InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB looks at removing medical debt from credit reports
On March 1, the CFPB announced plans to review whether data on unpaid medical bills should be included in consumer credit reports. The Bureau stated in its report, Medical Debt Burden in the United States, that research found $88 billion in medical debt on consumer credit reports, accounting for 58 percent of all uncollected debt tradelines reported to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). “Our credit reporting system is too often used as a tool to coerce and extort patients into paying medical bills they may not even owe,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement.
The Bureau noted that medical debt is often less transparent than other types of debt, due to opaque pricing, complicated insurance, charity care coverage, and pricing rules, reporting that in many instances, consumers may not even sign a billing agreement until after receiving treatment. Medical debts often end up in collections, the Bureau added, which can cause far-ranging repercussions even if the bill itself is inaccurate or erroneous. The report noted additional challenges for uninsured consumers, as well as for Black and Latino families, consumers with low incomes, veterans, older adults, and young adults of all races and ethnicities. The report further stated that the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the situation, with costs and medical debt expected to increase post-pandemic, and found that medical debt weakens underwriting accuracy, as it is less predictive of future repayment than reporting on traditional credit obligations. The Bureau pointed out that it has seen dramatic effects when newer credit scoring models weigh medical collections tradelines less heavily, but noted that there has been very little adoption of this approach so far.
The Bureau stated it intends to examine CRAs to ensure they are collecting accurate information from medical debt collectors and expects CRAs to take action against furnishers who routinely report inaccurate information, including cutting off their access to the system. The Bureau also plans to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure consumers are not forced to pay more than the amount due for medical debt. A January compliance bulletin reminded debt collectors and 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. The Bureau also recently supported changes by the Department of Veterans Affairs to amend its regulations related to the conditions by which VA benefit debts or medical debts are reported to CRAs. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.)
CFPB releases comment letter on FTC enforcement action
On February 18, the CFPB released a comment letter in response to the FTC’s request for comments on its proposed order with a business credit reporting agency alleging that the respondent engaged in deceptive and unfair practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here). In commending the FTC, the CFPB noted that “there are troubling conflicts of interest when the purveyor of credit reports also sells ancillary services.” The CFPB also discussed that the FCRA “may not have contemplated the serious challenges that small businesses face with respect to business credit reports and associated services such as the provision of credit scores,” and that small business “may not benefit” from the FCRA. The Bureau noted that “[b]usiness credit reporting companies should not be able to unfairly harm a small business’s and their owner’s or operator’s financing opportunities.” In supporting “greater remedial authorities for the FTC to be more in line with other civil law enforcement agencies,” the comment letter argued that “[s]tronger authorities for the FTC may help to remediate this full range of harms,” and that the Bureau “stands ready to work with the FTC and other federal and state law enforcement partners to examine whether there are other unlawful practices related to small business credit reporting by other providers.” According to the CFPB, the Bureau will be working with the FTC “to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly when it comes to accessing loans.” The CFPB also noted that it is “working on a rule to shine more light on small business lending, by gathering more data about whether and how small businesses are able to access credit,” and will provide regulators the opportunity “to understand the landscape of credit availability to small businesses that for too long have had to rely on opaque business credit reporting agencies as gatekeepers of financing,” according to the comment letter.
1st Circuit vacates ruling in Maine FCRA case
On February 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a district court’s ruling that the FCRA preempts amendments to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act that govern how certain debts are reported to credit reporting agencies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a trade association—whose members include the three nationwide consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs)—sued the Maine attorney general and the superintendent of Maine’s Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (collectively, “defendants”) for enacting the 2019 amendments, which, among other things, place restrictions on how medical debts can be reported by the CRAs and govern how CRAs must investigate debt that is allegedly a “product of ‘economic abuse.’” The trade association argued that the amendments, which attempt to regulate the contents of an individual’s consumer report, are preempted by the FCRA, and contended that language under FCRA Section 1681t(b)(1)(E) should be read to encompass all claims relating to information contained in consumer reports. The district court agreed, ruling that, as a matter of law, the amendments are preempted by § 1681t(b)(1)(E). According to the court, Congress’ language and amendments to the FCRA’s structure “reflect an affirmative choice by Congress to set ‘uniform federal standards’ regarding the information contained in consumer credit reports,” and that “[b]y seeking to exclude additional types of information” from consumer reports, the amendments “intrude upon a subject matter that Congress has recently sought to expressly preempt from state regulation.” The defendants appealed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the phrase “relating to information contained in consumer reports” broadly preempts all state laws, but the appellate court was not persuaded and concluded that the broad interpretation “is not the most natural reading of the statute’s syntax and structure.” The 1st Circuit found “no reason to presume that Congress intended, in providing some federal protections to consumers regarding the information contained in credit reports, to oust all opportunity for states to provide more protections, even if those protections would not otherwise be preempted as ‘inconsistent’ with the FCRA under 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(a).” In addition, the court reminded the plaintiff that “even where Congress has chosen to preempt state law, it is not ousting states of regulatory authority; state regulators have concurrent enforcement authority under the FCRA, subject to some oversight by federal regulators.” As such, the appellate court held that the FCRA did not broadly preempt the entirety of Maine’s amendments, and remanded the case back to the district court to determine the scope under which the amendments may be preempted by the FCRA.
