InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases complaint snapshot on debt collection
On May 31, the CFPB released a complaint snapshot on debt collection, which provides a high-level overview of trends from all consumer complaints and additional details related to debt collection complaints. The CFPB reports that it has received approximately 1,492,600 total complaints as of April 1, and that “credit or consumer reporting” was the most-complained-about category in March 2018. As for debt collection, the Bureau received approximately 400,500 debt collection complaints since July 21, 2011, 27 percent of the total number of complaints. The report also highlights common themes among debt collection complaints, including (i) debts being listed on credit reports without prior written notice of the existence of the debt; (ii) debt collection companies not responding to requests for additional information; and (iii) various communication tactics used by debt collection companies, including frequent and repeated calls, calls before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m., and calls after requests for no further telephone contact.
OCC encourages banks to offer short-term, small-dollar installment lending
On May 23, the OCC released Bulletin 2018-14, which encourages banks to meet the credit needs of consumers by offering short-term, small-dollar installment loans subject to the OCC’s core lending principles. The Bulletin acknowledges the CFPB’s final rule on Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-cost Installment Loans (Payday Rule) – which generally covers loans with maturities shorter than 45 days or longer-term loans with balloon payments – and states the OCC intends on working with the Bureau to ensure banks can “can responsibly engage in consumer lending, including lending products covered by the Payday Rule.”
Specifically, the Bulletin encourages banks to offer loans without balloon payments and with maturities greater than 45 days subject to three core lending principles: (i) the product should be consistent with safe and sound banking, treat customers fairly, and comply with all applicable laws and regulations; (ii) banks should effectively manage risks associated with the product; and (iii) the product should be underwritten based on reasonable policies and practices, such as amount and repayment terms aligning with eligibility, use internal and external data sources to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness, and loan servicing processes that assist distressed borrowers. Additionally, with regard to pricing, the Bulletin stated that the “OCC views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entity’s licensing state(s).”
Immediately after the OCC’s release, the CFPB issued a statement applauding the Bulletin because “[m]illions of Americans desperately need access to short-term, small-dollar credit.” In January, the CFPB stated it plans to reconsider the Payday Rule and the Spring 2018 rulemaking agenda indicates the Bureau expects a notice of proposed rulemaking to be issued by February 2019 (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here).
Arizona prohibits gift card fees and certain expiration dates
On April 17, the Arizona governor signed SB 1264, which prohibits the issuance or sale of gift cards in Arizona that are subject to fees or certain expiration dates. Arizona previously allowed gift cards to be subject to an expiration date, a fee, or both as long as the relevant information was clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer before the purchase was made. SB 1264 prohibits gift cards from begin subject to a fee and prohibits the underlying money on a gift card from being subject to an expiration date. The law allows an expiration date with respect to the card, code, or device associated with a gift card, only if the gift card contains a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the underlying monies associated with the card do not expire and the consumer may obtain a replacement. The prohibition on gift card fees and expiration dates does not apply to (i) gift cards that are sold below face value or donated to nonprofit or charitable organizations; (ii) gift cards distributed pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotion program when the consumer has given no money or other property in exchange for the card; and (iii) cards for prepaid telecommunications services, electronic funds transfer cards, bank-issued debit or general purpose reloadable prepaid cards not marketed or labeled as gift cards or gift certificates. The law becomes effective 91 days after the end of the legislative session.
FTC and Florida Attorney General settle with debt relief scammers
On April 12, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General announced an $85 million settlement with three individuals who allegedly sold fake debt relief services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May 2017, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General filed a complaint against the individuals for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, consumers, after collectively paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for promised debt-consolidation services marketed by the individuals, discovered their debts were unpaid, their accounts had defaulted, and their credit scores damaged. Under the proposed orders (here and here), all three marketers are restrained and enjoined from “advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling” credit repair products and services, debt relief products and services, and financial products and services. The $85 million judgment is held jointly and severally against each of the individuals with a suspended judgment for two if all material assets are surrendered. The judgment for the third individual, considered the ringleader of the operation, is not suspended and the individual is still required to surrender all material assets.
DOJ sues California subprime auto lender for alleged SCRA violations
On March 28, the DOJ filed a complaint in the Central District of California against a California-based indirect auto lending company (defendant) for allegedly repossessing servicemembers’ vehicles in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The allegations stem from an investigation into the defendant’s practices after an Army Private submitted a complaint to the DOJ in 2016. The DOJ’s investigation concluded that the defendant repossessed the vehicle without obtaining a court order or confirming whether the servicemember was SCRA-protected. According to the DOJ’s complaint, its investigation revealed that the defendant allegedly failed to have policies or practices in place to verify borrowers’ military status before repossessing vehicles. As such, the DOJ believes that the defendant may have repossessed vehicles of other servicemembers without obtaining the necessary court others or verifying military status. The DOJ contends that the defendant’s conduct was “intentional, willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of servicemembers.” In addition to monetary damages, the DOJ seeks civil monetary penalties and injunctive relief.
