Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • FTC reaches $45.5 million settlement with companies over illegal telemarketing calls

    Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security

    On March 16, the FTC and three Utah-based movie companies (defendants) agreed to a proposed stipulated final order settling charges that they violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). In 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint on behalf of the FTC, which alleged defendants engaged in abusive telemarketing practices by making more than 117 million deceptive and unlawful calls to consumers to pitch movies and induce DVD sales in violation of the TSR, including 99 million calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. In 2016, a federal court jury found the defendants guilty of six TSR violations and collectively responsible for the more than 117 million unlawful calls alleged in the complaint. The jury additionally found that the defendants had “actual or implied knowledge of the TSR violations,” meaning that the court was allowed to assess civil penalties under the FTC Act. According to the FTC’s press release, this was the first-ever jury verdict in an action to enforce the TSR and DNC Registry rules.

    The proposed stipulated final order bans the defendants from engaging in the alleged misconduct, orders the defendants to train and monitor its solicitors to ensure compliance with the TSR, and imposes a $45.5 million civil money penalty, of which $487,735 is suspended unless it is determined that the financial statements defendants submitted to the FTC contain any inaccuracies.

    Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security FTC DOJ FTC Act Telemarketing Sales Rule Settlement

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC settles credit card laundering lawsuit

    Federal Issues

    On March 9, the FTC entered into a settlement with a credit card merchant and its individual officer (collectively, “defendants”) relating to an allegedly deceptive credit card telemarketing operation. According to the FTC’s amended complaint, the defendants violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales rule by assisting a telemarketing company in masking its identity by processing the company’s credit card payments through multiple fictitious companies. The FTC previously had banned the telemarketing company from selling fraudulent “work-at-home” opportunities in 2015. The settlement, among other things, prohibits the defendants from processing payments or acting as an independent sales organization. The order also stipulates a judgment of approximately $1.3 million, which will be suspended unless it is determined that the financial statements defendants submitted to the FTC contain any inaccuracies.

    Federal Issues Payment Processors FTC Act Telemarketing Sales Rule FTC Settlement

    Share page with AddThis
  • 10th Circuit upholds TCPA statutory damages as uninsurable under Colorado law

    Courts

    On February 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that under Colorado law, an insurance company had no duty to indemnify and defend its insured against TCPA claims seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief. According to the appellate opinion, the FTC and the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio sued a satellite television company for violations of the TCPA, Telemarking Sales Rule (TSR), and various state laws for telephone calls made to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry (FTC lawsuit). The FTC lawsuit sought statutory damages of up to $1,500 per alleged violation and injunctive relief. The defendant requested that its insurer defend and indemnify it for the claims pursuant to existing policies. The insurance company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that it need not defend or indemnify the company in the FTC lawsuit. The district court determined that there was no coverage for several reasons, including: (i) that the statutory TCPA damages were a “penalty,” rendering them uninsurable under Colorado law; and (ii) that the injunctive relief sought did not qualify as damages under the policies’ definition. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both holdings, concluding that no coverage existed. 

    Courts TCPA Tenth Circuit Appellate Damages Insurance FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule State Issues

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC Seeks Order to Stop Alleged Telemarketing Debt Relief Scam

    Consumer Finance

    On December 4, the FTC announced that it charged two debt relief companies and five individuals with violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) in connection with their sale of “bogus” credit card interest rate reduction services. According to the complaint, the defendants contacted consumers using illegal robocalls and made false guarantees to “substantially and permanently” lower the consumers’ credit card interest rates and/or save the consumer thousands of dollars in interest payments. However, the scheme rarely obtained the promised results. In some instances where consumers did get lower interest rates, those rates were only temporary “teaser” rates that did not result in a permanent rate reduction. In addition, defendants failed to disclose the associated balance transfer fees that accompanied the lower teaser rates. The FTC also charged the defendants with TSR violations for (i) collecting illegal upfront fees; (ii) making illegal robocalls; (iii) contacting consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry; and (iv) not paying the required fees to the Registry. The FTC charged one additional individual defendant with substantially assisting the two debt relief operations with the allegedly illegal conduct. The FTC is seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendants, requesting the appointment of a receiver to control the two corporate entities, and an asset freeze to assist in potential consumer redress.

