InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Supreme Court to review FHFA structure, FTC restitution, and TCPA autodialing
On July 9, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the following cases:
- FHFA Constitutionality. The Court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Collins. v. Mnuchin (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded that the FHFA’s structure—which provides the director with “for cause” removal protection—violates the Constitution’s separation of powers requirements. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert last month, the Court held that a similar clause in the Dodd-Frank Act that requires cause to remove the director of the CFPB violates the constitutional separation of powers. The Court further held that the removal provision could—and should—be severed from the statute establishing the CFPB, rather than invalidating the entire statute.
- FTC Restitution Authority. The Court granted review in two cases: (i) the 9th Circuit’s decision in FTC V. AMG Capital Management (covered by InfoBytes here), which upheld a $1.3 billion judgment against the petitioners for allegedly operating a deceptive payday lending scheme and concluded that a district court may grant any ancillary relief under the FTC Act, including restitution; and (ii) the 7th Circuit’s FTC v. Credit Bureau Center (covered by InfoBytes here), which held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not give the FTC power to order restitution. The Court consolidated the two cases and will decide whether the FTC can demand equitable monetary relief in civil enforcement actions under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
- TCPA Autodialer Definition. The Court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded the plaintiff plausibly alleged the social media company’s text message system fell within the definition of autodialer under the TCPA. The 9th Circuit applied the definition from their 2018 decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC (covered by InfoBytes here), which broadened the definition of an autodialer to cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list. The 2nd Circuit has since agreed with the 9th Circuit’s holding in Marks. However, these two opinions conflict with holdings by the 3rd, 7th, and 11th Circuits, which have held that autodialers require the use of randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s holding that struck down the FCC’s definition of an autodialer in ACA International v. FCC (covered by a Buckley Special Alert).
FTC and SBA warn companies about misleading SBA loan marketing
On June 24, the FTC and the Small Business Administration (SBA) sent warning letters to six companies that they may be misleading small businesses seeking SBA loans due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The press release highlights specific claims from each company that the letters assert “could lead consumers to believe the companies are affiliated with the SBA,” or that consumers could use their websites to apply for loans from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or other programs authorized by the CARES Act. These cited claims include, among others, (i) offering “'COVID-19 SBA Loan Programs”; (ii) offering “SBA Lending experts” and “SBA Loan Officers”; and (iii) stating “Get matched with a PPP lender now!” The letters warn the recipients to remove all deceptive claims and advertisements and remediate any harm to small business consumers that may have been caused. The letters further instruct the companies to notify the FTC within 48 hours of the actions they take in response. Copies of all six warning letters are available via links in the press release.
California Court of Appeal: FTC Holder Rule preempts state law authorizing recovery of certain attorney fees
On June 9, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a bank (defendant), holding that the FTC’s Holder Rule preempts California Civil Code section 1459.5, which authorizes a plaintiff to recover attorney fees on a Holder Rule claim even if it results in a total recovery that exceeds the amount the plaintiff paid under the contract. According to the court, the plaintiff sued the defendant (who was assigned the vehicle credit sale contract) after he discovered that the seller failed to disclose that the vehicle had been in a major collision, thus reducing its value. The parties settled for a sum equal to the vehicle’s purchase price, and the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees. The trial court denied the motion, determining that the plaintiff was not entitled to fees under a holding in Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, which stated that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney fees for a Holder Rule claim that collectively exceed the amount paid by the debtor under the contract. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, determining that it did not need to resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether Lafferty correctly construed the Holder Rule’s limitation on recovery because the FTC’s construction of the Holder Rule is entitled to deference. The Court of Appeal referenced the FTC’s 2019 confirmation of the Holder Rule (Rule Confirmation), after Lafferty issued, which addressed, among other things, several comments related to whether the Holder Rule’s “limitation on recovery to ‘amounts paid by the debtor’ allows or should allow consumers to recover attorneys’ fees above that cap.” The FTC provided the following statement within the Rule Confirmation: “We conclude that if a federal or state law separately provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees independent of claims or defenses arising from the seller’s misconduct, nothing in the Rule limits such recovery. Conversely, if the holder’s liability for fees is based on claims against the seller that are persevered by the Holder Rule Notice, the payment that the consumer may recover from the holder—including any recovery based on attorneys’ fees—cannot exceed the amount the consumer paid under the contract.”
