InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants class certification in FDCPA suit
On April 27, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in an action against a consumer debt buyer (defendant) for allegedly violating the FDCPA by stating that a judgment may be awarded prior to the expiration of a settlement offer, even though a collection lawsuit was not filed. According to the opinion, the plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant that offered a “discount program” for his “Legal Collections account without any further legal action,” which had to be accepted within a month. The letter also stated that “[a] judgment could be awarded by the court before the expiration of the discount offer listed in this letter,” despite the fact that at the time the letter was received, there were no pending court cases in which a judgment could be entered against the plaintiff. After receiving the letter, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA by making false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations about the debt. Among other things, the defendant argued that the size of the class would be impossible to ascertain because identifying class members would require individualized inquiries into who received a letter and when. By holding that the FDCPA violation occurred when a letter was sent rather than when it was received, the court rejected the defendant’s argument and ruled instead that individualized inquiry is not necessary. According to the district court, “[r]eviewing this information will, of course, require some level of individualized inquiry. But the need for file-by-file review to identify class members is not fatal to class certification.” The district court further noted that “[c]ourts and parties must be able to determine accrual dates with some degree of certainty,” and “[t[he date of receipt may often be impossible to determine, particularly where the recipient is an individual as opposed to a commercial entity.”
Michigan Court of Appeals affirms dismissal of post-judgment interest case, says state court rule precludes class actions
On April 21, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a post-judgment interest putative class action after concluding that a court rule that precludes “‘actions’ based on claimed violations of statutes that permit[ ] recovery of statutory damages in lieu of actual damages” necessitated the dismissal of the plaintiff’s class action claim. According to the opinion, after the plaintiff defaulted on her $900 credit card debt, the debt was assigned to the defendant debt collector who calculated the plaintiff’s unpaid balance to be $6,241.20. The defendant sought judgment against the plaintiff in that amount, plus interest, fees, and costs, and obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff after she did not respond. The defendant consequently obtained several writs of garnishment, all of which indicated that post-judgment interest had been added to the debt. Several years later, the plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA) by overstating how much she owed “and by impermissibly inflating [defendant’s] costs and the amount of interest it charged.” The state trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s class action claims with prejudice on the basis that Michigan Court Rules (MCR) preclude her from recovering statutory damages under the RCPA because the RCPA does not explicitly permit class actions. The court also dismissed her individual claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it dismissed her class action claims under MCR because she also sought equitable relief and actual damages; however, the Michigan Court of Appeals pointed to a provision in the MCR that states “[a]n action for a penalty or minimum amount of recovery without regard to actual damages imposed or authorized by statute may not be maintained as a class action unless the statute specifically authorizes its recovery in a class action.” The Court of Appeals explained that the RCPA is implicated under this rule because (i) it permits the recovery of statutory damages; and (ii) does not contain a provision explicitly permitting class actions, and as such, “plaintiff’s class action claims must be dismissed irrespective of the fact that she also sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and actual damages.” The Court of Appeals further held that even if the plaintiff attempted to plead individual claims, the case would not be allowed to proceed because the actual damages in this case are not high enough to meet the jurisdictional minimum amount in Michigan.
CFPB releases medical debt report
On April 20, the CFPB released a report analyzing complaints submitted to the Bureau in 2021 regarding medical billing, collection, and consumer reporting practices. The report describes the difficulties that consumers face in identifying, verifying, or eliminating the debt. The report also noted that most of the complaints could be sorted into two main themes: (1) the debt was already paid, does not belong to the consumer in question, or is otherwise incorrect, and (2) that information included in collection notices raised concerns. According to the Bureau, key findings of the report include, among other things: (i) from 2018 to 2021, complaints regarding collection attempts on medical bills that were not owed increased by 31 percent; (ii) approximately 15 percent of debt collection complaints in 2021 were about attempts to collect a medical bill; and (iii) “consumers often expressed surprise and frustration about finding out about old or small medical debts when checking their credit report.” The report is the most recent among statements and reports from the CFPB regarding medical debts and credit reporting. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in March the CFPB released a report, Medical Debt Burden in the United States, that cited research finding that $88 billion in medical debt on consumer credit reports, accounting for 58 percent of all uncollected debt tradelines reported to credit reporting agencies.
