InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court says letter’s disclosure did not violate FDCPA
On January 14, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector accused of violating the FDCPA in a consolidated action concerning disclosure language used in a letter sent to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who had previously been sued by the defendant, hired an attorney who sent a letter to the defendant requesting additional information about the plaintiffs’ debts. The defendant responded and included in its letter a disclosure that stated, “This communication is from a debt collector but is not an attempt to collect a debt. Notice: See Reverse Side for Important Information.” The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the disclosure was a “‘false representation or deceptive means’ used to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)” because “the letter was, indeed, an attempt to collect a debt.” The court disagreed. The court held that “[t]he letters do not demand payment, offer alternatives to default, or request financial information,” and noted that “[i]n fact, the letters make no request of any kind from the debtors,” and that“[t]he letters contain contact information, but do not offer any means of making payment on the alleged debt and expressly disclaim that the letter is an ‘attempt to collect a debt.’” Moreover, the court found that because the defendant’s letter was sent in response to a request from the plaintiffs’ attorney, it could not be considered an attempt to collect a debt. In addition, the court ruled that two new theories put forward in plaintiffs’ summary judgment were procedurally barred.
CFPB issues guidance on medical debt covered by the NSA
On January 13, the CFPB released a new Bulletin to remind debt collectors and credit reporting agencies (CRAs) of their legal obligations under the FDCPA and the FCRA when collecting, furnishing information about, and reporting medical debts covered by the No Surprises Act (NSA). Effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, the NSA establishes new federal protections against surprise medical bills arising out of certain out-of-network emergency care. The CFPB notes that medical debt often poses special risks to consumers as consumers are “rarely informed of the costs of medical treatment in advance” and are “generally ill suited to the task of identifying [medical] billing errors.” Specifically, the Bulletin reminds debt collectors of the FDCPA prohibition against “false representation of the ‘character, amount, or legal status of any debt’” and the use of any “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” According to the Bulletin, these would include “misrepresenting that a consumer must pay a debt stemming from a charge that exceeds the amount permitted by the [NSA].” The Bulletin also reminded debt collectors, as furnishers of information to CRAs, and the CRAs themselves of their obligations under the FCRA to assure the accuracy of information furnished or included in a consumer report, as well as to “conduct reasonable and timely investigations of consumer disputes to verify the accuracy of furnished information.” The Bulletin clarified that the accuracy and dispute obligations imposed by the FCRA “apply with respect to debts stemming from charges that exceed the amount permitted” by the NSA. The Bulletin further offered several examples of acts or practices that may be violative of the FDCPA and/or the FCRA in connection with medical debt covered by the NSA. According to the Bulletin, the CFPB “will hold debt collectors accountable for failing to comply with the FDCPA and Regulation F, and it will hold CRAs and furnishers accountable for failing to comply with the FCRA and Regulation V.” The Bureau also noted that it “will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other partners to address medical debt abuses.”
District Court denies plaintiff’s motion to remand FDCPA
On December 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a plaintiff’s motion to remand, ruling that a default judgment allegedly obtained fraudulently in an underlying collection lawsuit qualifies as a concrete injury in fact to the plaintiff in an FDCPA suit. According to the order, the plaintiff sued the defendants, a process server and its employee, for fraudulently certifying that service of process had been made to the plaintiff in a state debt collection action and obtaining a default judgment against the plaintiff as a result, which the plaintiff described as engaging in the practice of “sewer service.” The plaintiff sued the defendants in state court and the action was removed to federal court by the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand for lack of standing, claiming that his complaint “does not sufficiently allege a concrete harm to confer [Article III] standing to Plaintiff” because the complaint “solely asserts a bare procedural violation of the [FDCPA].” While “Article III requires plaintiff to show ‘(i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief,’” the court noted that the plaintiff’s argument “focuses only on the ‘concreteness’ of the ‘injury in fact.’” Applying the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s two-step framework for determining whether a statutory violation is a “concrete” harm, and considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez decision (covered by InfoBytes here), the court found that the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged a “concrete” injury in fact for alleged violations of the FDCPA arising from alleged sewer service.
Specifically, the court indicated that the 9th Circuit’s first step requires the court “‘[t]o identify the interests protected by the FDCPA’ by examining the ‘[h]istorical practice’ and the ‘legislative judgment’ underlying the provisions at issue’” and determine whether “the FDCPA ‘provisions at issue were established to protect the plaintiff’s concrete interests.’” Although the defendants failed to identify any historical or common-law practices, the court found that legislative history of the FDCPA indicates that Congress enacted the statute to protect consumers from abusive collection practices, which include engaging in sewer service. The court further cited to district courts’ decisions concluding that “the ‘FDCPA codifies Plaintiff's concrete interest in being free from abusive debt collection practices.’” Turning to step two of the 9th Circuit’s framework, the court considered whether the sewer service allegations present a material risk of harm that had materialized and “actually harm[ed] Plaintiff’s interests under the FDCPA.” The court found that the “Complaint sufficiently allege[d] that the risk of harm to Plaintiff’s concrete interests materialized” because the “Complaint plead[ed] that the fraudulent proof of service specifically targeted Plaintiff, advanced the state debt collection action against Plaintiff to a stage where default judgment was pending, and caused Plaintiff to obtain legal representation to defend Plaintiff in the state debt collection action [which] do more than present a ‘risk of harm’ to Plaintiff’s interests under step two.” On this basis, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the action.
