InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB: Debt collectors must provide written notice for evictions
On April 19, the CFPB issued an interim final rule (IFR) to amend Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA, that will require debt collectors to provide tenants written notice alerting them of their rights under the CDC’s moratorium on evictions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Failure to provide notice will be considered a violation of the FDCPA, which may result in a private right of action as well as actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees. The Bureau noted in its press release that the IFR does not preempt more protective state laws. Additionally, debt collectors are prohibited from misrepresenting renters’ eligibility for temporary protection under the CDC’s moratorium. Sample disclosure language and a summary of the IFR have been provided by the Bureau as well.
The IFR will take effect May 3. Comments are due 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.
PA AG settles with collector over payday loan scheme
On April 9, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced settlements with the former CEO of a since-dissolved lender and a debt collector to resolve claims that the collector charged borrowers interest rates as high as 448 percent on loans and lines of credit. The AG alleged that the former CEO “participated in, directed and controlled” business activities related to the allegedly illegal online payday lending scheme, while the debt collector collected more than $4 million related to Pennsylvania consumers’ loan accounts. The terms of the settlement require the individual defendant to comply with relevant consumer protection laws and limits the individual defendant’s ability to work in the consumer lending industry in Pennsylvania for the next nine years. Additionally, the individual defendant is required to pay the Commonwealth $3 million.
The AG’s office noted that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also approved a settlement with the debt collector, which requires the company to comply with relevant consumer protection laws and, among other things, undertake the following actions: (i) ensure that all acquired debts, for which it attempts to collect, comply with applicable laws and regulations; (ii) cancel all balances on applicable accounts, take no further action to collect debts allegedly owed by Pennsylvania consumers on these accounts, and notify consumers of the cancellations; (iii) “refrain from engaging in [c]ollections on any [d]ebts involving loans made over the internet by [n]on-bank lenders that violate Pennsylvania laws,” including its usury laws; and (iv) will not sell, re-sell, or assign debt related to applicable accounts, including accounts subject to a previously-negotiated nationwide class action settlement agreement and Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Previous InfoBytes coverage related to the payday lending scheme can be found here, here, and here.
3rd Circuit says collector itemizing zero-balance interest and fees did not mislead
On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that itemized breakdowns in collection letters that include zero balances for interest and other fees would not confuse or mislead the reasonable “unsophisticated consumer” to believe that future interest or other charges would be incurred if the debt is not settled. The defendant management company sent a letter to the plaintiff claiming he owed amount $1,088.34 and offered to “resolve this debt in full” with a payment of $761.84. The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant alleging that by itemizing interest and collection fees for his “static debt,” and by assigning “$0.00” interest, the letter falsely implied—in violation of § 1692e and § 1692f of the FDCPA—that “interest and fees could accrue and thereby increase the amount of his debt over time.” The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, declining “to require assurances by debt collectors that itemized amounts ‘will not change in the future,’ reasoning that doing so would lead to ‘complex and verbose debt collection letters’ that would confuse consumers.”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the “complaint fails to state a claim, whether our court’s ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard is functionally the same as the ‘unsophisticated debtor’ standard applied by other Circuits or is instead an independent and less demanding framework.” Moreover, the appellate court noted even the least sophisticated debtor understands that “collection letters—as reflected by their fonts, formatting, content, and fields—often derive from templates and may contain information not relevant to his or her particular situation.” According to the 3rd Circuit, “FDCPA case law does not support attributing to the least sophisticated debtor simultaneous naïveté and heightened discernment. Were we for some reason constrained to consider only the law of Circuits that employ the word “least” in their FDCPA standards, we would still affirm.”
2nd Circuit: Credit report showing “satisfied” judgment was not misleading
On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a credit reporting agency’s (CRA) report that a judgment was “satisfied” was accurate and not misleading under the FCRA. According to the opinion, a debt collection action was brought and default judgment entered against the plaintiff. The parties ultimately filed a joint stipulation to resolve the action and discontinue all claims with prejudice. Afterwards, the CRA’s report showed the default judgment, but was later amended to read “judgment satisfied”—a statement that the plaintiff allegedly repeatedly disputed. The plaintiff ultimately filed a lawsuit against the CRA, alleging the agency “willfully and/or negligently violated various FCRA provisions by persisting in publishing [the] report and failing to follow certain of the FCRA’s procedural notice requirements.” Among other things, the plaintiff claimed that the CRA also violated the FCRA’s source-disclosure and reinvestigation provisions and should have disclosed that the information about the judgment came from a contractor-intermediary working for the CRA. The district court dismissed one of the FCRA claims and granted summary judgment to the CRA on the remaining FCRA claims.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding first that there was no FCRA reporting violation because the description of the judgment as “satisfied” was accurate. Moreover, the appellate court wrote, even if the CRA should have disclosed that the contractor was the source, the plaintiff “failed to present any evidentiary basis for concluding that he suffered actual damages” resulting from the CRA’s failure to not disclose or treat the contractor as a source or furnisher of the information about the judgment. The 2nd Circuit further rejected the plaintiff’s claims against the CRA for willful violations of sections 1681g and 1681i, concluding that the sections “can be reasonably interpreted not to require such a disclosure and no more need be shown.”