CFPB and FTC issue annual report on 2017 debt collection activities
On March 20, the CFPB and the FTC issued an annual report to Congress on the agencies’ collective actions to combat illegal debt collection practices based on their shared enforcement responsibilities under the FDCPA. The report was released pursuant to a 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the CFPB and the FTC that provides for coordination in enforcement, supervision, and consumer education. According to the report, the agencies’ actions against debt collectors include:
- CFPB. In addition to handling approximately 84,500 debt collection complaints in 2017, the CFPB reports it resolved one FDCPA enforcement case (previously covered by InfoBytes here) and filed two other complaints alleging FDCPA violations (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here). The Bureau also notes it uncovered a number of actions that the agency’s examiners deemed to be violations of the FDCPA, such as impermissible communications with third parties and implying authorized users are responsible for debt on the account. As for the Bureau’s pending FDCPA rulemaking, the report notes that the CFPB is still considering feedback from stakeholders regarding the July 2016 outline of proposals under consideration.
- FTC. The agency reports it obtained more than $64 million in judgments based on alleged violations of the FDCPA or the FTC Act and emphasized the FTC’s specific focus on phantom debt actions. In addition to working to educate consumers about their rights with regard to debt collection, the FTC emphasized multiple permanent injunctions, which prevent companies and individuals from working in the debt collection field again. As for research, the agency highlighted its July 2017 Military Consumer Financial Workshop, which covered debt collection as an issue faced by the military community (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
FTC and New York Attorney General announce orders banning debt collection operations from related activities
On March 22, the New York Attorney General’s office and the FTC announced settlements with the operators of an allegedly abusive debt collection scheme, resolving lawsuits filed in 2015. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to the FTC, the operators and associated companies allegedly violated the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and New York state laws prohibiting deceptive acts and practices by using abusive language and making false threats that consumers would be arrested or sued in order to collect the supposed debts. The stipulated final orders impose combined judgments of over $48.7 million to be partially suspended upon the surrender of certain assets, including more than $1 million in corporate and individual assets. In addition to barring the operators from the debt collection business and from buying or selling debt, the orders further prohibit them from misrepresenting financial products and services or benefiting from consumers’ personal information collected in connection with the challenged practices.
FDIC fines Delaware-based bank for unfair and deceptive practices
On March 7, the FDIC announced that a Delaware-based bank agreed to settle allegations of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for assessing transaction fees in excess of what the bank previously had disclosed. The FDIC also found that the bank’s practices violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth in Savings Act, and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. According to the FDIC, from December 2010 through November 2014, the bank overcharged transaction fees to consumers who used prepaid and certain reloadable debit cards to make point-of-sale, signature-based transactions that did not require the use of a personal identification number. The transaction fees allegedly exceeded what the bank had disclosed to consumers. Under the terms of the settlement order, the bank will, among other things, (i) establish a $1.3 million restitution fund for eligible consumers; (ii) prepare a comprehensive restitution plan and retain an independent auditor to determine compliance with that plan; and (iii) provide the FDIC with quarterly written progress reports detailing its compliance with the settlement order. The settlement also requires the bank to pay a civil money penalty of $2 million.
FTC announces resolution of an action against the final defendant in a debt collection operation
On March 5, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a default judgment against the final defendant of a debt collection operation accused of violating the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collections Practices Act by allegedly posing as lawyers and threating individuals with lawsuits or prison time if they failed to pay debt they did not actually owe. (See InfoBytes coverage here on previously issued order against three other co-defendants.) Under the terms of the January 23 order, the defendant is prohibited from, among other things, (i) engaging in debt collection activities; (ii) buying or selling consumer or commercial debt; (iii) misrepresenting material facts regarding financial-related products or services; (iv) misrepresenting an affiliation with an attorney or law firm; (v) disclosing, using, or benefiting from consumers’ personal information; and (vi) improperly disposing of consumers’ information. In addition, the court assessed a $702,059 fine, jointly and severally with the co-defendants.
CFPB reviews removal of public records from credit reports
On February 22, the CFPB released a report finding that the removal of public records from consumer credit reports may have had an effect on consumers’ credit scores. The report reviewed the impact of the civil public records minimum information standards established pursuant to the National Consumer Assistance Plan (NCAP) – an initiative launched by the top three U.S. credit reporting agencies (CRAs) as a result of settlement agreements between the CRAs and over 30 state attorneys general. Starting in July 2017, the NCAP required public records furnished to the CRAs to include a name, address, and social security number and/or date of birth and required the records be refreshed every 90 days. According to the report, prior to the NCAP, six percent of consumers had a civil judgment or tax lien on their credit report; and after the NCAP implementation, the CFPB found that only 1.4 percent of consumers had a tax lien on their credit report and zero consumers had civil judgments. However, the report notes that while there was a significant drop in the overall reporting of public records, only six percent of those affected by the NCAP new reporting requirements, experienced an increase from “deep subprime or subprime credit scores in June before the standards took effect and rose to near prime or above in September.” The CFPB noted in a blog release that the Bureau cannot assess scoring-model accuracy because it requires two years of data following the implementation of new standards to perform the analysis.