InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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).
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On April 2, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued Executive Order 2021-06, which extends several previous 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).
Court rules CFPB lacked authority to bring suit while its structure was unconstitutional
On March 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a 2017 lawsuit filed by the CFPB against a collection of Delaware statutory trusts and their debt collector, ruling that the Bureau lacked enforcement authority to bring the action when its structure was unconstitutional. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau alleged the defendants filed lawsuits against consumers for private student loan debt that they could not prove was owed or that was outside the applicable statute of limitations, which allowed them to obtain over $21.7 million in judgments against consumers and collect an estimated $3.5 million in payments in cases where they lacked the intent or ability to prove the claims, if contested. In 2020, the court denied a motion to approve the Bureau’s proposed consent judgment, allowing the case to proceed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Bureau lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendants should not have been under the regulatory purview of the agency, and that former Director Kathy Kraninger’s ratification of the enforcement action, which followed the Supreme Court holding in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB that that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), came after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. While the Bureau acknowledged that the ratification came more than three years after the discovery of the alleged violations, it argued that the statute of limitations should be ignored because the initial complaint had been timely filed and that the limitations period had been equitably tolled.
The court rejected the subject-matter jurisdiction argument because it held that the term “covered persons” as used in the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6), is not a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court then determined that the Bureau’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Bureau filed the complaint while operating under a structure later found unconstitutional in Seila Law, and Director Kraninger’s subsequent ratification of the action came after the limitations period had expired. The court concluded that this made the complaint untimely. It also rejected the Bureau’s equitable tolling argument based on the Bureau’s failure to take actions to preserve its rights during the period when its constitutionality was in question. The court also noted that the Bureau “failed to pursue this very argument seriously in its brief,” which presented the equitable tolling argument in a “brief and conclusory” fashion.
NY AG exempts stimulus payments from garnishment
On March 24, the New York attorney general issued official guidance for New York state banking institutions, creditors, and debt collectors to clarify that federal stimulus payments are exempt from garnishment under New York law. The guidance, which is based on multiple state and federal consumer protection laws, explains that any attempt to garnish stimulus funds from consumers in the state would constitute “illegal acts” because such garnishment would violate prohibitions under the New York City Consumer Protection Law, New York General Business Law 601(8), the FDCPA, and Dodd-Frank prohibitions of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices. Banking institutions are also advised to treat these stimulus payments “as subject to the same protections as statutorily exempt payments.”
3rd Circuit: Plaintiff must arbitrate debt adjustment allegations
On March 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that a plaintiff must arbitrate proposed class claims brought against a debt resolution law firm. The plaintiff alleged the law firm engaged in racketeering, consumer fraud, and unlawful debt adjustment practices in violation of various New Jersey laws. The district court denied the firm’s motion to compel arbitration, applied the law of the forum state, New Jersey, and ruled that the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable. The law firm appealed, arguing, among other things, that the arbitration provision would have been found valid if the district court had applied Delaware law in accordance with the parties’ 2013 professional legal services agreement. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the district court, holding that the arbitration provision demonstrated that the plaintiff gave up her right to litigate her claims in court, despite there appearing to be a true conflict between Delaware and New Jersey law. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration clause met the standard set forth in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., which held that an arbitration provision “will pass muster if it, ‘at least in some general and sufficiently broad way,. . .explain[s] that the plaintiff is giving up her right to bring claims in court or have a jury resolve the dispute.’” Moreover, the 3rd Circuit noted that the arbitration provision was also sufficiently broad enough to reasonably encompass the plaintiff’s statutory causes of action.
CFPB and FTC release 2020 FDCPA report
On March 22, the CFPB and the FTC released their 2020 annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA. Under a memorandum of understanding, the agencies are provided joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts. Among other things, the report provides a broad overview of the debt collection industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and highlights enforcement actions, education efforts, policy initiatives, and supervisory findings. The report also notes that the Bureau handled roughly 82,700 complaints filed by consumers about first- and third-party debt collectors in 2020, up from the 75,000 complaints it received in 2019, and engaged in four public enforcement actions arising from alleged FDCPA violations. Judgments resulting from these actions yielded nearly $15.2 million in consumer redress and $80,000 in civil money penalties. Additionally, the report discusses the Bureau’s FDCPA-rulemaking actions taken last year, including the issuance of two final rules amending Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The report notes that both final rules are scheduled to take effect on November 30, but also refers to a February statement released by acting Director Dave Uejio, in which he “directed staff to ‘explore options for preserving the status quo’” with respect to the debt collection rules.
