InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of wrongful garnishment claims
On March 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of claims based on the FDCPA and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). According to the memorandum, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA and WCPA when they sought to garnish plaintiff’s wages based a state court judgment that was not yet final. The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim, holding that “at worst, Defendants violated a state court procedural rule—not substantive law—when they applied for the writ of garnishment based on the valid, albeit, not final judgment.” In affirming that dismissal, however, the appellate court noted that “[t]he issue is not whether [the defendant] and [the defendant’s attorney] violated state law but whether they violated the FDCPA.” The 9th Circuit clarified that “[t]he [plaintiff] might have argued that [the defendant] and [the defendant’s attorney] falsely represented the legal status of their debt by implicitly claiming in the garnishment application that the debt was subject to a final judgment. But they [did] not make this argument, so it is waived.” With respect to the WCPA claim, while the district court’s dismissal was based on a determination that the garnishment did not “occur[] in trade or commerce” as required under that statute, the 9th Circuit pointed out that if the garnishment was “a violation of the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA), [it] would have established an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce for purposes of the WCPA,” but upheld dismissal because the plaintiff had waived that argument as well.
District Court denies defendant’s MSJ in TCPA claim regarding plaintiff’s consent
On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding alleged TCPA violations and dismissed a plaintiff’s FDCPA claim against a debt collector. According to the memorandum, after the plaintiff was hospitalized, she was billed for the balance of her debt once insurance payments were credited to her account. The hospital called the plaintiff to collect the balance and later placed the account with the defendant, who then called the plaintiff eight times, leaving a pre-recorded message, and sent one text message. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to send a validation notice and violated the TCPA because she revoked consent to be contacted when the hospital originally called her. As a “unique posture,” according to the district court, the plaintiff claimed to not have standing to pursue the FDCPA claim while the defendant insisted that she did. The plaintiff contended that while she felt “anxiety” when “having to relive the car accident,” “[t]hese are not damages that create injuries-in-fact for purposes of standing under the FDCPA.” The district court agreed and dismissed the FDCPA claim. As for the TCPA claim, the defendant argued both that the plaintiff could not revoke consent to be contacted because she signed a consent form at the hospital and that there was no evidence consent was revoked when she was contacted by the hospital. The plaintiff testified that she spoke with an agent of the hospital, disclosed to the agent that she was not responsible for the balance, and requested to be placed on the do-not-call list. Determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff’s consent, the district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the TCPA claim
District Court enters $2.8 million judgment in CFPB student debt relief action
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against one of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. Amended complaints (see here and here) also added new defendants and included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, among other things. A stipulated final judgment and order was entered against the named defendant in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states. The court also previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants and a settlement with two non-parties (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, here, and here).
The final judgment issued against the settling defendant, who neither admitted nor denied the allegations except as specifically stated, permanently bans the defendant from participating in telemarking services or offering or selling debt-relief services, and prohibits it from misrepresenting benefits consumers may receive from a product or service. The defendant is also permanently restrained from violating applicable state laws, and may not disclose, use, or benefit from customer information obtained in connection with the offering or providing of the debt relief services. The settlement orders the defendant to pay more than $2.8 million in consumer redress, as well as a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau and $5,000 to each of the three states.
District Court denies motions in FDCPA and TCPA suit
On March 18, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by both the plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit alleging violations of the FDCPA and TCPA. According to the order, the defendant allegedly offered to settle an unpaid medical debt with the plaintiff; the plaintiff accepted the offer and paid the debt. After the settlement, the defendant allegedly called the plaintiff and left voicemails seeking to collect the same debt. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the calls violated the TCPA because she revoked consent to be contacted after she paid the debt. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect the debt after it had been settled. In denying the parties’ cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, district court observed that, although the plaintiff had previously consented to being contacted, it could not “determine as a matter of law whether merely settling the Debt was enough to revoke Plaintiff’s consent.” With respect to the FDCPA claim, the district court “would grant Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under the FDCPA, if it were not for Defendant’s affirmative defense ‘bona fide error,’” for which the debt collector has the burden of proof.
District Court: Failing to invoke the BFE defense does not entitle a plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law
On March 15, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that just because a defendant did not invoke the bona fide error (BFE) defense when accused of allegedly violating the FDCPA it does not mean the defendant has admitted to violating the statute. In 2018, the defendant debt collector attempted to collect unpaid debt in the amount of $786.68 from the plaintiff and began reporting the debt to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). In 2021, after the original creditor recalled the account from the defendant for an unspecified reason, the defendant submitted two requests to the CRAs to delete the item from the plaintiff’s credit report and took no further action on the account. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff noticed a $787.00 debt on one of his credit reports. He contacted the original creditor and was told the company could not find an account in his name that was referred for collection. The plaintiff sued for violations of Section 1692e of the FDCPA and related violations of Washington state law, and later filed for a partial motion for summary judgment contending that the FDCPA “is a strict liability remedial statute that contains a single affirmative defense to liability—the bona fide error defense,” and that because the defendant did not plead the BFE defense “he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Defendant’s liability under the statute.” While the defendant acknowledged that it did not plead the BFE defense, it countered that the plaintiff “cannot prove a prima facie case of liability.”
