommunications Company for Alleged FCRA Violations
On October 21, the FTC announced a $2.95 million settlement with a telecommunications company for alleged violations of the FCRA. According to the FTC, the company violated the FCRA’s Risk-Based Pricing Rule by failing to provide consumers with a fully compliant risk-based pricing notice when they were placed into a cell phone and data service program with an additional monthly fee because of information from their consumer reports and their credit scores. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that the company (i) failed to provide consumers in the program with required disclosures in their risk-based pricing notices, such as the key factors that adversely affected their credit scores and language encouraging consumers to verify the accuracy of their consumer reports; and (ii) provided consumers with the disclosures only after they have become contractually obligated. In addition to the $2.95 million civil money penalty, the proposed consent order would require the company to (i) abide by the requirements of the Risk-Based Pricing Rule in the future; (ii) provide consumers with the proper disclosures within five days of signing up for the company’s services, or by a certain date that would allow them to avoid recurring charges; and (iii) send the consumers who originally received incomplete disclosures new, corrected risk-based pricing notices. The proposed order is subject to court approval in the District Court for the District of Kansas.
State AGs File Amicus Brief With U.S. Supreme Court in FCRA Standing Case
On September 9, the Massachusetts Attorney General announced that her office, along with 12 other states and the District of Columbia, had filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff-respondent in Spokeo v. Robins. (Previous InfoBytes coverage can be seen here). The putative class-action plaintiff in that case claimed that an online data broker published inaccurate information about him in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Reversing the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the violation of a statutory right created by FCRA was, in itself, a sufficient injury to confer standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution. In their multistate amicus brief, the AGs argued that the Supreme Court should affirm this holding. The states asserted that businesses frequently rely on consumer data profiles to make important credit, employment, housing, and insurance decisions. However, “the damage done by . . . an inaccurate data profile is frequently impossible for the affected consumer to detect or quantify,” they argued. Accordingly, “Congress rightly has authorized statutory damages for a willful violation of the FCRA.” The AGs asserted that, given their limited resources, statutory damage cases and private class actions are needed to supplement their own consumer protection actions.
CFPB Cracks Down on Medical Debt Collector Over Alleged FCRA and FDCPA Violations
On June 18, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against a third-party medical debt collection company for allegedly failing to issue debt validation notices to customers, mishandling consumer credit reporting disputes, and preventing customers from exercising certain debt collection rights. According to the Bureau, from 2011 through 2013, the company failed to properly investigate consumers’ complaints with respect to information furnished to credit reporting agencies, and lacked internal policies and procedures on how to handle and respond to the complaints, resulting in a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In addition, the Bureau contends that the company did not properly inform consumers of the amount of medical debt owed before commencing efforts to obtain payment on the debt, subsequently violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The CFPB ordered the medical debt collector to, among other things, (i) provide over $5 million in restitution to affected consumers, (ii) correct errors in consumer credit reports, (iii) pay a $500,000 civil money penalty, and (iv) improve its business practices.
Supreme Court to Hear Historic FCRA Standing Case During October 2015 Term
On April 27, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a hotly-debated question with potentially far-reaching implications: whether a mere violation of a federal statute, without more, satisfies the “injury-in-fact” standard required for constitutional standing under Article III. The case at issue involves a plaintiff alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); specifically, the plaintiff argued that he suffered actual harm when an online search engine, acting as a credit reporting agency (CRA), published inaccurate information about his background and character in violation of FCRA provisions requiring a CRA to ensure accuracy and provide notice regarding the information it disseminates. The district court ruled that plaintiff failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact without showing more than mere violations of the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the violation of federal statutory rights is sufficient to show constitutional standing, and that a plaintiff need not demonstrate any actual damages in order to file suit. Notably, the Ninth Circuit did not opine that the “harm” alleged by the plaintiff – the online search engine portrayed him as wealthier and more educated than he actually was – affected him economically by impeding his employment prospects.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the widely-followed case has the attention of many. Ten amicus briefs have been filed over the past year, all highlighting the “substantial impact” the Court’s decision could have. Currently, numerous federal statutes allow a plaintiff to recover damages based on statutory violations without a showing of actual or concrete injury, including those prominent in the financial industry such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), among others. Despite the Solicitor General’s recommendation against hearing the case, in which the government argued that courts have traditionally provided redress for statutory violations alone, the Supreme Court’s decision will affect the degree to which consumers and classes can utilize federal statutes to recover without proving additional causal injury. A decision affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision could arguably open the floodgates to “no-injury” lawsuits, coercing defendants to pay millions in damages without a showing of any actual harm. Oral arguments for the case will be heard this coming October, at the beginning of the Court’s 2015 term. Reply and supplemental briefs to the petition can be found here and here, respectively.
