InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court partially dismisses FDCPA suit concerning disputed debt
On October 5, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona partially granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss in an FDCPA suit, which alleged that the defendant furnished information to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs) that did not belong to the plaintiff. According to the order, the plaintiff noticed that the defendant was reporting a collection account to the CRAs for a debt he did not recognize. He called the defendant who was unable to locate the plaintiff through his personal identifiers. The defendant told the plaintiff that the debt reporting on the plaintiff’s credit report was a medical debt and was owed by a third party with a different name and a different social security number. After the defendant confirmed that the debt did not belong to him, the plaintiff submitted a dispute to the CRA challenging the defendant’s reporting of the debt and requested that the defendant and the CRA remove the debt from his report. The CRA notified the defendant of the plaintiff’s dispute within five days of receiving the dispute. The defendant allegedly continued to report the debt as belonging to the plaintiff to the CRA, and did not request that the CRA note on the plaintiff’s credit report that the debt was disputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the FDCPA, contending that his “credit score has decreased as a result of [the defendant’s] erroneous credit reporting, which has frustrated [the plaintiff’s] ability to obtain credit.” The plaintiff also alleged that he suffered emotional distress and anxiety.
The defendant argued that it did not violate the FDCPA because it was the CRA that connected the underlying debt to the plaintiff’s credit report. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff did not provide the defendant with an appropriate period of time to mark the debt as disputed before filing the suit in question. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, explaining, among other things, that the defendant “does not point to any authority that, to state a claim under § 1692e(8), reporting of a debt must be to a credit report as opposed to any third party.” However, the court dismissed the § 1692f claim on the ground that the underlying conduct was already covered in the 1692e(8) claim.
District Court rules in favor of debt collectors in FDCPA, FCRA dispute
On October 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA, FCRA action. According to the opinion, the plaintiff took out a $20,000 loan but never made any payments on the loan. The charged off loan was assigned to the defendant debt purchaser, and a written notice was sent to the plaintiff who requested validation of the debt. The defendant loan servicer provided the account information to the plaintiff and later began furnishing the information to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The plaintiff sued alleging the defendants violated sections 1681s-2(a) and 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, as well as multiple sections of the FDCPA. Under section 1681s-2(b), a furnisher who has been notified by a CRA of a consumer dispute is required to conduct a reasonable investigation and follow certain procedures. The court noted, however, that these obligations are only triggered if the furnisher received such notice. In this instance, there is no record showing that any CRA reported the plaintiff’s dispute to the defendants, the court said, adding that, moreover, section 1681s-2(a) does not include a private right of action. With respect to the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, the court determined that, among other things, (i) the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting the majority of his claims; (ii) section 1692g does not require the defendants to verify the plaintiff’s account by providing documentation bearing his signature or providing the contractual agreement governing the debt (in this instance, the defendant loan servicer met the minimal requirements by providing an account summary report); and (iii) that nothing in section 1692g requires a debt collector to respond to a dispute within 30 days—this timeframe only applies to when a debtor must dispute a debt, not to the debt collector’s period to provide verification, the court wrote.
SEC accuses crypto companies of $37 million scheme
On September 30, the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against two cryptocurrency companies and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) claiming that they falsely promised investors that their cryptocurrency was backed by a $10 billion gold bullion investment. According to the complaint, the SEC alleged that between May 2018 and January 2019, the defendants “made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors while they were offering and selling [a crypto asset that the companies owned and controlled] in a series of news and press releases issued to the public." The releases falsely claimed that one of the cryptocurrency companies had acquired and received title to $10 billion in gold bullion and intended to back each token that was owned and controlled by the companies issued and sold to investors with $1.00 worth of this gold. One of the companies claimed to have acquired the gold through a purchase transaction with one of the principles and his company. The defendants also misrepresented that independent accounting firms had performed an “audit” of the gold and verified its existence. In reality, the gold acquisition transaction was a sham. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of anti-fraud and securities registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, civil penalties and officer-and-director bars against the individual defendants.