District Court lowers punitive damages award in FCRA dispute
On April 8, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied in part and granted in part a defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial, after concluding that the debt collector violated the FCRA by incorrectly reporting medical debts on the plaintiff’s credit reports despite allegedly receiving 31 separate disputes challenging the validity of the debt. The plaintiff contended that the medical debts in question belonged to his father, and that due to the inaccurate reporting, he was denied credit by two lenders. At trial, after finding that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the plaintiff’s FCRA disputes as required by the statute, a jury awarded the plaintiff $80,000 in actual damages and $700,000 in punitive damages for willful violations. The defendant challenged the award and requested a new trial, arguing that the court improperly admitted hearsay testimony, that the plaintiff failed to prove he suffered emotional damage, and that the jury’s punitive damages award was too high.
The court denied defendant’s request for a new trial, finding that the plaintiff suffered emotional damages and that the “verdict could be supported ‘without considering the challenged testimony.’” With respect to the amount of punitive damages awarded, the court concluded that the defendant’s actions were “highly reprehensible” and “callous” in the way it processed consumers’ disputes. However, in comparing the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages in other cases, the court determined that $700,000 was too high based on the actual damages award and lowered the punitive damages to $475,000 to be consistent with Eleventh Circuit law. The court concluded, “to be sure, the high punitive damages award likely reflects the jury’s assessment of Defendant’s callous behavior throughout the eighteen months of processing Plaintiff’s approximately thirty disputes, and Defendant’s employees’ testimony which confirmed that such treatment would likely repeatedly occur with countless other consumers,” adding that “given the size of [the defendant], and the number of disputes handled annually, it is not surprising that the jury deemed a high punitive damages award necessary to send the Defendant a deterrence message.”
CFPB questions transcript withholding as a debt collection practice
On April 18, the CFPB announced it is examining the practice of transcript withholding as a debt collection practice. According to a Bureau blog post, many post-secondary institutions choose to withhold official transcripts from borrowers as an attempt to collect education-related debts ranging from student loans to library fines. “Withholding transcripts as a debt collection tactic is particularly perplexing, as it can undermine rather than enhance a student’s likelihood of repaying,” the Bureau said, noting that this practice can cause students to become stuck in a cycle of collections. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau announced in January that it plans to examine the operations of post-secondary schools that extend private loans directly to students and that are not subject to the same servicing oversight as other lenders and servicers. The Bureau noted that it is “concerned about the borrower experience with institutional loans because of past abuses at schools,” high interest rates, and debt collection practices.
CFPB and FTC release 2021 FDCPA report
On April 15, the CFPB and the FTC released their annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA (see announcements here and here). The agencies are delegated joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and, pursuant to a 2019 memorandum of understanding, may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the annual report provided a broad overview of the debt collection industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and highlighted enforcement actions taken by, and education and outreach efforts, policy initiatives, and supervisory findings of, the CFPB and FTC. With respect to enforcement, the report noted that: (i) the FTC resolved three FDCPA cases against 17 defendants and banned all 17 companies and individuals who engaged in serious and repeated violations of law from engaging in debt collection; (ii) there was one new public enforcement action brought in 2021 related to unlawful debt collection conduct; (iii) the Bureau resolved two pending lawsuits with FDCPA claims and also filed an action to recover a fraudulent transfer to enforce a prior judgment that penalized a defendant’s FDCPA violations, which resulted in judgments for $2.26 million in consumer redress; and (iv) by the end of 2021, the Bureau had three FDCPA enforcement actions pending in federal court. The report also noted that the CFPB handled roughly 121,700 debt collection complaints in 2021, of which the Bureau sent approximately 73,600 (or 60 percent) to companies for their review and response. Finally, the report also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC “made it much more difficult for the FTC to obtain monetary relief for unfair or deceptive debt collection practices that fall outside the scope of the FDCPA.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in that decision the Court unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.”