The court concluded that “[w]hile the statute is strict liability, ‘a debt collector’s false or misleading representation must be ‘material’ in order for it to be actionable under the FDCPA.” Noting that the alleged violation appeared to be based on the grounds that the defendant reported an inflated account balance ($787.00 versus $786.68), the court stated it “has little trouble in concluding that inflating an account balance by 32 cents is not a materially false representation. To the contrary, it is a ‘mere technical falsehood that mislead[s] no one.’” Moreover, the court stated that because the defendant immediately ceased reporting the account and sent deletion requests to the CRAs after the account was recalled, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the debt collector knew or should have known that it was communicating information that was false, the plaintiff could not show, at this stage of the proceeding, that Section 1692e was violated.
CFPB updates debt collection examination procedures to include Regulation F provisions
Recently, the CFPB updated its debt collection examination procedures to incorporate provisions of Regulation F (the FDCPA’s implementing regulation). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2020, the Bureau issued its final rule (effective November 30, 2021) amending Regulation F to address debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. Following the publication of the final rule, the Bureau also released debt collection compliance guidance and frequently asked questions that address validation information generally and validation information related to residential mortgage debt (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau noted that depending on the scope of an examination, “and in conjunction with the compliance management system and consumer complaint response review procedures,” an examination will cover at least one of the following modules: (i) entity business model; (ii) communications in connection with debt collection; (iii) information sharing, privacy, and interactions with consumer reporting agencies; (iv) validation notice, consumer FDCPA disputes and complaints, and ceasing communication; (v) payment processing and account maintenance; (vi) ECOA; and (vii) litigation practices, administrative wage garnishment and repossession, and time-barred debt.
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.)
7th Circuit affirms ruling in one case, overturns ruling in bona fide error case
On February 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a consolidated case, affirmed summary judgment for one defendant’s FDCPA bona fide error defense and overturned summary judgment on the same defense for another. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs in each case disputed debts that appeared on their credit reports by notifying the defendants via fax. In the first case, an employee sent the fax dispute to the wrong department, and thus the dispute was never recorded on the account. In the second case, the defendant stopped monitoring the fax machine but had not disconnected it, and therefore did not even realize it received the dispute. The plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits, and the district courts in each case granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds that each was entitled to the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense.
The 7th Circuit consolidated the cases on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the first case, holding that the defendant’s procedures were “reasonably adapted” to avoid errors when receiving faxes because there were step-by-step instructions on which department to send faxes to. The court determined that the employee sent the fax to the wrong department by mistake. The plaintiff argued that the defendant nevertheless needed to have a policy in place for what to do when a fax ended up in the wrong department, but the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court that “[t]he absence of such a policy, however, does not mean that the defendant failed to maintain reasonably adapted procedures.” By contrast, the court found the procedures in the second case were not reasonably adapted and did not qualify for the bona fide error defense. While the defendant did remove its fax number from its website, it did not remove the number from the National Registry and did not announce that it would completely stop checking the machine, leaving it no way to prevent the relevant errors.
District Court rules transmitting debtor information to third-party violates FDCPA
On February 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that transmitting a debtor’s personal information to a third-party mail vendor for the purposes of sending a debt collection letter constitutes a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” under the FDCPA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Management Services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that transmitting a consumer’s private data to a commercial mail vendor to generate debt collection letters violates Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA because it is considered transmitting a consumer’s private data “in connection with the collection of any debt.” The district court found this reasoning “persuasive,” ruling that the plain text of the statute encompasses communications with a third party mail vendor. The district court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the CFPB and FTC had tacitly endorsed third-party mailers by not pursuing enforcement actions against them: “[B]ecause the agencies tasked with regulating and enforcing the FDCPA have not addressed the use of letter vendors by debt collectors in any legally significant way, and because the statutory language is not subject to a different reading, the Court will afford no deference to the indeterminate actions of the CFPB and FTC.”
Georgia reaches settlement with rent-to-own company over deceptive business practices
On February 8, the Georgia attorney general announced a settlement with a rent-to-own company accused of allegedly engaging in deceptive sales and marketing practices and violating the FDCPA. While the company did not admit to the allegations, it agreed to pay $145,590 in civil money penalties, with an additional $170,910 due if the company violates any of the settlement terms. The company is also required to (i) ensure its advertising, sales, and marketing practices comply with the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act and the Georgia Lease-purchase Agreement Act; (ii) refrain from engaging in harassing and unlawful debt collection practices; and (iii) verify debts are accurate before placing them with a third-party collection agency. “Our office takes seriously allegations of deceptive business practices, and companies that take advantage of our citizens will be held accountable,” the AG stated.