Earlier in the week, the FTC announced it provided the CFPB last month with its annual summary of debt collection-related activities taken in 2020. While the FTC’s debt collection program primarily focuses on enforcement investigations and litigation with respect to violations of the FDCPA and the FTC Act, the summary also highlights Commission efforts to engage in public outreach, as well as partnerships with the Bureau and other government agencies to combat unlawful debt collection practices. Highlights of the summary include:
- The creation of Operation Corrupt Collector, a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort led by the FTC in coordination with the CFPB and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC filed or resolved seven cases against 39 defendants, obtaining $26 million in judgments.
- The FTC accused a company and three of its officers of allegedly engaging in passive debt collection—a practice known as “debt parking”—in which the defendants placed debts that consumers did not owe or the defendants were not authorized to collect on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumers about the debts (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC and the New York attorney general permanently banned an individual defendant accused of engaging in “serious and repeated violations of law” from participating in debt collection activities (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC produced educational materials for both consumers and debt collectors covering rights and responsibilities under the FDCPA and FTC Act, including resources specifically for Spanish speakers.
3rd Circuit: ECOA does not preempt NJ’s common-law doctrine of necessaries in FDCPA case
On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that because ECOA does not preempt New Jersey’s common-law doctrine of necessaries (where a spouse is jointly liable for necessary expenses incurred by the other spouse) a defendant debt collector was permitted to send medical debt collection letters to a deceased individual’s spouse without violating the FDCPA. The defendant was retained to collect the deceased spouse’s medical debt and sent collection letters to the plaintiff who maintained she was not responsible for the debt and subsequently filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff owed the debt under New Jersey’s doctrine of necessaries because her deceased spouse incurred the debt for medical treatment. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that the doctrine of necessaries conflicts with the spousal-signature prohibition found in the ECOA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the 3rd Circuit concluded that “ECOA does not preempt the doctrine of necessaries because the debt is ‘incidental credit’ exempt from the prohibition.” According to the 3rd Circuit, the Federal Reserve Board determined that incidental credit is exempt from the § 202.7(d) spousal-signature prohibition because it “refers to extensions of consumer credit. . .(i) [t]hat are not made pursuant to the terms of a credit card account; (ii) [t]hat are not subject to a finance charge. . .and (iii) [t]hat are not payable by agreement in more than four installments.” The 3rd Circuit determined that because the medical debt in question satisfied all three criteria, the spousal-signature prohibition did not apply, and therefore ECOA and its regulations did not conflict with the doctrine of necessaries. Further, the 3rd Circuit held that ECOA focuses “on ensuring the availability of credit rather than the allocation of liability between spouses.”
3rd Circuit: Debt collection letter with invitation to call does not violate FDCPA
On March 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collection agency after concluding that a letter inviting recipients to call to “eliminate further collection action” did not deceive debtors. The plaintiff brought the putative class action lawsuit under the FDCPA claiming the defendant’s letter deceived debtors by making them think a phone call is a “legally effective” way of ending collection activity. The plaintiff also argued that the letter raised uncertainty about a debtor’s right to dispute a debt in writing. According to the plaintiff, because the letter placed the invitation to call above an acknowledgment that recipients can also respond in writing, debtors were left uncertain about which format to use. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit reasoned that the letter was not deceptive. According to the appellate court, the defendant never said “explicitly or implicitly[] that the phone call would, by law” end collection efforts. Further the letter did not create any confusion about whether a debtor should call or write to exercise their rights. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the order of paragraphs in the letter created confusion.
FTC permanently bans debt collectors
On March 15, the FTC announced that defendants in two cases will be permanently banned from the debt collection industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed complaints against the defendants last year alleging the defendants used deceptive tactics to threaten false legal action through the use of robocalls to collect debts consumers did not owe or the operation did not have the right to collect. The actions were taken as part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
Under the terms of the settlements (see here, here, and here), in addition to being permanently banned from participating in debt collection and debt brokering activities, the defendants are also prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers, including (i) whether consumers are legally obligated to pay defendants; (ii) whether defendants are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm; (iii) the terms of any refund policy; and (iv) any material facts concerning products or services. The settlements also include monetary judgments of approximately $16.4 million and $11.2 million, which are both partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.