FTC settlement requires retailer to provide transaction records to identity theft victims
On June 10, the FTC announced a settlement to resolve Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allegations against a Wisconsin-based retailer for failing to provide the proper transaction records to identify theft victims. According to the FTC, this is the first time the Commission has used its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to provide identity theft victims with “‘application and business transaction records’ evidencing any transactions that the victim alleges to be the ‘result of identity theft’” within 30 days of being requested. The FTC’s complaint alleged that from February 2017 through March 2019, the retailer implemented several changes to its policy, which limited the information that identity theft victims could obtain. The retailer also allegedly refused to directly provide victims with detailed order information, stating it would only share information if the request came directly from law enforcement. Moreover, the FTC claimed that the retailer did not provide the information it was supplying within the 30-day window required by the FCRA, and on several occasions, failed to issue a denial of a victim’s request within 30 days. These unlawful actions, the FTC alleged, violated the FTC Act and the FCRA, and only ended six months after the retailer received a civil investigative demand from the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, the retailer has agreed to pay a $220,000 civil penalty to settle the claims and must provide identify theft victims, within 30 days, valid verification of their identity and the identity theft, including business transaction records related to the theft. The retailer must also provide a notice on its website to provide identity theft victims information on how to obtain application and business records, and certify that it has provided all such records to victims who were previously denied access.
FTC charges small-business financing operation with deceptive and unfair practices
On June 10, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCAs), using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants purported “to provide immediate funds in a specific amount in exchange for consumers’ agreement to repay a higher amount from future business revenues” to be “remitted over time through daily debits from consumers’ bank accounts.” However, the defendants allegedly, among other things, (i) made false claims on their websites that their MCAs require “no personal guaranty of collateral from business owners,” when in fact, the contracts included such provisions; (ii) withheld various upfront fees ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars prior to disbursing funds to consumers (according to the complaint, these fees were either poorly disclosed in the contracts or not disclosed at all); (iii) directed agents to charge higher fees to consumers than permitted by the contracts; (iv) required businesses and their owners to sign confessions of judgment (COJs) as part of their contracts, and unlawfully and unfairly used the COJs to seize consumers’ personal and business assets, including in circumstances where consumers could not make payments due to technical issues outside their control, or in instances not permitted by the defendants’ financing contracts; (v) made threatening calls to borrowers, including threats of physical violence or reputational harm, to compel consumers to make payments; and (vi) made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief including “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.”
The same day, the FTC published a blog post highlighting the Commission’s ongoing efforts to combat questionable financing practices targeting small businesses. The FTC also held a forum in 2019 on marketplace lending to small businesses, which analyzed the potential for unfair and deceptive marketing, sales, and collection practices in the industry, and released a follow-up staff perspective paper earlier this year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here). In addition, over the past few years, several states have introduced legislation and advisories on MCAs and small business financing (see prior InfoBytes coverage here).
FTC, Ohio AG reach $8.6 million settlement with payment processor
On June 9, the FTC and the Ohio attorney general announced a settlement with a payment processor and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly facilitating payments for multiple scam operations. The FTC’s 2019 complaint claimed that the defendants, among other things, generated and processed remotely created payment orders or remotely created checks (RCPOs) that allowed third-party merchants—including deceptive telemarketing schemes—the ability to withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, even though the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) prohibits sellers and telemarketers from using RCPOs in connection with telemarketing sales, the defendants allegedly marketed their RCPO payment processing services to telemarketers and other merchants considered “high risk” by financial institutions and card networks, and used RCPOs to process millions of dollars for credit card interest reduction and student loan debt relief telemarketing schemes. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants are permanently banned from participating in any payment processing activities and are prohibited from violating the TSR and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act. The settlement also imposes a monetary judgment of over $8.6 million, which is mostly suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
FTC releases expanded data on consumer Covid-19 complaints
On June 11, the FTC released new interactive complaint data dashboards, which provide national and state-level breakdowns on consumer complaints related to Covid-19. The expanded reporting provides data on several categories, including fraud, identity theft, and unwanted calls. According to one of the dashboards, “of the total fraud reports indicating a dollar loss, 87.8% [also referenced] a payment method,” with credit cards, bank account debits, and internet/mobile methods representing the top three categories. The FTC reports that consumers have submitted over 91,000 Covid-19-related complaints during 2020 as of June 8, and reported losing almost $60 million to Covid-19-related fraud.