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.”
11th Circuit affirms FCRA suit dismissal
On December 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of an FCRA case where a furnisher (defendant) allegedly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation in response to materials that the plaintiff had sent to two credit reporting agencies (CRAs), which was then forwarded to the furnisher. According to the opinion, the plaintiff had submitted a letter to each CRA requesting they remove a dispute notation on her credit report with respect to her account with the furnisher because the account in question was no longer being disputed. The CRAs forwarded the plaintiff’s request to the furnisher, who then investigated and notified the CRAs that the account was still being disputed. The plaintiff did not otherwise directly tell the furnisher that she no longer disputed the tradeline. After discovering that the account was still reported as disputed, the plaintiff filed suit under the FCRA against the furnisher for failing to investigate the dispute and failing to direct the CRAs to remove the notation of account in dispute. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit found that the letter sent by the plaintiff to the CRAs failed “to make anything clear” to the furnisher. The appellate court explained that the plaintiff “could have written a better letter: one that made clear that she was attempting to revoke her dispute for the first time or, better yet, one addressed to the bank itself. But that is not the letter on which she premised her lawsuit.” The appellate court also noted that, although the furnisher could have contacted the plaintiff directly, the FCRA does not require the furnisher to do so. In effect, “[w]hat [the plaintiff] wants [the bank] to do — either (1) to intuit that she no longer disputed the tradeline from her report to the CRAs or (2) to reach out to her directly to clarify and confirm that she no longer wished to dispute the tradeline — goes beyond what FCRA reasonableness requires,” the appellate court explained in its ruling. The appellate court therefore found that it was reasonable for the furnisher to review its official records, which indicated that the tradeline was still in dispute, and retain the dispute notation on the plaintiff’s credit report.
Democratic senators ask CFPB to reconsider the credit reporting process
On November 10, seven democratic senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra requesting that the Bureau reform the credit reporting industry by improving credit reporting accuracy and updating the process on dispute resolutions, among other things. The senators recommended that the Bureau examine persistent errors in credit reporting “and how CRAs [(credit reporting agencies)] consistently fail to resolve these errors, especially by failing to devote sufficient personnel and resources for dispute resolution—a shortcoming the CFPB could use its supervisory authority to remedy.” Among other things, the senators requested that the Bureau (i) establish an ombudsperson position to facilitate the dispute resolution process; (ii) require nationwide CRAs to match an individual’s full Social Security number; (iii) consider requiring nationwide CRAs to perform accuracy audits on information furnishers periodically; and (iv) “codify provisions of the nationwide CRAs’ settlement with state attorneys general that delayed reporting of medical debt for six months and removed debts paid by insurance.” The senators noted that their requests were not exhaustive, and asked for immediate action to be taken to protect consumers and establish “much-needed accountability into the credit reporting system.”
6th Circuit reverses FCRA ruling over misreported debt
On September 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant mortgage servicer, holding that a jury could find the defendant “willfully and negligently” violated the FCRA by incorrectly reporting a past due account status to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) for over a year after the plaintiff’s mortgage loan was discharged in bankruptcy. The plaintiff discovered the loan was being mis-reported as past due when he checked his credit score in advance of buying a car and found it to be lower than expected. The plaintiff disputed the tradeline, and the CRAs forwarded his dispute to the mortgage servicer. In response to the dispute, the servicer changed the plaintiff’s account status from past due to “no status”—which meant the status had not changed from the prior month—and continued reporting it to the CRAs.