SEC files charges against crypto-asset seminar operation
On September 19, the SEC filed a complaint against a two individuals and the companies they controlled (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for allegedly operating an on-going fraudulent and unregistered crypto-asset offering targeting Latino investors. According to the SEC, the defendants allegedly raised more than $12 million from over 5,000 investors who paid for seminars to learn how to build wealth through crypto-asset trading. However, the SEC claimed that one of the individual defendants—who founded the company and actually had no education or training in investments or crypto assets—used the seminars to solicit investors to give their money to the company and then supposedly used the funds to conduct crypto asset and foreign exchange trading. In total, the SEC alleged the individual defendants made roughly $2.7 million in Ponzi payments, diverting nearly $8 million for their own personal use. The complaint charges the defendants with violating, or aiding and abetting violations of, the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities Act. The company’s founder is also charged with violating the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and bars. The SEC stated in its announcement that, at the Commission’s request, the court issued a temporary restraining order to stop the offering, in addition to temporary orders freezing assets and granting additional emergency relief.
CFTC files charges against operators of unregistered digital asset exchange
On October 3, the CFTC filed a complaint against an individual and the four companies he controlled (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for allegedly operating a digital asset exchange that offered futures transactions on a platform other than a designated contract market. The defendants are also charged with attempting to manipulate the price of the exchange’s native token. According to the CFTC, the defendants used web-based solicitation to obtain customers even though the individual defendant was aware that such participation subjected the exchange to U.S. regulation. The CFTC also claimed that, in addition to allegedly violating certain registration and regulatory requirements, the defendants attempted to artificially inflate the price of the exchange’s “native currency.” Among other things, the defendants are also accused of failing to implement an effective AML program, know-your-customer procedures, or a customer information program to verify the identifies of the customers who purchased the digital assets. The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and seeks full restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten gain, civil penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further CEA violations.
District Court grants preliminary approval of class action in robocall suit
On September 28, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted preliminary approval of a TCPA class action settlement with a digital finance company. According to the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent unwanted phone calls to approximately 64,845 unique cellular telephone numbers. The plaintiff’s motion noted that the district court granted, in part, the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel, and certified that the class consists of: “[a]ll persons throughout the U.S. (1) to whom [defendant] placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a current or former [defendant] accountholder, (3) in connection with which [defendant] used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from September 1, 2019 through September 21, 2021.” The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s petition for permission to appeal the court’s order certifying the class. After that, the district court approved Plaintiff’s Rule 23(c)(2) class notice plan. After more than two years of “vigorously contested litigation, and as a result of extensive arm’s-length negotiations” the parties agreed to resolve this matter on behalf of a settlement class. The order further noted that the parties’ agreement “calls for the creation of a non-reversionary, all-cash common fund in the amount of $5 million, from which participating settlement class members will receive substantial payments.”
District Court grants preliminary approval of data breach class action
On October 3, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted preliminary approval of a data breach class action settlement. According to the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval, a ransomware attack on the company potentially allowed an unauthorized actor to access the personal information of approximately two million of the company’s patients, employees, employee beneficiaries, and other individuals from May 28, 2021 to June 4, 2021. The company announced the ransomware attack in a data breach notice sent to customers on June 24, 2021. The plaintiff filed her complaint alleging, among other things, that the company “failed to take adequate measures to protect her and other putative Class Members’ Personal Information and failed to disclose that [the company’s] systems were susceptible to a cyberattack.” After other plaintiffs filed suit, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate the actions and alleged several violations, including negligence and breach of implied contract. The settlement provides for a $3.7 million settlement fund. Each class member is eligible to submit a claim for two years of three-bureau credit monitoring and up to $1 million of insurance coverage for identity theft incidents. Additionally, class members can submit a claim for up to $10,000 in documented losses. The settlement also provides class members with lost time payment and cash fund payment options (in the alternative to all the foregoing settlement benefits).