CFPB sues debt collectors
On January 10, the CFPB filed a complaint against three debt collection companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in illegal debt-collection practices. According to the Bureau, the defendants purchase debt portfolios and place them with other collection companies or sell them. The complaint states that from September 2017 through April 2020, the defendants placed debts valued at more than $8 billion and asserts that the defendants knew or should have known that these third-party collection companies were engaging in unlawful and deceptive debt collection measures. The Bureau alleges the defendants were aware of the companies’ false statements to consumers because they received hundreds of complaints from consumers claiming the companies were threating to arrest or file lawsuits if the consumers’ debts were not paid imminently, and the defendants received recorded phone calls alerting them to the companies’ threats and false statements regarding credit reporting. Further, the Bureau claims that the defendants continued to place debts with and sold debts to these companies even after an internal review found major violations of federal law. The Bureau’s complaint, which alleges violations of the CFPA and the FDCPA, seeks consumer restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and civil money penalties.
DFPI adopts debt collector license application and requirements
On December 22, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) adopted regulations, beginning at section 1850, title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, under the Debt Collection Licensing Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, DFPI issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to incorporate changes to its debt collection licensing requirements and application. Among other things, the regulations set forth the: (i) application form and procedures for filing a license application through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry (NMLS); (ii) requirements for a licensee to maintain information filed through the NMLS current; and (iii) procedures for surrendering a license as a debt collector.
DFPI acknowledges challenges in obtaining a NMLS account
On December 23, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a notice on its website regarding DFPI’s awareness of a “temporary slowdown in obtaining a new Nationwide Multistate Licensing System or NMLS account.” DFPI noted that it is “working cooperatively with the NMLS team to be able to verify those that have attempted to apply.” DFPI observed that “[w]ith various DFPI year-end deadlines, the NMLS team is experiencing an unprecedented volume of account requests.” DFPI further acknowledged the “predicament this puts entities in who are trying to comply with the new debt collector licensing requirement to apply for a license by Dec. 31, 2021,” and stated it “will not take any action against a debt collector solely on the basis of the temporary slowdown with NMLS.”
New York reduces judgment interest on debts
On December 31, the New York governor signed S5724A, which amends the civil practice law and rules relating to the rate of interest applicable to money judgments arising out of consumer debt. Specifically, the bill provides that the interest rate that can be charged on unpaid money judgments is 2 percent and applies to judgments involving consumer debt, which is defined as “any obligation or alleged obligation of any natural person to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family or household purposes […], including, but not limited to, a consumer credit transaction, as defined in [section 105(f) of the civil practice law and rules].” The bill is effective April 30.
New York AG settlement cancels debt
On December 29, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with a New York-based off-campus private student housing provider (respondent) for allegedly deceiving hundreds of students, primarily at a New York state college, since 2019. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the respondent, among other things: (i) routinely collected interested students’ information; (ii) persuaded students to sign leases without first determining certain qualifications; (iii) denied students access to housing; (vi) alleged students owed thousands in rent; and (v) referred students to debt collectors. The respondent also allegedly charged students excess rent and fees and disclosed to some students that they could get out of their lease if they found another student to take it over, but then unlawfully charged a $300 “delegation” fee. The respondent allegedly at times permitted some students to prepay rent if it believed they did not meet certain qualification criteria, in violation of state rent laws, and charged certain students excessive late fees for each month of rent that was not timely paid. The terms of the settlement cancels more than $200,000 in improper debts, recovers $65,958 in restitution, and imposes a $50,000 civil penalty on the respondent. The settlement also prohibits the respondent from committing fraudulent and predatory practices in the future.
7th Circuit: Collector did not violate FCRA by obtaining a “propensity-to-pay score”
On December 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector in an FCRA action alleging a plaintiff’s credit information was acquired without a permissible purpose. The plaintiff and her husband jointly filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court ordered a discharge of their debts, which included a debt incurred by the plaintiff’s husband that was being serviced by the defendant. The defendant was notified of the discharge (which included each of the four former last names used by the plaintiff) and scanned its system for affected accounts; however, by the time it received notice of the bankruptcy, it had already closed the account it had been servicing. Later, another account bearing one of the plaintiff’s former names was placed with the defendant. The defendant sent the account to a third-party vendor to see if the individual had filed for bankruptcy protection and did not received any bankruptcy results. It then ordered a “propensity-to-pay-score” from a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff’s records were eventually updated by the third-party vendor with information about the bankruptcy, and the defendant closed the account. However, the plaintiff noted the soft inquiry on her credit report and sued, alleging the defendant did not have a permissible purpose to make such an inquiry. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined that the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury, concluding that an “unauthorized inquiry into a consumer’s propensity‐to‐pay score is analogous to the unlawful inspection of one’s mail, wallet, or bank account.” However, after reviewing the merits of the case, the appellate court held that an alleged invasion of privacy was not enough for it to overturn the district court’s ruling. There was no negligent violation of the FCRA “because no reasonable juror could conclude that the inquiry into [the plaintiff’s] propensity‐to‐pay score resulted in actual damages,” the appellate court wrote. Additionally, while the 7th Circuit acknowledged that the plaintiff’s debt was discharged by the time the defendant obtained her propensity-to-pay score, there was no willful violation of the FCRA because the defendant “lacked actual knowledge of the bankruptcy” and “did not recklessly disregard the possibility that debt had been discharged.” The appellate court added that the evidence showed that the defendant “had a reasonable basis for relying on its procedures.”