    Consumer Finance FTC Credit Cards Debt Settlement Telemarketing Sales Rule

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Takes Action Against Largest Debt Settlement Provider

    Consumer Finance

    On November 9, the CFPB announced the filing of a complaint against the largest debt settlement provider in the country and its co-CEO for allegedly deceiving consumers about its debt settlement services. According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by:

    • misleading consumers about the settlement provider’s ability to negotiate with creditors that the settlement provider knew maintained policies against working with settlement companies;
    • instructing consumers to mislead creditors when asked about their participation in a debt settlement program;
    • leading consumers to believe the defendants would negotiate on their behalf when, in fact, some consumers were only “coached” on how to negotiate settlements on their own;
    • misleading consumers by charging them the full fee when creditors stop collection efforts without the defendants taking any action despite advertising that the fee is only charged if settlement is negotiated by the settlement provider and payments begin under the terms of a settlement; and
    • failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose consumers’ rights to refunds from their deposit accounts if they leave the settlement program.

    The CFPB is seeking monetary relief, civil money penalties, and injunctive relief against the defendants.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Debt Collection Enforcement Debt Settlement Telemarketing Sales Rule CFPA

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Takes Action Against Debt Relief Companies for Allegedly Violating the TSR and Claiming to be Affiliated With the Federal Government

    Consumer Finance

    On October 12, the CFPB announced the filing of a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two companies, their service provider, and their owners (defendants) for allegedly misleading consumers about their debt validation program. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly engaged in abusive and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by purportedly (i) charging advance fees for debt-relief services before altering the terms of the consumers’ debts or achieving promised results; (ii) misrepresenting the abilities of their debt-relief and credit-repair services; (iii) failing to disclose to consumer that if they stopped making payments on debts enrolled in the service they may be subject to collections or lawsuits from creditors that could increase the overall amount of money owed due to fees and interest; and (iv) misrepresenting an affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship with the federal government by using direct mailers designed to look like an official government notice.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Debt Relief Enforcement CFPA Telemarketing Sales Rule UDAAP

    Share page with AddThis
  • Senate Special Committee Hearing Focuses on Continuing Efforts to Combat Illegal Robocalls

    Federal Issues

    On October 4, the Senate Special Committee on Aging (Committee) held a hearing entitled “Still Ringing Off the Hook: An Update on Efforts to Combat Robocalls” to discuss efforts to combat illegal robocalls. Committee Chairman Susan M. Collins (R-Me.) opened the hearing by reinforcing the importance of utilizing technology not only to block robocalls but to better understand the scams that continue to impact consumers. Sen. Collins also stressed the positive impact “aggressive law enforcement” has had on these efforts.

    According to a hearing-related press release issued by the FTC, the Commission received more than 3.4 million robocall complaints from consumers in 2016 and at least another 3.5 million complaints between January and August 2017. The FTC’s ongoing efforts to address these complaints include: (i) initiating enforcement actions targeting robocall violators; (ii) cooperating with law enforcement at the state, federal, and international level to develop solutions to prevent and detect calls; and (iii) as previously discussed in InfoBytes, publicly posting robocall numbers received from consumer complaints to help enable industry groups develop call-blocking solutions. The following four witnesses offered testimony on industry and state efforts to protect consumers from scams and increase education efforts.

    • Ms. Lois C. Greismann, Associate Director of the Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC (testimony);
    • The Honorable Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania Attorney General (testimony);
    • Mr. Kevin Rupy, Vice President for Law and Public Policy, USTelecom (testimony); and
    • Ms. Genie Barton, President, BBB Institute for Marketplace Trust (testimony).