District Court grants summary judgment in FCRA and FDCPA suit
On September 30, the District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an FCRA and FDCPA suit. According to the order, the plaintiff allegedly discovered that the defendant communicated incorrect information regarding a debt to credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and subsequently began disputing the debt. The defendant confirmed that the tradeline was accurate and that the account had been paid in full. The plaintiff then sent letters to the different CRAs, the original creditor, and the defendant, claiming that the information being communicated was inaccurate. The plaintiff continued to receive responses indicating that the information being reported was accurate and that the account had been paid in full. The plaintiff then received a letter from a bank rejecting his application for a credit card on the basis that they had received negative information about the plaintiff’s credit from a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, failing to review information provided by the CRAs, and failing to modify or delete information it could not verify as accurate. The court disagreed, finding that the defendant’s investigations were “reasonable under the circumstances,” given that the plaintiff’s disputes contained “various misleading descriptions that indicated” the debt was not the plaintiff’s, when he had admitted in other circumstances it was. Regarding the FDCPA claim, the court noted that “even if this information was false or inaccurate, there is no evidence whatsoever that it was communicated in connection with the collection of a debt.”
District Court grants plaintiff’s injunction in data scraping suit
On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a stipulation and proposed order regarding a permanent injunction and dismissal to abandon remaining allegations against an Israel-based company and a Delaware company (collectively, defendants) related to their use of data scraping from the parent company of large social media platforms (plaintiff). In 2020, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants developed and distributed internet browser extensions to illegally scrape data from the plaintiff’s platform and other platforms. The order noted that the court’s prior summary judgment decision concluded that the defendants collected data using “self-compromised” accounts of users who had downloaded the defendants’ browser extensions. The order further noted that the defendants stipulated that the plaintiff had established that it suffered “irreparable injury” and incurred a loss of at least $5,000 in a one-year period as a result of one of the companies’ unauthorized access. The order further noted that judgment has been established “based on [the Israel-based company’s] active data collection through legacy user products beginning October 2020, and based on [the Israel-based company’s] direct access to password-protected pages on [the plaintiff’s] platforms using fake or purchased user accounts.” Under the injunction, the defendants are immediately and permanently barred from accessing or using two of the plaintiff’s social media platforms without the plaintiff’s express written permission, regardless of whether the companies are using the platforms directly or via a third party. The defendants are also banned from collecting data or assisting others collect data without the plaintiff’s permission, and are required to delete any and all software, scripts or code that are designed to access or interact with two of the plaintiff’s social media platforms. Additionally, the defendants are prohibited from using or selling any data that they have previously collected from the plaintiff’s social media platforms.
SEC files charges against fintech company for manipulating crypto-asset securities
On September 28, the SEC filed a complaint against a Florida-based fintech company, the company’s former CEO, and the CEO of a “market making” firm (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly perpetrating a scheme to manipulate the trading volume and prices of crypto-asset securities. According the SEC, the company and the former CEO created and distributed a token using several methods, including paying individuals with tokens in exchange for promotions. They then allegedly hired the “market making” firm “to create the false appearance of robust market activity” for the token through the use of customized trading software, and then engaged in unregistered offers and sales of the token in an artificially inflated market in order to generate profits on the company’s behalf. The SEC claimed this scheme yielded more than $2 million for the company. The complaint charges the defendants with violating numerous provisions of the federal securities laws, including certain registration, antifraud, and market manipulation provisions, and seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and conduct-based injunctions. The SEC also seeks an officer and director bar against the former CEO. Based on the SEC’s announcement, the market making firm’s CEO has consented to a judgment, subject to court approval and without admitting or denying the allegations, which would permanently ban him from violating these provisions and from participating in future securities offerings. The market making firm’s CEO is also ordered to pay $36,750 in disgorgement as well as prejudgment interest of $5,118, with civil monetary penalties to be determined by the court.
“Companies cannot avoid the federal securities laws by structuring the unregistered offers and sales of their securities as bounties, compensation, or other such methods,” Associate Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division Carolyn M. Welshhans said. “As our enforcement action shows, the SEC will enforce the laws that prohibit such unregistered fund-raising schemes in order to protect investors.”