NYDFS issues proposed amendment to third-party debt collection rules
On December 15, NYDFS announced a proposed amendment to 23 NYCRR 1, which regulates third-party debt collectors and debt buyers. The proposed amendment factored in findings from NYDFS investigations, which revealed instances of abusive and deceptive debt collection practices, as well as consumer debt collection complaint data. According to acting Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris, the “proposed amendment requires clear communication on consumer debt obligations and ensures the consumer has the right information to dispute the validity of the debt.” The proposed regulation will mitigate predatory debt collection by taking measures to ensure consumers only pay debts they owe and only pay them once. Harris added that the proposed amendment will offer enhanced consumer protections by increasing transparency, requiring enhanced disclosures, reducing misleading statements about consumer debt obligations, and limiting harassment by placing stricter limits on debt collection phone calls than those currently imposed under federal regulations. Among other things, the proposed amendment also:
- Defines “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.”
- Defines “creditor” as “any person or such person’s successor in interest by way of merger, acquisition, or otherwise, to whom a debt is owed or allegedly owed.”
- Amends the definition of “debt collector” to include “any creditor that, in collecting its own debts, uses any name other than its own that would suggest or indicate that someone other than such creditor is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.” The definition also includes certain exemptions, such as persons “performing the activity of serving or attempting to serve legal process” in the judicial enforcement of a debt “or serving, filing, or conveying” other specified documents pursuant to rules of civil procedure, but that are “not a party to, or providing legal representation to a party to, the action[.]”
- Requires collectors to clearly and conspicuously send written notification within 5 days after an initial communication with a consumer letting the consumer know specific information about the debt, including (i) validation information; (ii) the type of reference date used to determine the itemization date; (iii) account information associated with the debt; (iv) merchant/affinity/facility brand association; (v) the date the last payment (including any partial payment) was made; and (vi) the statute of limitations, if applicable.
- Requires collectors to inform consumers they have “the right to dispute the validity of the debt, in part or in whole,” and provides instructions on how consumers may dispute the validity of the debt.
- States that certain disclosures may not be sent exclusively through an electronic communication, and prohibits treating a formal pleading in a civil action as an initial communication.
- Provides that, if a collector “has reason to know or has determined” that the statute of limitations on a debt it seeks to collect has expired, the collector is required to provide clear and conspicuous notice in all communications that, among other items, it believes the statute of limitations has expired. For debts not subject to a statute of limitations, collectors must notify consumers that they are “not required to provide the debt collector with an admission, affirmation, or acknowledgment of the debt, a promise to pay the debt, or a waiver of the statute of limitations.”
- Prohibits collectors from communicating by telephone or other means of oral communication when attempting to collect on debts for which the statute of limitations has expired, without certain consent or permission.
- Requires collectors to provide consumers written substantiation of a debt (no longer specified as a “charged-off” debt) in hard copy by mail within 30 days of receiving a request for substantiation of a debt (unless a consumer has consented to receiving electronic communications). The written substantiation must include, among other information, (i) a statement describing the complete chain of title from the creditor “to which the debt was originally owed or alleged to be owed” to the present creditor “or owner of the debt”; and (ii) notice that a consumer may request additional documentation and instructions on how to make such a request. Collectors are also required to provide within 30 days after the consumer makes such a request for substantiation, documents sufficient to establish the complete chain of title, including documents sufficient to establish the specific dates on which the debt was assigned, sold or transferred and names of each previous owner of the account to the current owner.
- Requires collectors to retain certain information on a debt “until the debt is discharged, sold, or transferred, or for 7 years, whichever is longer.”
- Requires collectors to provide written confirmation of the satisfaction of a debt to a consumer within 20 business days of receiving receipt of the satisfaction of a debt. The confirmation must include the name of the creditor to which the debt was originally owed and the account number unless stipulated otherwise.
- Limits collectors to 1 telephone call and 3 attempted telephone calls in a 7-day period per alleged debt, without certain consents or permission, “except that telephone calls in excess of one time per seven day period are permitted when” a consumer requests to be contacted or when the communication is required under the proposed amendment or other federal or state law.
- Permits collectors to communicate with persons through electronic channels to collect a debt only if (i) the person has voluntarily provided certain contact information to the debt collector; and (ii) the person has given certain revocable consent in writing directly to the debt collector. The proposed amendment also provides (i) certain disclosure requirements for electronic communications “initiated by” a collector; (ii) privacy requirements that incorporate 15 U.S. Code § 1692c(b); and (iii) outlines compliance requirements for collectors should a consumer revoke consent.