FTC shares 2019 enforcement report with CFPB
On June 4, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2019 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report covers the FTC’s enforcement activities regarding the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Highlights of the enforcement matters covered in the report include:
- TILA and CLA. FTC enforcement actions concerning TILA/Regulation Z and CLA/Regulation M include: (i) efforts to combat deceptive automobile dealer practices; (ii) a payday lending action involving undisclosed, inflated fees; (iii) credit repair and debt relief schemes, including the failure to make clear, conspicuous written disclosures for closed-end financing; and (iv) consumer electronics financing.
- EFTA. The FTC reported 12 new or ongoing cases related to EFTA/Regulation E. These include: (i) negative option plans involving, among other things, companies applying recurring charges to consumers’ debit or credit card numbers for goods or services without obtaining proper written authorization; and (ii) unfair loan servicing practices.
Additionally, the report addresses the FTC’s research and policy efforts related to truth in lending and leasing, and electronic fund transfer issues, including (i) a study of consumers’ experiences in buying and financing automobiles at dealerships; (ii) a small business financing forum to examine “trends and consumer protection issues in the small business marketplace, including. . .online loans and alternative financing products”; and (iii) the FTC’s Military Task Force’s work on military consumer protection issues. The report also outlines the FTC’s consumer and business education efforts, which include several blog posts warning of new scams and practices.
FTC settles with app developer for COPPA violations
On June 4, the FTC announced that a children’s mobile application developer agreed to pay $150,000 and to delete the personal information it allegedly unlawfully collected from children under the age of 13 to resolve allegations that the developer violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the developer, without notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent, allowed third-party advertising networks to use persistent identifiers to track users of the child-directed apps in order to send targeted advertisements to the children. The proposed settlement requires the developer to destroy any personal data collected from children under 13 and notify and obtain verifiable consent from parents for any child-directed app or website they offer that collects personal information from children under 13. A $4 million penalty is suspended upon the payment of $150,000 due to the developer’s inability to pay.
In dissent, Commissioner Phillips argued that the fine imposed against the developer was too high, noting that having children view advertisements based on the collection of persistent identifiers “is something; but it is not everything,” under COPPA. Commissioner Phillips argued that because the developer did not “share[] sensitive personal information about children, or publicize[] it” nor did the developer expose children “to unauthorized contact from strangers, or otherwise put [the children] in danger,” the assessed penalty was too large in comparison to the harm.
In response to the dissent, Chairman Simons argued that while “harm is an important factor to consider…[the FTC’s] first priority is to use [] penalties to deter [] practices. Even in the absence of demonstrable money harm, Congress has said that these law violations merit the imposition of civil penalties.”
FTC reaches settlement with payment processor
On June 1, the FTC announced a settlement with a payment processor that the FTC alleged had engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act by ignoring warnings that its client was operating a scheme through which it persuaded consumers to pay thousands of dollars each for worthless business coaching and investment mentoring services. (See InfoBytes coverage on the affiliate marketer settlements here.) The FTC’s complaint provides that the company’s processing data, which showed a large number of charges and associated refunds and chargebacks, immediately raised red flags regarding the client’s business model. According to the FTC, the company failed to adequately investigate why the client “greatly exceeded its approved processing volumes and accrued significant chargebacks,” and that while some of the client’s accounts were terminated, the company continued to provide processing services for five other accounts. In addition, the FTC states that the company failed to monitor both the products sold and claims made by the client. The settlement imposes a monetary judgment of over $46.7 million, which is suspended due to the company’s inability to pay. The company is also required to surrender any claims to the client’s assets, which are being held in receivership in a separate action.