    Federal Issues Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule U.S. Senate State Attorney General

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC Announces Two Separate Settlements to Resolve Allegedly Deceptive Telemarketing Schemes

    Consumer Finance

    On September 1, the FTC issued a press release announcing a settlement with a Utah-based operation and its owner (Defendants) to resolve allegations that the company had created merchant accounts to help telemarketers process consumer credit card transactions in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). According to the complaint, Defendants nominated individuals to serve as “principals” of straw companies, which then were used to open merchant accounts to assist telemarketers who did not meet the requirements or standards for opening the accounts on their own. The telemarketers, in turn, allegedly deceived consumers by making false promises regarding business opportunities that they claimed would generate substantial income, and processed credit card payments from consumers using the straw company merchant accounts for the allegedly “worthless opportunities.” Under the terms of the order, Defendants are permanently banned from the payment processing business, including acting as an independent sales organization or sales agent, and must pay a judgment of more than $3 million. The FTC suspended the judgment due to the Defendants’ inability to pay, but noted that it “will become due immediately if [Defendants] are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.”

    Separately on August 31, the FTC announced that a default judgment had been issued in a pending action brought against the operators of a deceptive telemarketing scheme who allegedly targeted Spanish-speaking consumers by pretending to be affiliated with the Peruvian government and deceived consumers by giving the impression that the calls were from emergency responders or by people the consumers had provided as references. The allegations, which violated the FTC Act and the TSR, claimed that consumers were presented opportunities to participate in language courses at discounted prices and were misled about prizes they had won. When consumers declined to participate or cancelled delivery of the prizes, the telemarketers made “false and threatening” claims of “legal or financial consequences,” allegedly posing as lawyers or government officials. Under the terms of the default judgment, the telemarketers (i) are ordered to pay $6.3 million as equitable monetary relief; (ii) are banned from telemarketing activities; and (iii) prohibited from misrepresenting material facts.

    Consumer Finance FTC Enforcement Telemarketing Sales Rule FTC Act Settlement

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Proposes Permanent Ban on Credit Repair Company for Misleading Consumers, Illegal Fees

    Consumer Finance

    On August 30, the CFPB and a credit repair company requested a California federal court to enter a final judgment and order to end the CFPB’s lawsuit against the company. The Bureau claimed that the company had violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 and the Telemarketing Sales Rule among other things. According to a CFPB press release, the company “[c]harged illegal advance fees”; “[m]isled consumers about the benefits of its credit repair services”; “[m]isrepresented the costs of its services”; and “[f]ailed to disclose limits on ‘money-back guarantee.’” As previously reported in InfoBytes, the CFPB filed similar proposed final judgments against other credit repair companies for largely the same reasons.

    In addition to permanently prohibiting the defendant from working in the credit repair industry, the proposed settlement also requests a civil money penalty of $150,000.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Telemarketing Sales Rule CFPA Enforcement

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC Files Complaint Against Operators of Online Discount Clubs and Payment Processors for Allegedly Debiting More Than $40 Million from Consumers Without Their Consent

    Consumer Finance

    On August 16, the FTC issued a press release announcing charges against the operators of a group of marketing entities and payment processors (Defendants) for allegedly violating numerous laws when they enrolled consumers into online discount clubs and debited more than $40 million from consumers’ bank accounts for membership without their authorization. According to the August 15 complaint, several of the Defendants promoted their respective online discount club through websites and telemarking calls to offer services to consumers in need of payday, cash advance, or installment loans. Other Defendants then used “Remotely Created Payment Orders” and “Remotely Created Checks” without the consumers’ authorization to debit their bank accounts for the initial application fee as well as automatically-recurring monthly fees. Notably, during the period when one of the discount clubs was launched, several of the Defendants were facing contempt proceedings for allegedly violating a 2008 stipulated final order with the FTC in another deceptive debiting scam. The Defendants purportedly, among other things, (i) engaged in unfair billing practices; (ii) made false, misleading, and deceptive statements when they represented, “directly or indirectly,” to consumers seeking refunds that they were not entitled to a refund because the entities possessed personal and financial information, which served to confirm that the consumers agreed to “purchase the products or services” or authorize money to be debited from their bank accounts; and (iii) provided “substantial assistance or support” in the way of payment processing services while knowing—or “consciously avoiding knowing”—that the actions being supported were in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC also claims that hundreds of thousands of consumers called to cancel their memberships and request refunds, with thousands more informing their banks about the unauthorized debits. Additionally, more than 99.5 percent of consumers enrolled in a discount clubs apparently never accessed a single coupon—“the only service for which they had supposedly paid.”

    Consumer Finance FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule Fraud UDAAP

    Share page with AddThis

Pages