Massachusetts settles with financial company
On April 13, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a settlement with a California-based finance company (defendant) resolving allegations that it violated Massachusetts law by purchasing and collecting on dog leases – which are illegal in Massachusetts. The settlement also alleges that the company engaged in illegal debt collection practices such as calling debtors too frequently while attempting to collect on the leases. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant must pay over $930,000, which includes $175,000 in restitution to approximately 200 consumers, and a $50,000 fine. The defendant is prohibited from collecting on any active leases involving dogs in Massachusetts and must transfer full ownerships of the dogs to the consumers. The defendant must also cancel any outstanding amount owed on the leases, totaling approximately $700,000.
The Massachusetts AG has been investigating financial companies who originate or purchase dog leases – calling the practice “exploitive” because it uses “dogs as emotional leverage” over debtors – and encouraged consumers who are victims of dog leases to call the AG’s office or to file a complaint online.
District Court rules “informational harm” does not create standing in FDCPA case
On April 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a defendant law firm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a putative class action, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim for abusive debt collection under the FDCPA. The plaintiff incurred a debt that was placed with a collection agency. The collection agency sent the plaintiff a letter, to which the plaintiff sent three letters disputing the debt and requesting validation of the debt as well as the agency’s authority to collect on the debt. According to the plaintiff, she never received the requested verification. The original creditor eventually hired the defendant to collect the debt. The defendant sent its own letter enclosing verification of the debt. The plaintiff sued alleging the defendant’s letter violated Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA, which requires debt collection efforts to cease after timely dispute of a debt until the debt collector provides verification of the debt to the debtor. According to the plaintiff, her previous requests for validation triggered obligations under Section 1692g(b) with respect to the defendant, thus obligating the defendant to cease collection efforts until the validation information was provided to the plaintiff. She also asserted violations of Section 1692(e) on the grounds that an attorney did not meaningfully review her file before the defendant’s letter was sent. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on two grounds: lack of standing and failure to state a claim that defendant violated the FDCPA.
The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to show an injury-in-fact, as required for Article IIII standing, and instead only alleged informational harm including confusion caused by the defendant’s letter. The court held that confusion is not a legally cognizable injury and found that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer a cognizable injury.
NYDFS addresses “potential confusion” over new consumer credit transaction SOL
On April 7, NYDFS issued guidance to debt collectors addressing potential confusion about how to comply with the notice requirements of 23 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1.3(b) that went into effect April 7. The new amendments are set forth in Section 4 of the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (which was enacted last November and was covered by InfoBytes here), and address the statute of limitations (SOL) applicable to actions arising out of consumer credit transactions. Specifically, Section 214-i provides that “when the applicable limitations period expires, any subsequent payment toward, written or oral affirmation of or other activity on the debt does not revive or extend the limitation period.” The amendments also decreased the SOL period to three years and requires additional notices to be made. While the guidance provides sample disclosure statements that address each of the requirements under § 1.3(b), NYDFS states that “23 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1.3 does not prohibit debt collectors from adding explanatory language to the model disclosure language set forth in § 1.3(c) or using their own language to comply with § 1.3(b).”
NYDFS’ guidance follows letters sent last month by the New York attorney general to several large credit card companies and major debt collectors operating in the state, which reminded entities about the new obligations and disclosures that will be required when filing collection lawsuits against consumers starting May 7. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Idaho updates licensing provisions for debt collection agencies
On March 31, the Idaho governor signed HB 610, which amends existing law to revise certain requirements for collection agencies and applicants for licensure. The amendments remove the prior requirement that applicants and licensees must designate an experienced individual to serve as in charge of the licensee’s collection agency business. Additionally, the bill now permits collection agencies to collect incidental charges if they are included in the contract between the creditor and the debtor, with some exceptions. The bill also establishes licensing efficiencies by requiring the use of an “electronic system of licensing as prescribed by the director” and permitting the reinstatement of an expired license. The bill is effective July 1.