CFPB action against debt settlement firm targets abusive acts
On April 13, the CFPB entered into a preliminary settlement with an online debt-settlement company for allegedly violating the CFPA’s prohibition on abusive acts or practices and failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose total cost under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The complaint alleges that the company took “unreasonable advantage of consumers’ reasonable reliance that [it] would protect their interests in negotiating their debts” by failing to disclose its relationship to certain creditors and steering consumers into high-cost loans offered by affiliated lenders. The CFPB alleges that the company regularly prioritized creditors with which it had undisclosed relationships in settlements of consumers’ debts. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated final judgment and order, the CFPB is seeking restitution, damages, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.
In the Bureau’s announcement, acting Director David Uejio states that “[t]he CFPB will not tolerate companies that purport to represent consumers, but instead abuse their trust in a self-dealing scheme. This case provides a clear example of what Congress intended to prohibit when it created the CFPB and gave it authority to prevent abusive practices.”
CFPB settles with California-based company for debt collection violations
On April 6, the CFPB announced a consent order against a California-based debt collector and its former owner for allegedly harassing consumers and threatening to take legal action if they did not pay their debts. According to the CFPB, the respondents violated the FDCPA and the CFPA’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices by mailing letters to consumers printed with “Litigation Notice” that threatened recipients with legal action if they did not repay their debts. However, the Bureau stated that the respondents did not file lawsuits against the consumers, nor did they hire law firms or lawyers to obtain any judgments or collect on any such judgments. Under the terms of the consent order, the respondents are permanently banned from the debt collection industry and are ordered to pay $860,000 in redress to its victims, which has been suspended due to an inability to pay, as well as a $2,200 civil money penalty. This is the CFPB’s latest action taken against debt collectors that have used false threats to collect debts. As previously covered in InfoBytes, in 2019 the CFPB and New York attorney general announced proposed settlements with a network of New York-based debt collectors to resolve allegations that the defendants engaged in improper debt collection tactics in violation of the CFPA, the FDCPA, and various New York laws. Also, in 2018, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Kansas-based company and its former CEO and part-owner that allegedly engaged in improper debt collection tactics in violation of the CFPB’s prohibitions on engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
California regulator reminds debt collectors of rental protections
On April 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued a bulletin reminding debt collectors of protections associated with “Covid-19 rental debt,” which includes unpaid rent or other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 (see previous coverage here). Starting July 1, creditors are prohibited from charging or attempting to collect late fees for Covid-19 rental debt if the renter has submitted the requisite declaration of financial distress, among other restrictions. Actions to recover Covid-19 rental debt cannot be commenced before August 1, 2021, and any action to recover such debt that was pending on January 29, 2021, is stayed until August 1.
Court rules debt purchaser qualifies as a “debt collector” and “collector” under federal and state law
On April 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a defendant debt purchaser’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the company qualifies as a “debt collector” and “collector” under the FDCPA, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA), and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). The plaintiff had filed suit against three entities, including the defendant, alleging the entities violated the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA by (i) threatening to file criminal charges; (ii) falsely implying that she committed a crime for which charges could be filed; and (iii) revealing information about the debts to her daughter and on voice mails with her employer. The defendant, who relied on the two other entities to conduct the actual debt collection, argued that it does not qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA, and that it is not a “collector” under the MCDCA, and therefore cannot be held liable under the MCPA. The defendant further argued that, “regardless of whether it meets one these statutory definitions,” it cannot be held vicariously liable for actions taken by the other two entities.
The district court disagreed, ruling that the defendant qualifies as a debt collector under the “principal purpose” prong of the FDCPA and cannot evade liability “simply by outsourcing the specific collection activities to third parties.” With respect to whether it qualifies as a “collector” under the MCDCA and MCPA, the court noted that while the defendant argued that “it [did] not itself, or through in-house debt collectors, undertake any actions to collect [the plaintiff’s] debts, the definition of ‘collector’ is not limited only to persons or entities that directly engage with consumers to collect the debt.” As such, because the defendant qualifies as a debt collector and collector under federal and state law, it could be held vicariously liable. Moreover, the court stated there is “genuine dispute of material fact” regarding whether the defendant had a “principal-agent relationship” with the other two entities that subjects it to vicarious liability. In particular, contracts entered between the three entities allowed the defendant to, among other things, “exercise a great degree of control over consumer complaints” regarding collection actions.
CFPB proposes delaying effective date for recent debt collection rules
On April 7, the CFPB proposed to extend the effective date of two recent debt collection rules to allow affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) delays the effective date by 60 days of the two final rules issued under the FDCPA, which were scheduled to take effect on November 30 but are now proposed to take effect January 29, 2022. The proposed delay would give stakeholders affected by the pandemic more time to examine and implement the rules. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the first debt collection rule, issued in October 2020, addressed debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The second debt collection rule, issued in December 2020, clarified the information debt collectors must provide to consumers at the outset of collection communications and provided a model validation notice containing such information (covered by InfoBytes here).
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On April 2, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued Executive Order 2021-06, which extends several executive orders through May 1, 2021 (previously covered here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Among other things, the order extends: (i) Executive Order 2020-07 regarding in-person meeting requirements, (ii) Executive Order 2020-23 regarding actions by individuals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation engaged in disaster response, (iii) Executive Order 2020-25 regarding garnishment and wage deductions (previously covered here), (iv) Executive Order 2020-30 regarding residential evictions (previously covered here), and (v) Executive Order 2020-72 regarding the residential eviction moratorium (previously covered here and here).