Illinois Federal Court Allows FCRA Lawsuit Against Credit Reporting Company to Move Forward
On February 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a credit reporting company’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action which alleged that the company sold credit scores to consumers that differed from the scores the company provided to lenders due to contrasting credit scoring models. The plaintiff alleged this practice violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act, and that the credit reporting company was negligent in failing to inform consumers of the conflicting scores. The credit reporting company sought to compel arbitration on the basis of arbitration terms embedded in language in an online purchase agreement. As part of the purchase process, the consumer had to click on an “I Agree” button after reading agreement language in a window with a scrolling text box. The court found clicking “I Agree” did not constitute assent to the language in the text box because there was a paragraph placed between the text box and the “I Agree” button authorizing the credit reporting company to access the consumer’s personal information. Here, the authorization language was “so explicit that it was reasonable for users to assume that their click merely constituted their assent to the authorization,” not to the terms in the scrollable text box. Because of the confusion about whether the consumer provided consent to the authorization language or to the online purchase agreement’s terms, the court found the arbitration clause unenforceable and allowed the lawsuit against the credit reporting company to move forward.
CFPB Initiative Results in Free Access to Credit Scores, Agency Pledges to Increase Credit Reporting Enforcement Authority
One year after launching an initiative to improve consumer access to credit reporting information, the CFPB announced on February 19 that at least 50 million Americans now have the ability to directly and freely access their credit scores. As a result of the CFPB’s credit score initiative, over a dozen major credit card issuers have elected to provide free credit reports to their cardholders, and more issuers are expected to follow suit. The initiative was launched to emphasize the significance of monitoring credit scores and to make it easier for consumers to keep themselves informed. CFPB Director Richard Cordray applauded the agency’s efforts to increase transparency in this arena in his prepared remarks for Thursday’s Consumer Advisory Board Meeting, stating that improving both the accessibility and accuracy of credit reports is vital to consumers and credit providers alike. Cordray also alluded that the CFPB intends to leverage its enforcement authority to more closely regulate the credit reporting industry, thereby placing creditors, debt collectors, and other businesses that furnish consumer credit information on high alert. “Using our supervision and enforcement authorities,” Cordray said, “we are already bringing significant new improvements to the credit reporting system − and we are only getting started.”
FTC Releases Report on the "Internet of Things"
On January 28, the FTC released a comprehensive report detailing what the so-called “Internet of Things” is, how it is being used, and how both consumers and businesses can protect themselves. The report defines the Internet of Things as “devices or sensors – other than computers, smartphones, or tablets – that connect, store or transmit information with or between each other via the Internet,” and that are sold to or used by consumers. The report focuses on consumer privacy and security and offers a variety of recommendations for those companies offering devices that fall within the definition, including that security be a key part of the design process and data collection be limited where possible. The report does not call for new legislation specific to the Internet of Things because the FTC believes such legislation would be premature. The FTC states that it will use existing authority under laws such as the FTC Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Hi-Tech Act, and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to take actions against Internet of Things products and services as necessary to protect consumers.