The plaintiff sued the servicer for violating the FCRA, claiming the defendant knew the loan had been discharged but still reported it as past due for more than a year. The defendant countered, among other things, that because the plaintiff “chose not to apply for a car loan” he could not prove that he was harmed by negligence due to the mis-reporting. The district court ultimately ruled that (i) the plaintiff did not have standing to allege a negligent violation of the FCRA, and (ii) no “reasonable jury” would find that the defendant had willfully violated the statute.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit disagreed, finding that the plaintiff had standing to assert a negligence claim under FCRA and that a reasonable jury could find a negligent and willful violation. The court pointed out that the plaintiff’s credit score increased by almost 100 points once the tradeline was removed, suggesting the servicer’s mis-reporting did harm the plaintiff and gave him standing to sue in negligence. The court also found the defendant “knew that [the plaintiff’s] loan had been discharged but for more than a year told the credit-reporting agencies that the loan was past due. A jury could therefore find that [the defendant] was either incompetent or willful in its failure to correct its reports sooner.” The 6th Circuit added that the defendant’s implementation of policies to guide its analysts through resolving credit disputes “hardly disproves as a matter of law that [the defendant] acted willfully.” The court held the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
CFPB takes action against Maryland debt collectors
On August 16, the CFPB entered into a preliminary settlement with a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the FCRA, FDCPA, and the CFPA, resolving a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FCRA and its implementing Regulation V by, among other things, failing to (i) establish or implement reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies; (ii) incorporate appropriate guidelines for the handling of indirect disputes in its policies and procedures; (iii) conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes; and (iv) furnish information about accounts after receiving identity theft reports about such accounts without conducting an investigation into the accuracy of the information. The Bureau separately alleges that the violations of the FCRA and Regulation V constitute violations of the CFPA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated final judgment and order, the defendants are required to, among other things: (i) establish, modify, update, and implement policies and procedures on the accuracy of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; (ii) establish internal controls to identify activities that may compromise the accuracy or integrity of information; (iii) establish an identity theft report review program; and (iv) retain an independent consultant to review the defendant’s furnishing of consumer information and debt collection activities in addition to provide recommendations. The proposed order also imposes a civil money penalty of $850,000.
7th Circuit: CRAs not required to make legal determinations under FCRA
On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the rulings from a district court in a consolidated appeal finding that it is up to the court, not a consumer reporting agency, to decide if a creditor possesses the proper legal relationship to a debt. In each case, the plaintiff allegedly had a debt that was purchased by a debt buyer, who reported the unpaid debts to the credit reporting agencies. The plaintiffs contacted the debt buyers and disputed the information being furnished on the basis that the creditors did not actually own the debts. The plaintiffs also contacted the consumer reporting agencies to request that they reinvestigate the accuracy of their credit reports. The reporting agencies contacted the creditors, confirming that they were the legitimate owners of the debts but did not provide additional information. The plaintiffs sued, alleging that the defendants violated the FCRA by not fully investigating the disputes. The district court, relying on a 2020 decision in Denan v. TransUnion LLC (previously covered by Infobytes), held that determining ownership of a debt is a legal question, not a duty imposed on the furnishers under the FCRA.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district courts’ decisions, establishing that the key inquiry is “whether the alleged inaccuracy turns on applying law to facts or simply examining the facts alone.” because “consumer reporting agencies are competent to make factual determinations, but they do not make legal conclusion like courts and other tribunals do.” The appellate court further noted that “[b]ecause the plaintiffs in these cases asked the consumer reporting agencies to make primarily legal determinations, they have not stated claims under the [FCRA].”
Supreme Court limits class standing in FCRA suit
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, holding that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the FCRA has Article III standing to seek damages against a private defendant in federal court. In writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh reversed and remanded a 2020 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that all 8,185 class members had standing to recover statutory damages due to, among other things, TransUnion’s alleged “reckless handling of information” from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which, according to the appellate court, subjected class members to “a real risk of harm” when TransUnion erroneously linked class members to criminals and terrorists with similar names in a database maintained by OFAC. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The 9th Circuit, however, did reduce punitive damages, explaining that, although TransUnion’s “conduct was reprehensible, it was not so egregious as to justify a punitive award of more than six times an already substantial compensatory award.” TransUnion filed a petition for writ of certiorari after the 9th Circuit denied its petition for rehearing.
The Court considered whether federal courts can certify consumer classes where the majority of class members have not alleged the type of concrete injury necessary to establish Article III standing, even if the named plaintiff suffered an injury meeting this bar. The parties stipulated prior to trial that only 1,853 members of the class had misleading credit reports containing OFAC alerts provided to third parties during the period specified in the class definition, whereas the remaining class members’ credit files were not provided to any potential creditors during that period. In applying the standing requirement of concrete harm, the majority concluded that the 6,332 class members whose credit reports were not provided to third parties did not suffer a concrete harm and thus did not have standing as to the reasonable-procedures claim. The majority further determined that even though all 8,185 class members complained about alleged formatting defects in certain mailings sent to them by TransUnion, only the lead plaintiff had demonstrated that the alleged defects caused him concrete harm, thus only he could move forward with those claims. According to the majority, the remaining class members failed to explain how the formatting error prevented them from requesting corrections to prevent future harm.
“The mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination, traditionally has not provided the basis for a lawsuit in American courts,” the majority wrote, adding that while the Court “has recognized that material risk of future harm can satisfy the concrete-harm requirement in the context of a claim for injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, at least so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and substantial,” in this instance the 6,332 class members have not demonstrated that the risk of future harm materialized.